My DH and I went to see Man of Steel for one of our very few date nights back in June while we had family in town to babysit. I thought the movie was awesome. And now I can address some issues people have with the ending and the general tone of the movie. I’m sure everyone that has wanted to see it has seen it by now, but still: there are SPOILERS in this post!
Great start for a reboot
Culturally, we’ve been living off of the Christopher Reeve incarnation of Superman for over 30 years. The first Superman was, in my opinion, the first serious attempt to tackle the superhero genre. The material was taken seriously. Superman II was even better. Yes, there was some camp, but not too much.
Then, Superman III and IV happened and…*tears, ugly crying*
Then, Superman Returns happened and…*cursing, throwing chairs, Hulk Out*
I think the mistake Bryan Singer made (in addition to ditching the X-Men franchise HE started, to horrid results, but I digress) was riding on the coattails of Reeve’s version of the character. Perhaps he was banking on the nostalgia so many people have for it. But it was a failure. If I want to watch Reeve as Superman, I can just watch the original, not something pretending to be the original.
So enter Man of Steel. I think it was a great start to a new franchise. In my opinion, complaints about it being darker are unjustified because they are based, in part, on too much comparison to Superman I & II. In Man of Steel, Clark’s internal conflict was illustrated well and, I might add, more realistically. In the first Superman movie from 1978, Clark comes out of this 12 year hibernation ready to roll and fight for “truth, justice and the American Way.” Cavill’s version of Clark made it a little more clear that the character had to make a choice on what path he was going to take for his life and that it was not a particularly easy process.
Major spoilers ahead, so if you’ve somehow wandered here, LEAVE. Like in Superman II, Zod dies in the end; only this time it is from Superman snapping his neck. Some people think that killing someone goes against Superman’s established morals or ethics or something. I disagree.
1. Superman kills Zod in Superman II, as well. In fact, an argument can be made that he did this in somewhat of a cowardly fashion. He tricked Zod (which is fine) into getting his powers taken away. Then he pushes him off a cliff inside the Fortress of Solitude. Um, okay? Zod and his crew were as weak as a human at that point, why not take him to jail to face this justice you fight for?
2. In Man of Steel, however, it was clear that Zod was going to continue to go on a rampage. But that’s not completely why I think Superman made the correct decision to kill him. Superman had gotten the upper hand with Zod while inside a building with bystanders. Zod decides he going burn up a group of adults and children with his newly controlled heat vision. Superman asked him repeatedly to stop. He did not. After all that happened up to that point, only a fool would have taken a chance on those people’s lives, to see if Zod would suddenly not be homicidal, just that one time.
I think he made a good call that in no way diminishes his ethics. In that situation, killing Zod was the right thing to do, not just to save those people’s lives, but to stop the madness that was sure to continue unabated. Also, he clearly did not want to do it. I imagine that he was conflicted on not only killing another person, but the last surviving person of his “race” besides himself (that he knew of).
That’s my take.