EDITORIAL: What Man Of Steel Meant To Me, And How It Shapes The Future Of The DCCU

EDITORIAL: What Man Of Steel Meant To Me, And How It Shapes The Future Of The DCCU

There are many reviews on Man of Steel, good and bad, as with any film. This is my take on a deeper look into the film and how I believe it will affect the future of the DC Cinematic Universe moving forward. Read on if you want a deep breakdown of the Man of Steel film as I understood it.

I've been asked by a few people on this website and among the core readers of my social media to toss my hat in on Man of Steel. Especially, in the wake of my recent Batfleck editorial. I don’t believe I have any more relevant argument over what's been presented already, in similar fashion, for or against; as has been for (say) Affleck being cast in the Man of Steel sequel. No, I don’t really think so. But I do have a strong take of what may happen in the upcoming film, and I base a lot of those notions on what I observed in Snyders view of our favorite Kryptonian. I’ll give you my take on Man of Steel (first) in this editorial piece, and I’ll add my minor vision on the future of Man of Steel 2: Superman vs Batman, as a follow up editorial In the days to come.

Man of Steel was a very heavy handed character epic. “What the F*** are you talking about Camacho?” It was a movie made with the intention of jump starting your imagination, and interpretation of a character we’ve known for so long into a completely new and modern audience. There were only so many ways it could have been done. In truth, the character really is not that complex. We can almost completely, in an oversimplified manner, qualify his archetype into three basic rules.

The first, "Superman is an extremely loving character, raised by extremely loving, and wholesome, heartland type parents; which will shape his exacting compassion, and his love of humanity".

The second, "Superman does everything in his power to save everyone, all the time. His real complexity comes from having the power that anyone with a superhero complex wishes he/she had, not from the fact that he is himself a superhero."

The third, "Superman does what is right, all the time."

These are three basic concepts that surround Kal-El, and because of these three basic concepts, we have an extremely simple and basic character, at least in ideology. The remainder of what is needed? To add things that affect his life. In truth, very little would affect him, he’s invulnerable; yet he places himself in a responsible role for the people on the planet because of what he can do. Inherently affecting his choices and behaviors.
When you understand this in a very basic and specific manner, you can start to understand that he can easily be an extremely boring character. Because of this, you have to define him by the villains and the victims in his story. That’s going to be the difference in a film that is epic over a film that's simply a flopping bore.

With that said, I love this movie, more than I did the previous entry, Superman Returns, which was more of a character Bible, as opposed to an epic. A visual roller coaster of "look at all the cool shit I can do!" as opposed to, who he really is, and what he should be doing. With a twist of unexplored rape, as a consequence of a Lois Lane pregnancy. A joke, made eloquently by Kevin Smith.

Man of Steel on a grand scale accomplished a sense of wonder, and epic showcasing of the character himself, alongside a set of epic characters. Even if the film itself was not completely overwhelmingly epic. It was more artistic in approach then it was technical in it's story. To me that translated extremely well on screen, and will beautifully blend into the next set of films that DC/WB is planning, and herald itself, finally, as ground zero for a DCCU.

Man of Steel presented the audience with a few things that helped us peek into Snyder’s window of a Superman vision. He created some background for his homeworld, and visually constructed his culture. What we saw was primarily a sterile group of people that seemed like an attempt at a crass set of Vulcans from Star Trek, more than anything else. However we immediately understood a very important “State of Plot” point in the film. The Kryptonian civilization is all cloned from “Genesis” chambers and are essentially unable to reproduce. Kal-El is the first child to be born naturally in a very long time.

Why is this important? Other than continuing to look at the baby Jesus of comic book history and reinterpreted his origin, it’s not, it is however significant in understanding General Zod.

Zod, in Superman II was simply a madman, a criminal, a mega-maniacal dictator, with aspirations of godhood. Someone who wanted to dominate and rule Krypton with an iron fist, “Kneel before Zod!’, as he’d say; was a mantra that become well known in our pop culture. However, this is not at all the Zod that was brought to the screen. Even if many of you (including myself) were hoping to hear the popular phrase again in this iteration. Snyder's Zod was bred specifically to protect his people. I consider him almost like an android of sorts that became self aware and simply realized that the people in power are the truly dangerous criminals. He then took steps to remove them to handle the various impending problems his world was facing that they ignored.
Michael Shannon’s Zod was an amazing addition in this film, and I think most people either, misunderstood him and wanted desperately for Zod to cry out his usual tirade of demands to kneel before him. Or that he was operating under very specific programming, hardcoded into his DNA, to save his people; even if that meant killing all of us.

We as an audience can relate to what we know. Psychology tells us this; fear is generally born from the misunderstanding of things that are unknown. But we also have no mercy toward a variety of lesser beings, as viewed by our perspective. Example, we mercilessly destroy ants under our heels without a second thought. Zod and his crew looked upon humanity as nothing. We may look similar; that was of no consequence, we're still nothing to Zod and his people. You can ascertain this as the difference between good and evil, but there it is. We were simply lesser beings.

Kal-El was raised here, with our sensibilities, and understanding for compassion. Faora-Ul told him “You’re weak Son of-El…Unsure of yourself…The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage…” That is specific to the understanding that there is no morality operating in their code. You can decide to translate this as the “Kryptonians are evil” but that is arguably (and) heavily short sighted. You're comic book fans; look at the deeper meaning.

We never saw Zod demand for slaves or servants. If anything Zod wanted to completely wipe out the ants (us) from the planet. Consider when Superman crashed into the genesis ship; Zod didn't yell out some quip about how he was going to destroy Superman. He didn't begin to monologue as most conceptual villains would. His immediate concern was the “lives” on that ship; For his people. When Superman destroys the ship, proclaiming Krypton had its chance. He was in effect using the lesson learned, given so harshly, by Faora-Ul. He was removing morality from the equation. It was not easy for him to do so, but this is what he resorted toward. Zod, while operating under no morality, discernible to us the audience and humans in general, was equated in my mind to a fallen angel. A being that is created to function under a specific set of tasks; that if not accomplished, the pain in his body, heart, mind, and soul suffers until he is brought back to purpose. For angels in the christian faith that’s praising god, for Zod, it’s honoring and protecting his people. Even if it means resurrecting them on the corpses of lesser beings.

"How many ants would you kill to save your families? Your city? Your country? Your world? How many ants?"

Zod was never truly a villain, and this particular conflict, brought a tremendous amount of depth to Kal-El, which forced him to deal with his sensibilities. Even with the eventual need to kill Zod; something that drove a lot of fans crazy.

I’ll be blunt. Do I care about “fanboys”, I’ll use that term in its present negative vernacular, going crazy over this? No, hell no, to be (again) blunt. This is not the comics, and it’s a completely different re-imagining of the character. We've known all there is to know about Superman, and how perfect he is. This was a "perfect" opportunity to redefine him, and while we see a slightly darker, realistic version of him, I loved every moment. Because he isn't really watered down with bullshit ideals that are nearly impossible to maintain. Yes I think he represents an ideology, but I also think the ideology can coexist with this version of the man, flaws and all.

So the real arguments we see here are actually based on the questions of morality and how you define the qualities of morality, which is already subjective to the observer as a separation between good and evil, right or wrong. This is what's complex about Man of Steel and makes it so Epic. In short, you route for both the perceived and expected good guy, Superman; but you feel for the perceived and expected bad guy, Zod. “Duality, ain't it a bitch!”

This is a bit simpler, perhaps not, bare with me. For a long time, growing up with comics I always thought Lois and anyone else that didn't recognize Superman, were dumber than dirt. While I get the total notion that the persona of Clark is really Superman’s ultimate judgment of who humans are. Clumsy, weak, fools, who disregard what is in front of them. I also feel like Lois should have been immediately onto him. When that relationship was exercised in this film with her investigative abilities bringing her right to his doorstep, I applauded. Because that is something that while not really part of the original comics, it’s something that was idiotic in the original comics.

"Blasphermor! DIE CAMACHO DIE! Wait...shit, no, you're right Macho, carry on!"

Clark's "judgment" on humanity, was only a perpetual statement to assist the notion that we were a bunch of idiots, because Lois is supposed to be an amazing award winning reporter, yet had no clue who he was. This turn of events in the film was just falling in line with some Nolan-esque story telling. In truth, it was refreshing, and made total sense. She is pretty much the one that knows Clark's secret, there is no stupid pretense, no total idiot bumbling…Reeve’s did that, and he is an institution; just forget Superman III and IV ever happened. Actually, in fact don’t forget, and go watch those movies, then come back and complain some more about Man of Steel. If you still want to bitch about this film, go look up “Superman Reborn / Lives” and consider we might have had a Nick Cage, Tim Burton Superman back in the 90’s. In that light and perspective, this film was absolutely a grace to CBM fans.

I've read quite a lot of complaints against the manner in which Jonathan Kent died. I can understand, and to some degree would have wondered if this could have translated into his need to save others, because he was not allowed to save his earth born father. But it ended up being much more poetic. It also helped cement the duality in Clark's persona. The inner conflict he would have to undergo being raised as a human, but the ability and strength to function above human morality. It was necessary to see the sacrifice. It was short, sweet, to the point, and relevant.

Atmospheric weakness, this is probably the oddest issue I was bothered by most; during the course of this film. I'm sure others may have had their issues with this aspect as well, but, for me it was just a bit odd, and slightly off putting. I will admit, I thought it was definitely a clever addition to the already low list of weaknesses that existed against Superman, which have always been Kryptonite and Magic. But it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me that this mechanic was used, allowing Zod’s forces to be normal on their ship, and empowered on Earth; even while sucking down their own atmosphere in their special battlesuits. Surely the amount of time they’d be on earth in comparison to Clark should have shown some differences in power levels. Surely, was not the right word for me to think of. They were all essentially the same, regardless of time spent on the planet. Zod, of course, and his crew were also trained in a variety of ways "...I was Bred for Combat..." as Zod put it, which more than likely was a huge disadvantage for Kal-El, as generally he never had to rely on more than his powers.

It also didn't matter that while taking in Kryptonian atmosphere the sun was still affecting them on the surface. Yet Clark was losing his abilities on their ship, while taking in the same atmosphere, even when sunlight was visible for him from the ship. Yes, true, it wasn't direct sunlight, and we can easily argue that the ship was protected against solar radiation. But something here was a bit disconnected. Because the moment the atmosphere was changed back to Earths', Clark was fine, and now it was the Kryptonians that showed no dysfunction on a ship full of Earth-based atmosphere. That's just a nitpick, I accept that.

We never see Kryptonite in this film, it's never brought up. Only the concept of different atmospheric conditions, which was also used as a doomsday catalystic concept in the film. This made for great movie making, but it also left a lot of random issues open, like a festering wound in terms of the characters origins and innate weaknesses.

What we really get in exploration, isn't Superman's weakness to an already known object in the comics (absent in the film), and whether or not, this is going to become a future weakness in the next set of films. It becomes a character driven set of weaknesses. To a degree an unspoken understanding that some of Superman's purist weaknesses were specific to his mental release of his own morality, his need to separate himself from being both Kryptonian and being Human.
A large aspect of Superman's morality in the comics, animated series, and features, comes from his need to believe in the greater good in all peoples. Man of Steel definitely answered the question if Kal-El would remain this ideological. Part of the observed behavior in all the media in the past is his staunch efforts and protection of the shrunken city of Kandor. His need to preserve and protect the people within. In this film, there is no Brainiac (obviously) but the concept of his Kryptonian people existing in another form that could have been protected, he completely abandons and ignores.

What we have in Man of Steel, and essentially paved the path for the next films is an un-watered down version of Superman that has forcefully been shed of many of the moral, mental, and societal ideological weaknesses we've seen in a number of interpretations. Which eliminates his biggest weakness in most iterations, his need to preserve everything around him. Also demonstrated in extremely visual and impactful ways in the film, with the essential havoc raised in his final battle against Zod, that spared no location, and really didn't take any heed of population. As it all culminated to the largest expression of demonstration for the difference we have in this Superman; the ability to kill.

It was the final shed of an old set of moralities, that are no longer relevant. I know a lot of fans hated this part of the film. I have to say it's not really fanboys raving about this. It's a lot of mixed fans, mainstream and hardcore, with a lot of personal feelings on the subject. It is a difficult thing to see changed, especially if those angered by it understand a lot of what I just pointed out above, because of the feeling of losing a character completely. But in truth, we've gained a very glorious and modern interpretation of the character with a variety of moral implications. Implications that confront each of us (as fans) with our own moral qualms, as much as the Man of Steel is defined by those same personal moral qualms.

Overall, while I disliked the use of the atmospheric weakness concept, it makes perfect sense, and is of course another potential Nolan signature infiltrating Snyder's direction from a producorial point of view to attempt to maintain things on a realistic keel. The impacts of the moral story in the film, as it pertains to weakness, was far more edifying to me; as opposed to having seen the already known and expected use of Kryptonite, which was left out.

I want to hear from you. Comment, share, tweet, complain, bitch, praise. @emanuelfcamacho

Click Here
Posted By:
E.F. "Manny" Camacho
Member Since 8/20/2013
Filed Under "Superman" 9/5/2013 Source: The Voices Inside My Head
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
1 2 3 4 5
TheOneAboveAll - 9/5/2013, 12:04 AM
Interesting points
Coolwhip - 9/5/2013, 12:10 AM
I loved Man of Steel. I will always love it, and I will never apologize for loving it.
SnapperCarr - 9/5/2013, 12:13 AM
Man of Steel was an alright film. The cast did the best they could with the script the were given, especially Cavill. Many things irked me though. For example, when Ma Kent's house was destroyed, she said "It's just stuff". You don't have the people who were supposed to raise Superman to care about everything say shit like that. Also Superman crashing Zod into buildings instead of away, especially into stuff like IHOP and 7-11 was stupid product placement. Also Superman should not be as alienated from us as he was RAISED A HUMAN. Save the struggle between two worlds stuff for an Aquaman movie. I also hated Superman killing because I hate having Superman's name associated with killing.
MightyZeus - 9/5/2013, 12:14 AM
Awesome article.

You bring up great points.
SnapperCarr - 9/5/2013, 12:18 AM
I'll say this. Goyer needs to go. Awful at writing, and even worse at writing women. Lois in this movie was strong, independent and sexy but was missing the flare that Lois usually has.

The action was another thing. It was contradictory. You want to have the movie be realistic, but at the same time have over the top action scenes. Pick one and stick with it. Visually the movie was cool but could have been so much better under someone else. Snyder was not a great pick for this, just a meh pick. He would have fit better on an Aquaman movie, where in that case you need big action scenes to prove how Aquaman is a badass.
Humperdink - 9/5/2013, 12:21 AM
Good movie.
SnapperCarr - 9/5/2013, 12:22 AM
Also Batman/Superman better have Supes toned down from MOS in terms of strength, but we need a badass fighter after we got a very grounded Batman in the TDK trilogy.

Also that movie needs to introduce more comicbooky elements. I mean, I can't imagine holograms, Zeta tubes, boom tubes, Hawkman/Hawkwoman, New Gods, etc. in this universe.
SageMode - 9/5/2013, 12:22 AM

SnapperCarr - 9/5/2013, 12:26 AM
Lastly, [frick] Jenny Olsen or Jurwich or whoever the [frick] she is. She was pointless. Just bring back Jimmy Olsen. Clark needs a friend, a bro, a homie he can talk to. Perry's his boss so that relationship can't be there and Lois is his girlfriend so its a different ballgame there. THis Jenny person rejected Steve Lombard after he saved her, what the [frick]?

And bring back classic Steve Lombard, these movies need to be more lightened up.
Whippet - 9/5/2013, 12:32 AM
Keep the damn camera still!!!!!!!!!
UrbanKnight - 9/5/2013, 12:34 AM
@intruder - Or let some of that bitter bottled up anger out with some of that heavy metal shit you probably listen to.
SnapperCarr - 9/5/2013, 12:36 AM
@Whippet That too.
efcamachopmp - 9/5/2013, 12:38 AM
@snappercarr are you suggesting a) Goyer doesn't know how to write strong woman...

followed by b) Jenny should have just opened her legs to the office hounddog just because he did the decent thing of help her?


TheDoctor75 - 9/5/2013, 12:43 AM
Great points!! When I found out that Supes killed Zod I was originally annoyed. But how can he decide not to kill anyone and preserve life unless he has the guilt of taking life??
SuperSpeedster - 9/5/2013, 12:43 AM
@SnapperCarr: Agree about Jimmy Olsen and Goyer.

@E.F.Manny: Good points.
stoptheworld - 9/5/2013, 12:50 AM
To save his secret identity Clark let his dad die.
To save people Spider-man is not afraid to reveal his identity.
Is Spidey better hero than Man of Steel?
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 12:51 AM
I have to get to bed, so I can't respond point for point to seperate issues, but I the logic flawed int his article in several places. When Superman brought down the ship, "destroying what's left of Krypton", he wasn't taking morality out of the equation. Operating by morality, it's wrong to destroy one civilization to save another.
jonnytheshirt - 9/5/2013, 12:54 AM
Good article on a great movie one of the best, I wonder how kids felt because an enduring memory is Reeves in Superman catching that helicopter. He then went on to catch a burgler and take a cat down from a tree - different times. MOS was epic in its scope and it was great seeing Krypton, Caville was a good Supes and Lois was almost on the money, I agree with the revelation of Clark that becomes tedious. My downsides - shaky cam, this has to stop it makes films unpleasant to watch I doubt catching a helicopter would have been as memorable with shaky cam. I agree in that Superman should have been taking Zod away from the city. Although in MOS he is a young and inexperienced Superman. Super Ghost Dad - they should have gone the whole nine yards and got Bill Cosby - Jor-el was overused as a plot device; that was some funky Technology that allowed Jor-el to mastermind future escape plans near other planets. Otherwise Crow rocked, although his manifestation was too clean for me he should have looked more sci-fi holographic or something they didn't really think much on that. Or, Crow just refused to appear lesser in the movie. I am hoping Afleck will be influential in the sequels writing and possibly work well with Zack to add that extra bit of refinement both Synder and Goyer need to make something truly great. I'm really glad Zack's now got a big successful movie under his belt as I've always enjoyed his visions - however he can just fall short of well executed great moments. Supes battle with the other end of the World device was all a bit flashy and shaky cam, not cinematic beauty. And hey I liked Superman 3.
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 12:54 AM
@stoptheworld I think Clark would have saved his Dad. I would have. I would have run over there, human speed, pulled Dad behind the car and shielded him. A happy compromise. Then make up a story about how they survived.
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 12:56 AM
I should clarify what I said in the post previous to the previous. It's wrong to detroy an EXISTING civilization to save another. Krypton no longer existed.
efcamachopmp - 9/5/2013, 12:59 AM
@stoptheworld lol interesting

@jediphilosopher Sorry bud that would be wrong, if he kept his morality and ideology, he'd have somehow tried to save everyone, and would have figured out a way to plant the Kryptonians in a new world where they can live in peace and harm no one, and placed Zod and his crew in the phantom zone...alive and well...

The ship itself was a representation of "new krypton" and he pretty much destroyed it.

You also just contradicted your own statement... "destroying what's left of Krypton', he wasn't taking morality out of the equation. Operating by morality, it's wrong to destroy one civilization to save another."

No offense, you don't have to agree with me, but there is a clear morality issue focused on as his main weakness in this film, and there is a clear growth period as he sheds his human "morality" to do what is needed for the pure greater good.

WarnerBrother - 9/5/2013, 1:00 AM
I think we will get a scene with classic Steve Lombard in the sequel as Snyder and Goyer flesh out life for Clark at the Daily Planet.

I could see Steve try some "towel snapping" at Kent's expense and getting served by some amusing use of superpowers by Clark.

As far as Jenny goes.She didn't flat out slam the door in his face when he offered her the tickets.Instead, she seemed amused and mildly annoyed that he "switch targets" from his first choice Lois, to Jenny who was standing there the whole time.

It was clear the tickets were part of his "pick up" routine so had Jenny said "yes" that would have marked her as the easiest lay in the city.

A girl has to keep her self respect.
HOTSHOT - 9/5/2013, 1:00 AM
I think Man Of Steel was great. It wasn't the perfect Superman film that I was expecting from the trailers but it was great none the less. To be honest, I thought it was a better reboot than The Amazing Spider-man for two major reasons.

1.The lead actor actually looked acted EXACTLY like the character does in the comics.

2.Although ASM was better paced and fleshed out, this movie's character development was better. Superman actually left the movie as a likable changed man while Spidey simply went back to square one again.
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 1:02 AM
And again, it's not that he didn't try to single-handedly hands-on save each and every person as some people try to twist this argument. It's that the safety of people, except a couple very specific exceptions, is completely, obviously, not even in the list of things he's thinking. And that is NOT SUperman, even on his first day. FAIL. Try again.
efcamachopmp - 9/5/2013, 1:03 AM
@jediphilosopher Seeing your post just popped up before mine hit, that is still not affecting the point bud. Again, Superman's normal ideology, in virtually every incarnation of his comics, and other media is to save everyone...even his people that are no longer technically alive. Even to usually turn the bad guys that he feels he can save into good guys.

But you're entitled to your opinion broheim :)
goatman - 9/5/2013, 1:03 AM
Manny, I like your articles. They're well written, you express your points with ease and in a way everyone can understand, even if they don't agree.

And you know how to break it up into paragraphs. That seems to be a lost art form on this website. I refuse to read 3000 word paragraphs. It literally gives me a headache.

Keep up the good work.

As for Man of Steel, I liked it. The action was phenomenal, thanks to Snyder's comic book friendly vision as a director, but I was never on the edge of my seat in fear of what might happen to Kal-El and the plot certainly had it's issues, which I'd attribute to Goyer's script.

But I think it successfully opens the door for DC in a way that Smallville, and even Nolan's Batman films, were unable to do. I look forward to seeing where they go with the character, how they intertwine Batman's legacy, and introduce other heroes in less than 2 years before Justice League. We'll see how it goes.
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 1:04 AM
The ship had no living people aboard except Zod.
efcamachopmp - 9/5/2013, 1:09 AM
Let's look shall we...

Superman Returns - flying through city -- falling glass -- complete blanket use of heat vision to burn all glass falling on people as he goes to save another group from falling objects

Superman 3, he went through every possible city to deal with any number of issues he created, and solved them.

Superman II, how many random issues did he solve...

Superman, he was pretty much everywhere, and the pinnacle of my example, he did not exact lois' death, so he spun the world backwards...

I refuse to acknoledge Superman IV and use it as an example lol

Man of Steel - he barraged through everything in chase of Zod, granted the product placement is a bit lame, but I work in film - sometimes you need that to overcome budget expenses prior to the film being made (it happens, especially in my trade, independent film).

While you might not agree Superman should be this way, it still does not devalue the fact that he shed any of his normal concerns to focus purely on the task. thousands of people probably died in the city being destroyed, just as thousands also died in Avengers ending scene, with only a focus on a few people being saved, to lessen the blow of the carnage befalling the entire city...

and that is definitely not a fail. perhaps in your eyes...no worries.
efcamachopmp - 9/5/2013, 1:11 AM
blah typos -- I need sleep Except* not Exact T_T
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 1:14 AM
I have specific points on that. He plowed Zod into a 7-11 in a fit of rage. Not my Superman.

He had several multi-second opportunities during the Zod fight he could have used to take the fight away from the city, but never even seemed to try.
efcamachopmp - 9/5/2013, 1:14 AM
@jediphilosopher The Kryptonians in the Genesis Chamber were certainly alive...but this can devolve into the same arguments that befall those debating abortion buddy...so I'm not carrying it any farther than that...

the line in the film "STOP! If, you, destroy, this ship...YOU DESTROY KRYPTON!"

I think I've made my point... lol
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 1:15 AM
Safety of people doesn't matter to Man of Steel, but hopefully it will to Man of STeel 2.
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 1:16 AM
Well, I have to agree with MOS on the "Krypton had its chance" argument.
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 1:17 AM
But, it would have made more sense if he'd have found another way. I guess that's all you're saying, so I agree.
JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 1:18 AM
This movie so warped Superman, it's hard to figure out where I stand, and at times I come dangerously close to saying the movie never should have existed.
efcamachopmp - 9/5/2013, 1:19 AM
Like I said, I'm not debating whether or not you like this Superman, that's subjective, not everyone did! I'm only pointing out that this is what I observed Snyder doing in the film, and it's pretty much what we call "state of plot" he rationalized certain behaviors based on actions given to assert the type of Superman he was creating.

Personally, my exact words when I described the film to another fellow reviewer on a different site I write for, I said "this is a Superman that is resolved with his bullshit." that's why I like him so much.

I've read the comics, I know that Superman, i've watched the serials given to me as a gift since last year...that's a purely american, for america's sake back in the day Superman.

I'm used to the Justice League and JLU Superman...in fact, it's playing in the background on my TV, Booster Gold is on, and watching traffic, unhappily...

That Superman as much as I love him, is watered down so that everyone else can be significant...frankly he's a pussy...(can I say that here O_o)

I love the animated feature versions...but I also cheered when he was a perfect backseat in Flashpoint Paradox, because it allows everyone to shine...

Superman is that guy that can ruin the party...this film is truly Superman Unbound...and that's why I love it.

But that's me broheim.
efcamachopmp - 9/5/2013, 1:22 AM
@Jediphilosopher lol I love how we're waiting to read the others comments, I enjoy bantering with your Jed -- by the way from now on to save my fingers I'm just typing @jed or just Jed! lol

I see what you man...at first I was wondering what the hell was going on when I watched the film...But It grew on me like a fungus on my big ass Cuban Jungle feet...

JediPhilosopher - 9/5/2013, 1:26 AM
Nothing pussified about morality. But in some people's opinions, it is. But what defines what is moral, we'd probably not agree. I define morality with certain different things in mind than others might. Complete liberty isn't popular in this culture of "everyone must fund my welfare" (and they will or my government will get them). God I need to get some sleep. Only have a few hours left to sleep now. :P
MightyZeus - 9/5/2013, 1:28 AM
The action was really good though.

man of steel gifs photo: Man of Steel 5 ManofSteel05_zps4af40ea5.gif
Freek - 9/5/2013, 1:30 AM
Well I couldn't read this article cause I haven't watched this movie yet, but I have this stupid feeling that am gonna love it when I do
1 2 3 4 5

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.