The one Critique of Man of Steel that
I cannot stand.
There is a consistent slight thrown at
2013's Superman movie 'MAN OF STEEL'. I can accept most of the
criticisms of the movie are based on personal preference and although
I do love the movie and it's fallible interpretation of Superman I do
have a few issues with the film, for one I think the World Engine
sequence is overlong and boring and affects the last act's pacing in a
negative manner. No film is perfect.
But the one criticism that really
bothers me is the assumption that Superman is somehow responsible for
the destruction of Metropolis and directly accountable for death's of
'thousands' of people during his climatic showdown with Zod. Neither
of these criticisms make much sense to me in the context of the film
itself. And let me tell you why.
Now there can be an argument made that
Superman is the reason that Zod came to Earth in the first place. And
I'll concede that is a valid argument, but that's a reoccurring theme
in many Superhero films from the Batman movies to the the Avengers
films. The heroes tend to be indirectly responsible for the main
villains actions or motives and Man of Steel is not the only addition
to the genre guilty of this. As so many films are guilty of that
particular cliche I don't see it as being to much of a slight against
Superman's character in the movie. I'm only talking about the climax
and the destruction of Metropolis.
Zod and the Kryptonians are
responsible for the destruction of the city, and the people who died
did so as a result of the weapons used by the alien invaders. The
fact of the matter is the destruction would have continued had
Superman not disabled the World Engine. This was the first salvo in
an alien invasion and should be seen in the same context as the
destruction in a movie like Independence Day. Superman couldn't have
stopped those people from dying because he was elsewhere trying to
disable the machine that was powering that attack. Unless he had the
ability to both disable the machine and at the same time save people
from the attack that was happening simultaneously. Zod unleashed the
weapon on Metropolis, Zod was responsible for the subsequent
destruction. Blaming Superman would be akin to blaming a Marine for a
terrorist attack. It just doesn't ring true.
Now we come to the much referenced
Superman and Zod fight and the 'many' Skyscrapers that apparently
fell due to their scrap. Now I have watched the film repeatedly and
do you know how many skyscrapers topped due to their battle... One.
One skyscraper which was by the epicenter of the destruction. And
that fell due to Zod's heat vision. Many would argue that the
building was full of people and they all died due to this. Well
considering the proximity to the initial destruction there is also an
argument that it would have been evacuated. People love to apply real
world logic to this scene and say that it would be impossible to
evacuate the building. My question is how you can believe a man can
fly and shoot fire from his eyes, something that doesn't occur in
reality, but the notion that a building could have been evacuated
post an attack of that magnitude just doesn't seem realistic to you
simply boggles my mind. The car park followed but I think it's safe
to say only the insurance policies of the owners of those cars
destroyed in the fight really suffered as a result. As for the rest
of the Skyscrapers Superman allegedly toppled, simply watching the
film will reveal he was thrown into them and unless the buildings
were made of paper mache then even that wouldn't cause them to
crumble. I've also heard people argue that even though they didn't
tumble he would have impacted people within, killing them. But
considering Superman is at no point covered in the blood, bone and
organs of these imagined victims, that didn't happen either. We don't
at any point see this happening at all during the fight.
But while there are arguments against
my viewpoints and I'll respect those, but the one argument I won't
accept is one that is brought up repeatedly by both fans and comic
creators alike and it is this. SUPERMAN SHOULD HAVE LED ZOD AWAY FROM
THE CITY. I won't concede this argument because it is complete and
utter bullshit, totally nonsensical. The validity of that argument
hinges on ZOD, a maniacal, genocidal Alien being with powers
comparable to that of Superman, who in the movie threatens to wipe
out every single human being on the planet as revenge deciding to
disregard his own intentions and simply ALLOW Superman to drag him
away from the city without resistance or barring that deciding to
FOLLOW Kal El to some secluded field away from any of the collateral
damage he no doubt intends to inflict. If you watch the climax,
there is a moment where Superman does in fact take Zod away from
Metropolis, and what happens? Zod smacks Superman with a satellite
and the fight continues back. Even in the comic books this rarely
happens, it doesn't even happen in the Donner films.
This is my viewpoint on the destruction
in Man of Steel. And post the Batman v Superman trailers I feel there
will be a new perspective on the climax of the film over the next few
years. I accept people not liking the film. I accept people with
valid arguments about the pacing, plot or tone of the film. But I
will not accept falsehoods, and Superman causing the deaths of
thousands of people during the climactic fight is a falsehood, plain
and simple.
Oh, and in closing anybody mad at
Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel I'll leave you with this.
Superman killed Zod when he was about to burn a family of humans
alive, which is a stark contrast to Donner's Superman who murdered a
defenseless, powerless Zod, who was no more of a threat to him or
anyone else than a regular human. And smiled while doing it. Pick
your battles, that's all I'm saying.
SoA
