Ok, so this is my first Kinja blog post so please forgive any ramblings, errors, etc. I'll try and keep to my point (though I know I will wander aimlessly).
Oh, and spoilers - duh.
Over on Penny Arcade, Ben Kuchera has written a short takedown of his issues with Man of Steel. Specifically, he makes the many of the same arguments that many detractors of the film have made (including writers on io9, Kotaku, etc) and I have yet to see someone offer a counterpoint to their issues with the film.
Namely:
1) Superman kills Zod (ergo, this is not Superman because Superman doesn't kill).
2) Superman (and Zod and Co.) cause billions of dollars worth of death and destruction (ergo, this is not Superman because Superman saves people).
3) Superman doesn't inspire us in this film, he scares us (ergo, this is not the Superman we've come to know and love).
First things first - As I look at the comic books I have in my (very) limited collection, they are as follows:
- Watchmen
- The Dark Knight Returns
- The Killing Joke
- Infinite Crisis
- The Lucifer series
- One Sandman book (that introduces Lucifer)
- And one or two books that I know am forgetting
Based on the above it's safe to say that I am not a huge comic book fan. Though I do sincerely appreciate the medium and, in my opinion, have a decent grasp of major comic book character mythos. I spend a lot of time on wiki's reading about characters vs. actually reading the books themselves - I know, this makes me weird.
'What's your point, jackass?" My point is: I'm coming from the perspective of someone who appreciates comics as a medium but likes current comic book-based movies more (The Dark Knight trilogy, The Avengers, Iron Man, etc).
Yes, I'm more a fan of the movies than the books. Sue me. I know this makes me a filthy wannabe geek peasant in many people's eyes and I'm ok with that. So for everyone (or anyone) whose going to start waiving decades of lore in my face and say "That's not how it's supposed to happen, you pea-brained moron!" know that I don't care. I'm coming from a different perspective. One that you may disagree with - or find not nearly as well-educated as yours - and that's fine. This argument is based on THE MOVIE itself.
Now that I've rendered my position meaningless to a whole bunch of people (you're not a true comic book fan - so your opinion is moot you geek poseur piece of shit), let me at least try and make my argument for why the Man of Steel works (or at the very least offer a piss poor rebuttal for the common complaints I've heard).
1) Superman kills Zod (ergo, this is not Superman because Superman doesn't kill).
From every negative review, comment, screed, etc I've read online - this is the biggie. SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL. There are examples of Superman killing in comic books (and he kills Zod in Superman II, btw). In Man of Steel, Superman didn't happily kill Zod nor did he want to. ZOD FORCED HIS HAND. Hell, the fucker said (and I'm quoting liberally) "This only ends one way - either you die or I die." Given that choice and the fact that Zod was trying to Hot Pocket a family, what was Superman supposed to do:
- Return him to the Phantom Zone? Couldn't do that - ship was destroyed.
- Take him off planet to Mars? What would have been the point?
- Throw him into outer space? Which may have killed him as well and then OMFGSupermanKilledZodviaSpace.
The point being: Superman didn't want to kill Zod, he was forced to kill him. Superman was forced to make a choice - save a HUMAN family or let the last tie to his home planet, his past, and everything he is Red Eye the fuck out of those poor people.
I would argue that Superman choosing to save a human family squarely puts him on our side and sets up the overall arc of the character for the next few movies- i.e. Redemption and Trust then Sacrifice (I assume that, like The Dark Knight trilogy, Superman is going to end with a big Bad that breaks him – namely Doomsday).
2) Superman (and Zod and Co.) cause billions of dollars worth of death and destruction (ergo, this is not Superman because Superman saves people).
Aside from the fact that Superman (as a boy) saves the school bus and then as John J. Bearded Fishing Person saves the oil rig workers, I understand the general frustration. Why wasn't he more prudent with his actions? Why wasn't he helping to save people? Why did he go to the Indian Ocean instead of Metropolis? All of these arguments I get. But I think they're genuinely shallow. Here's why:
- In the film, Superman learns to fucking fly. He didn't know he could do it. He didn't know the extent of his powers. He's just coming to terms with them. Shortly thereafter, Zod and Co. show up and start threatening the shit out of everyone. I could understand these "save people" points better if Superman had been Supermanning it up for a few years and had a better understanding of his powers but the way the movie explains it - he doesn't. He's still figuring it all out. So, for me, it works and makes sense.
- To top it off, Zod and Co. are warriors who've been “bred to be warriors”. They know how to fight. Superman? He's been running from fights and trying to stay on the down low for ~ 33 years. It's like you just learning a couple of MMA moves in the past few days, being beset by a gang of professional ninjas in the park on your way home from the gym, and then someone having the audacity to bitch at you because in the middle of the scuffle you fell onto a stroller and crushed a fucking baby. "Why didn't you save the baby, asshole?!?" "Umm, didn't you see the ninja's ma'am? I kinda had my hands full JUST STAYING ALIVE."
- This wasn't Superman causing destruction for shits and giggles. This was Superman post handing himself over, finding out that Zod and Co. planned to kill EVERYONE ON THE PLANET because Krypton Redux, and then escaping. Point being: Again, his hand was forced. He had to fight where they were - not where he (or you) wanted them to be.
"Well, why didn't he move the fight to a cornfield or some such place and then Zod and Co. would have chased after him?" Really? That's your argument. 1) Zod and Co. were busy DESTROYING THE PLANET. 2) Whose to say that if Superman didn't Super himself up to Mars then Zod would have been all "Well, that makes shit infinitely easier. Continue Planet Destruction. We'll worry about Jor-El's spawn later."?
Think that through far-away fight plan through Put yourself in Zod's shoes. The BIGGEST threat to your plan is goading you into a fight WAY. THE. FUCK. AWAY from where you need to be to carry out your Krypton 2.0 plan. Do you just up and stop everything you're doing so you can engage in a dick measuring contest? Hell no. Your biggest threat wants a fight and he’s hopelessly outnumbered? Great. Make him come to you and your minions. THAT’S SUN TZU 101.
So while I understand the argument (or at least I think I do), I think the argument itself is shallow and falls flat on it's face the minute you think about it for more than five seconds.
"Okay Mr. I don't Read A Lot of Comics but Think I'm Smart Enough to Write This Bullshit. Why Didn't He Go To Metropolis Instead of the Indian Ocean?!?"
Look - I'll admit you kinda got me there. My argument would be that (for whatever PLOT HOLE reason) the Indian Ocean Planet Killer Robot was left unguarded (except for it's magic Buckey Ball tentacles) whereas the one in Metropolis was surrounded by Henchmen. It was, again, a no-win situation. If he had gone to Metropolis, he would have had to deal with the Machine + Henchmen. Whereas he didn't have to deal with Henchmen in the Indian Ocean. Besides, and all he needed to do was to destroy ONE of the Planet Fuckers in order to render the New Krypton plan moot. So he chose the easier of the two and thereby ultimately saved the whole planet (at the expense of a large chunk of Metropolis).
Again, put yourself in the same situation. You have to destroy Point A or Point B. Destroying either is a win. Point A is heavily guarded and you're severely outnumbered by people who've been kicking your ass. Point B is not. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
3) Superman doesn't inspire us in this film, he scares us (ergo, this is not the Superman we've come to know and love).
I don't understand this point or why it's necessarily a bad thing. Comic book movies have grown up. They've decided to embrace (to a certain extent) reality. If a super powered alien shows up on our planet, who in the hell is going to immediately say, "Well, golly gee. He seems swell. He's my new hero."? Dense people, that's who. People who think it's a good idea to stand on top of skyscrapers waving "Beam Me Up Scotty" posters while giant alien ships hover over their city.
These people will be the first to die.
Me? I'm going to want a metric shitton of proof that this alien is on our side before my default self-preservation status shifts from "Shoot on site" to "Hey bro, can I buy you a beer? You drink beer, right?"
So for me, the movie works. Even with all the death and destruction. You have an alien who killed the last member of his species and severed all ties to his people, for us. You have an alien who wants to work with us - but please, fuck off with your drone bullshit. You have an alien who has decided to stay here and help us.
Yes, this isn't the Superman of our youth. Yes, this isn't the red and blue underwear Jesus we remember. Yes, this is a hard smack in the face. I truly get that - and so I understand the frustration.
But for me, I'd rather have the Good Hero (vs. The Dark Hero - aka Batman) come to learn what it MEANS TO BE GOOD and STRIVE TO BE GOOD (while making mistakes along the way) vs. being a good deeds spewing idealistic robot.
The former is something I can respect and appreciate. The latter is just a bunch of Beacon on The Hill mythological unattainable bullshit. I want my heroes to be inspirational while being full of flaws. I don't want some regurgitated unidentifiable Jesus analogy. I'm too old for that shit.
Commence the hate.