Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Superman Related Post-Viewing Discussion: Man of Steel movie (SPOILERS)

My theory on why Zod wanted Lois on the ship was that he could tell Kal-el had feelings for her, and that he figured as long as she was safely off the world he might agree to their plan of killing all the humans to make room for the Kryptonians.

However Zod never presented that angle. It seemed more like Zod may have tried to learn the truth of how Clark had been raised from Lois, but even that was less than clear.

On the issue with "why do they have to terraform earth", my first reaction is, terraforming won't overcome the planet not being in the right orbit. Still, I would have to agree it is an issue that was not really adequately dealt with.

Oh, one unaddressed thing - not a plot-hole, just something we don't know the answer to (yet): What happened to Zod's body? Did Clark get rid of it? Did the military collect it? Will it somehow end up in private (Luthor?) hands? I don't know if/when an autopsy would be possible, but I can understand why Clark wouldn't want anyone to know very much about Kryptonian biology.

I think that, if he thought about it, Clark would take the body and be gone before anyone else arrived (and then, after finding some way to dispose of the body, either being alone to ponder or going to get comfort/reassurance from Lois or Martha). But Clark is emotionally raw, and not experienced with the aftermath of battle yet, so I could also understand if he didn't think of it. But I'd think Lois would. What do you think?

/shudders/ That's a chilling thought. I would guess that he didn't consider it, and the military has it somewhere-- which is scary as anything. If Lex Luthor is in any capacity involved with the government, I can see him (or even just generic govt) using Zod's body for nefarious purposes... Perhaps ending up with some cloning projects...

Or perhaps this is how Kryptonite is manufactured. The govt finds Zod such a threat, they need to create something just in case Superman ever decides to turn on them or some other Kryptonians stumble upon Earth... It ends up somehow in the wrong hands-- in Lex Luthor's hands-- and no one wants to take responsibility.

It's a very interesting thought. And if Clark did get rid of the body, there'd be some other frightening implications there-- the guilt for one thing.

I just don't know. I could completely see Clark not thinking about it, but what about Lois - she's there, too. But maybe she wouldn't think of it, either. She's had a busy day, and she's not used to thinking in those terms yet, of aliens existing, etc. It's relatively new. In any event, if they wanted to use it, it could totally be used in a sequel.

I don't know if there'd be guilt for disposing of the body, depending on how he did it. Burial is common here (in ice?), but cremation is not unusual, and he could maybe be okay with that. He could try saying a few words, but that'd probably make him feel dishonest/hypocritical, since he killed the guy. But knowing Clark, you're probably right and he'd feel like he was treating the body like trash to be disposed of.

Side note: timeline question? My thought was that Lois came immediately back to Metropolis (after being saved by "Joe"), wrote the story, then tracked down Clark in a matter of days, at most. Others seem to think it took her months to track it down. And she didn't really seem to be injured later in the movie. Thoughts?

I just have to squee about the movie!

It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen but it was solid. And it's Superman.

Many posters have already commented upon things, and I'll probably be repeating. Bear with me.

I liked that they had a whole lot more of Krypton than usual. The movie did a good job of showing an alien culture, an alien landscape, different and alien ways of living. The flying insectoid personal transports were just so "out there" it was neat. I wonder if every Kryptonian citizen gets a personal flying animal, or do you have to be an eminent scientist to do so? And do all families live in these towering defensive citadels? If Krypton is so advanced, how come Jor-El and Lara's dwelling had intruder repelling technology?

Usually, in Superman movies, Krypton is mentioned in passing, or not shown at all. OK, well, maybe they show it, but they tend to just show it exploding . I believe that so far, every TV show or movie has had a flashback to Krypton's destruction. Here\'s the version from \'Smallville\' . I'm too lazy to dig up the ones from the animated series (although I know it happened) and from "SR" (actually, did they have Krypton's destruction in there, or just the remnants?)

/returns from irrelevant tangent/ Anyway, it was a nice change to see so much of Krypton. And it turns out to very important to the movie, which is very much focused on Clark fitting in, trying to balance his Kryptonian nature with his Earth nurture.

Agreement with those above who argued that Jonathan Kent was just not right in this film. As (whoever) said, it's like Clark became Superman not because of him, but in spite of him. I can't ever see the L&C Jonathan telling Clark (basically) that he should have let those kids on the bus die to protect Clark's secret. i just can't believe that they had Jonathan even suggest that! All through the Superman mythos, J&K have been stalwart in suggesting that Clark save lives, even if it blows his secret. Sure, they'd prefer that Clark keep his powers on the down low, but if it came down to people getting killed, we know which way they'd go and what they would teach Clark to do.

Perhaps that's why the writers had Jonathan Kent die in such a manner as he did on the show - Clark not using his powers, not showing what he could do, even at the expense of his adopted father's life. (And I have to agree with the previous posters that the set-up was lame, very lame. The family dog? Come on!

With the killing, Clark's innocence is lost. Does this correlate to America of the 1930's and post-WWII, when we were the good guys (Superman not killing) and now we are doing some ethically dubious things (pick the political program of your choice)? Have we, the country, lost our innocence as well?

OK, no more of that. Going back to movie talk: I agree with all the posters who pointed out that Clark is really not doing much to keep the secret identity going. Let's see:

- rescues a bus as a kid
- saves a bunch of people on a going-up-in-flames Arctic oil rig (which I had to admit was a great action scene) in full view of tons of people
- tells the Army colonel that he grew up in Kansas
- tells somebody else that he's been on Earth for 33 years
- leaves a trail of miraculous rescues (I like this, it's sort of like our LnC Clark) where he has to move on because people are getting suspicious
- the alien spaceship lands in Smallville, in his mother's backyard! Gee, do you think that people might want to backtrack where the alien ship landed, and draw conclusions about why it landed where it did?

Plus, the government could just check the metadata on Lois Lane's phone calls and GPS in her phone (given that they've got that data collection program going on in real life ) and find out where she's been. If they suspect that Lois Lane knows Superman's civilian identity (which they will, given that the FBI arrested her on suspicion of this in the first part of the movie), why wouldn't they go back and trace her movements? That would narrow down their search significantly.

Look at the intelligence effort expended on the Boston Marathon bombings. Can you tell me that tracking down an alien (ok, the alien on our side, but still an alien with astounding powers and a member of a race who almost destroyed the Earth) wouldn't gather the same or more effort? Maybe Clark had better deploy some Kryptonian technology to confound his searchers.

Things I didn't like, or got tired of:
- there was an absolutely insane amount of property destruction
- what about all the people that got killed when Metropolis got to be the unwilling host of a super-battle? (I'm just hoping that everyone evacuated in time.

Things I really liked:
- the swirl of the cape when Clark is walking in the Arctic
- Lois finding out on her own, and tracking Clark down before he's "out" as Superman. It shows that she deserves her Pulitzer Prize. She's not galactically stupid; she's the one who finds out things first.
- Clark getting up from the interrogation table and casually breaking the handcuffs
- the colonel saying "This man is not our enemy"
- the communication tech in the war room - "They're calling him Superman now" (but we know that Lois said it first in the interrogation room, she just got interrupted)
- Clark Kent with his tousled hair and glasses being introduced as a new stringer for the Daily Planet
- and best of all, because I hope for sequels, Lois Lane meeting Clark Kent's eye and saying, "Welcome to the Planet" or was it, "Welcome to the planet"? I like the double meaning there. A great way to end the movie.

Oh, I know. It was pathetic. But I will say that Jonathan didn't want Clark to use his powers, so at least he didn't have a double-standard where it suddenly became okay to risk Clark's secret when it was his own life on the line.

I think squeaky-clean, non-killing-Superman came in the 40s (maybe the radio show developed it because parents heard it, unlike with comics? or did the comics do it first?), but am not sure. I've definitely seen other people on the Internet reference him killing in the early comics. Of course, he also didn't have nearly the amount of power in the early comics. He wasn't nearly strong, didn't have supervision (much less X-ray vision), etc. When a being has that much of power advantage, they don't have to kill anyone - it's too easy to disarm and capture their opponent. They took that advantage away here. I don't mind it, myself, but I'm not a die-hard Superman fan (more of a Lois and Kent-family fan, usually). I want him to be good, to not kill needlessly, but I'm okay with it if they write him into a corner, as they did here. Better that he kill the killer than let the killer kill others.

And, as has been mentioned elsewhere, Ursa and Zod got thrown into deep pits in Superman II - and that would seem deadly (and unnecessary, as they were depowered). But then there's the UNused arrest footage.

Absolutely love that he does that. He wants to save people. He chooses his way over Jonathan's, in that regard. But do you think he's using his real name when working those other jobs? I was thinking not, because then Lois wouldn't have had to track him as much, but am not positive. That goes back to the "permanence" thing I mentioned in my other post.

Oh, I know, I got so tired of it. And then when they move to a new section of the city, it seems the residents don't know what's going on in the other section of the city. Big city. I also noticed there didn't seem to be any tv news people trying to get in on the scene - I don't think there are any public photos or video of Superman yet.

Oh, I love that. I love her being in on things from the start. She comes off as just brilliant and talented and very good at what she does. Plus it gets rid of treading the same "she swoons over me in my other outfit" story. And she was literally only minutes behind him getting into the spacehip - I love that.

I really like that it enables honesty and trust in their relationship from day 1. I was just thinking about this because I read a MOS fic where Lois thinks how she always believes what Clark says, and also I watched '78 Superman earlier today and Superman there says "I never lie" which is an absolutely huge lie.

It also puts the more equal footing. It doesn't have him with all the power and the knowledge and her the crushing (and very overwhelmed, at first) school girl. Yes, he saves his life as soon as he sees her, but he does it as man, not a superman. He's in normal clothes, he's holding her hand, and he's talking to her like a normal person instead of spouting one-liners. He's physically close to her, and she can see his face, and will know him when she sees him again, and that's vulnerability, a risk he takes when he saves lives. He's not larger than life to her despite his powers. Once she investigates him, she discovers his rescue of her is not a fluke. She knows the kind of man he is by his deeds. And she holds his secret and he just has to trust she'll do the right thing with it, and she will. He says he can disappear, but he can't, because his nature won't let him stand by when people are in danger, and she knows that. And, though her keeping that secret, he knows the kind of person she is. It's a very solid foundation for their relationship, IMO.

I liked that, I really did, but I liked the conversation while he was still handcuffed even better. He was just making them comfortable and Lois knew it and it just lovely. They had no idea the powers he had - flight was all they'd seen.

Yeah, Lois was one the party sending the message, so I assume she told the Colonel that's what he was called and that's what the Colonel said the communication tech.

Wonder what Lois' colleagues think of her kissing "the alien" when they see it? I mean, he's not "Superman" in the public consciousness yet. Though I'd think Perry, at least, would know he was Lois' rescuer, and a good guy, not bad like Zod.

I saw the movie this last night and had to share my observations.

I really, REALLY, enjoyed the movie!

If this isn't a well-received Superman movie, then there never will be one. From top to bottom I think this is about as good as you can do with a Superman movie where you had to cover all the origin issues as well as having another story beyond that. Given the way a movie has to be made to be a success in this era, I honestly believe that this was very close to as good as you are going to get. There is always room for improvement, but they did a heck of a good job.

Generally I agree with many of the comments that are already here. I thought the weakest role was Jonathan Kent. Costner wasn't bad, bit he had the weakest character in a movie where most of the other actors and roles were top-notch. I was particularly impressed with Russell Crowe as Jor-El and Antje Traue as Faora-Ul. If Faora-Ul would have had more screen time, then Antje Traue might have stolen the movie.

As for Clark killing Zod, I was a little surprised, but what else do you do? Zod has made it clear that he was going to kill everyone in his reach and that he would continue to kill until every human was dead. Given the circumstances, what was Clark supposed to do? I think in that context (no Kryptonite and no Phantom Zone projector) this was the only honest answer for what to do with Zod.

I love that Lois is in on his identity right from the start. I just hope that they make enough money to green-light the sequel where we can see the real Lois/Clark relationship get going.

Bob

Originally posted by Tzgone:
He doesn't use his real name. One of the people Lois approaches with his pictures in her investigations says "Yeah, that's Joe." So at least in one circumstance we know that he's not really using his real name.

Also, the scene where he's first in the suit and flying means he didn't fly before, right? So he literally was travelling the old fashioned way around the world. He could jump, but flying wasn't an option. Or at least that's how I interpretted it?

Given Superman's status in society, I'm not convinced that the movie needed to cover his origin in the first place.

Yes, those records are falsified (Lois says so in the voiceover for her article), but that was the job that got him close the spaceship, so it might be different with the other jobs where he was just drifting. I personally think he was using fake names there, too, given the other hints.

I agree. It was only when Jor-El told him to start testing his limits (something the Kents weren't big on) that he tried jumping as far as he could which led to him realizing he could fly.

BTW, am I misremembering or did Jor-El not talk about Kal-El being great and wonderful in this version until after he was grown and Holo-Jor-El met the man he became? If that's correct, I like it.

My sister brought up an interesting idea. She thought maybe the reason Jonathan was telling Clark not to risk his secret was to further the theme that Kal-El didn't have to choose the role society would choose for him. Not sure if that really works, when combined with Jonathan's "change the world" talk, though.

For this movie, I think the origins were a necessity. Zod and Kryptonian society factor in too heavily to not be addressed/explained earlier on. And if Lois is supposed to know who Superman is before he's Superman, then we need to see that on-screen instead of being told about it later - departs to radically from the story the broader public is familiar with.

This movie raised the question "How will the people respond to Superman's existence?" but we didn't get an answer. "Superman" hasn't even been introduced to the public yet. I'd love for the next movie to pick up just a couple weeks after this one ended. On the one side, you have Lois' editorials in the Daily Planet endorsing Superman. On the other you have someone (Luthor?) raising sentiment against him. Not sure if I'd have the government play in. You could either have villain raising negative sentiment (framing Supes for something?) or just the general populous. In MOS, he was intentionally given a far murkier intro. He wasn't established before the action, no one knows who he is - to the public, he's an alien, not "Superman". Zod wouldn't have come to Earth if not for him, so you can see why people wouldn't like him. And while the military knows that Superman fought Zod to save the planet, the general population may just see it as two aliens fighting each other, not knowing much about the attempted terraforming. I'm sure Lois will try to clear thing up, but she might not universally trusted. And how much will the government cofirm/deny her story? I'd think the movie would with Superman's acceptance and his birth as the public hero we're familiarly with him as.

So many things I want to follow up on there. I'll be very, very disappointed if they skip all that.

I agree that they couldn't do this movie without his origin, since that was the entire movie anyway. What I meant was that they didn't need to set out to tell an origin story. They could have done a movie where Superman is already an established hero and Clark already works for the Daily Planet, and none of the audience would have been lost wondering where this "Superman" guy came from.

Given this movie, the movie I was wanting is going to be the second one. What they've done, though, in retelling the origin is change Superman's relationship with the government and the public from what it's been for decades. I've got mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, it's a very modern take on the character, which doesn't necessarily win points with me. In many ways, it's more realistic and less idealistic. I like Superman because it's escapism, not because I want a realistic portrayal of things. On the other hand, the early Superman comics had the police trying to capture him and the general populace terrified of him, so it's taking Superman back to his roots, which I can respect.

This movie was a good beginning for a series. I just think that they could have jumped into the middle, and it would have worked.

I can't say as much as I'd like right now. (I'm typing on my iPad with a child asleep on my shoulder.). A couple of thoughts, though:

1. I agree with Bob aboutt Clark killing Zod. Zod has declared his genocidal intent for the entire human race. That's also why Clark couldn't take the fight elsewhere; Zod is out to kill humans, not to kill Clark. If Clark had flown off, Zod wouldn't have followed him. He would just have started systematically slaughtering every human in sight. So, although the collateral damage was distasteful to me, I don't see how Clark could have avoided it. This is also a very inexperienced hero, so he gets a lot of slack from me.

2. Ditto everyone's disgust with JK dying to save the dog. Sorry, dog lovers, but you owe it to your wife and son to not risk your life for the dog. Personally, I would have saved my dad whether he liked it or not. Let him yell at me later when he's safe.

3. The part I did admire about this JK is how he taught Clark to be nonviolent. That's what made Clark so heartbroken over having to kill Zod. He'd spent his whole life disciplining himself not to strike back, but in the end Zod gave him no choice.

4. Loved how Lois and Clark worked in tandem to save earth. This Lois is no damsel in distress. She's Clark's equal, not his groupie.

5. Perry must know S=CK. it's the only possible reason he'd hire a completely unqualified applicant like Clark. Either that, or Clark forged credentials the same way he forged previous identities for previous jobs.

6. Yes, Several times I wanted to shout at Clark to st giving all his secrets away.

As mrsMxyztplk mentioned, Superman killed Zod in the 80s-90s comics, but he then self-exiled himself for months out of guilt and a feeling that he was a danger to the world. This synopsis covers it fairly well: http://sequencedestroyer.tumblr.com/post/41958300720/021-superman-exile

In the movie, he was clearly anguished at the time, but we don't see any ongoing remorse (about Zod or any of the presumable thousands of Metropolis bystanders). Maybe it took place between scenes, but it would have improved the movie to show some of it. They certainly could have have traded out some of the miscellaneous property destruction scenes.

Now that I think about it, such a transition could have also covered his decision to operate openly. Yes, he had decided to expose himself to appease Zod, but that's different from being an everyday superhero, throwing the fact of alien existence into everyone's faces on a regular basis.

Like others, Jonathan's character bothered me, but I think it's important to recognize that his motivation for secrecy was not Clark's personal safety -- I think we're projecting that from L&C. Instead, this Jonathan believed he was protecting the world from information it was not ready to handle. Letting a few die for the greater good is an understandable position, though not something we generally associate with Superman.

I don't agree with Clark self-exiling in this circumstance - it does no one any good and it's just running away. No, we don't see ongoing remorse afterwards - it's the end of the movie. We've seen the climax, and it makes no sense to continue the movie for very long after that. It would have less impact. They just close it up with a tag (which I'd say very soon after the battle) - an upbeat one, even. Hopefully we will see some guilt in the sequel - not that I think he should feel guilty (I think he did the best he could, the best that could be done), but I think it's in character for him to agonize a bit over Zod's death. I certainly don't think he should self-flagellate over the deaths in Metropolis/Smallville. Mourn for them, absolutely - blame himself, no.

I mean, I wouldn't have minded some of the building-falling being replaced with plot/character-driven material - I'd have loved it. But we didn't need significant time after the climax - that just isn't the pacing I'd prefer.

I disagree with this entirely. That makes being a hero (openly) being about being under the judgement of the public eye. It's negative. It should be positive - about embracing what he's always wanted to be. It should be about choosing his destiny himself, as his birth parents wanted for him. That is the theme to me in the movie - that Clark always wanted to be a hero, to make a difference, but would never allow himself to live that way. He'd move on every time he did, because he thought the world wasn't ready or he wouldn't be accepted - letting society dictate his destiny. Now he he takes a stand and claims his own destiny - the one he wants.

I disagree with this. It was about Clark's safety to me - because of the way the world might react, it would make his son unsafe. And, frankly, if Jonathan is taking it upon himself to decide what the world is ready for, that is Doctor-level (Doctor Who) arrogance. I mean, wow! What greater good is accomplished by preventing people from learning a great truth? He doesn't say anything about society collapsing or rampant murder, does he? It's all in terms of Clark.

Speaking of this bit - I didn't think Mrs. Ross seemed scared or rejecting. She was very positive and attributing Clark's uniqueness to God and treating it like a good thing. She seemed more awed than fearful to me. That has it own potential set of Very Bad Consequences, but she didn't seem ready to start a chapter of the Friends of Humanity.

I agree that Mrs. Ross didn't seem scared by Clark's abilities, more gossipy "did he get his powers from God?" sort of thing. It wasn't as if she attributed Clark's abilities to the Devil which would have been a negative viewpoint. I was confused a bit by Jonathan's reaction there. Of course, having Clark being thought of as a "powers from God" figure is a scary thought and I could see why Jonathan wouldn't want that for his son.

I have to agree with your assessment of Jonathan's character flaw here. He should never have told Clark not to save his peers on the bus, perhaps scolded him for doing it so overtly (like standing there in full few of what I'm guessing was supposed to be Lana, since she looked like Lana from the Smallville series, for several seconds before diving into the water to save Pete). Nevertheless, Clark clearly follows his own gut and continues to save people despite his father's advice. Clark knows that risking his own safety isn't worth the death of others. I'm hoping this means less use of this plot device in the future.

3) I prefer this death to the trite and overdone heart attack. (Yeah, yeah, I know it's canon.) Jonathan is showing his son that it is important to risk oneself for others (even the dog), but I'm sorry Clark didn't receive the message with his father's dying action "my life is less important to me than protecting your secret". Clark seems to take it the other way, and risks exposing his secret with almost every other rescue after that. (Oh, sure, he'd move on, change his name again, but the breadcrumbs were easily found my Lois.)

4) So nobody's bashing Martha Kent for LOCKING the dog in the car when a tornado is a coming?

5) I agree Clark should have saved Jonathan anyway, but this was before Clark knew he could fly. Grabbing his father and returning to the overpass, quickly, would certainly reveal his secret. Since everyone in Smallville seemed already aware of Clark's secret, what's one more example by saving his father? (Does anyone remember if Clark's still holding the little girl when the tornado strikes? That would be the only motivation for him staying behind. That, and having to live with the angst of having his father die in the midst of their biggest argument -- another overused and predictable plot device used in Hollywood.) I would have liked to see Clark to go grab his father and use his density to save them from the tornado as they walked back to the overpass together, despite the tornado passing overhead. People would have been amazed, but it could have been listed as a fluke miracle. THEN, Jonathan could die of a heart attack after that traumatic experience.

So, I'm sticking with my first impression of this scene. I liked it. I'm glad someone was finally shown the world how stupid it is to always go back for the dog. Who knows how many people have died trying this feat due to everyone always surviving it in the movies, only to die themselves? (Hey, if they can blame movies on other things, why not this?)

I also liked the scene when Martha told Clark that his father knew that Clark would grow up to be a hero by watching him pretend to be a hero as a kid. Hmmmm. Maybe I should worry more about my son playing 'mad scientist'.

I wonder if this goes back to the 1978 film with Christopher Reeve, where Superman didn't fly until after he made it to the Fortress of Solitude and got tutored by Jor-El. It seems to be a theme - maybe flying is so inhuman, so not-normal, that Clark has to get some sort of stimulus from his alien father before he can do it.

I thought that at first too, but it wasn't that. The atmosphere on the ship matched that of Krypton (a world with a red sun instead of a yellow sun) which is why Zod's team doesn't have powers on the ship but do when they expose themselves to our sun. It didn't make much sense that Zod and his team needed to breathe Earth's atmosphere to get all that the Yellow sun offers them, unless their uniform shields them so complete from the sun and they waited until their air guard gets knocked off to get truly exposed. If there had been Kryptonite on Zod's ship then it would have killed Zod and his team, wouldn't it have?

I figured that the force-field helmet things must have been filtering out the yellow sun, so that they got a dose of it once their helmet was broken or turned off. The atmospheric differences was an interesting addition, but that wouldn't have been the whole story. I think it would have made more sense if they also had red lighting on the ship that matched Krypton's sun. Lois and Ghost Jor-El changed the atmosphere in the ship; they could have changed the lighting at the same time.

Earlier in the thread there was a debate about how kryptonite could be reasonably incorporated into this version of the story. Both Kal-El's ship and Zod's ship used the Phantom Zone projector to basically go through hyperspace to get to Earth. The exploded fragments of Krypton would have taken the long way through normal space. Maybe it's taken this long for any of the debris to reach Earth, and some of it will start falling as meteorites in the next few years?

The atmosphere seemed to have something to do with the super-senses, but not the super-strength (assuming they didn't have that normally). I don't think it was Kryptonite. I think it was a new thing for the movie. (But a much more logical new thing than the cellophane S-trap of the Christopher Reeve movies.)

I loved the movie. Loved it. And I'm old enough to have loved the original movie. I look at them as separate stories. One doesn't affect the other. Both are special to me.