Zack Snyder: ‘Everyone Clings to the Christopher Reeve Version of Superman’

Zack Snyder Batman Superman
Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images

Zack Snyder took a lot of flack for depicting mass deaths and the destruction of Metropolis in last summer’s “Man of Steel.”

As he gears up to shoot the pic’s sequel, the still-untitled “Batman-Superman” movie, the director told Forbes that he’s merely depicting the “real world we live in.” Snyder said that fans are clinging to the more squeaky-clean Superman as depicted by Christopher Reeve in the iconic movies, instead of the comic book version of Superman, who wreaked massive damage.

“The thing I was surprised about in response to Superman was how everyone clings to the Christopher Reeve version of Superman,” he told Forbes. “How tightly they cling to those ideas, not really the comic book version, but more the movie version. … If you really analyze the comic book version of Superman, he’s killed, he’s done all the things. I guess the rules that people associate with Superman in the movie world are not the rules that really apply to him in the comic book world because those rules are different. He’s done all the things and more that we’ve shown him doing, right?”

Like in “Watchmen,” which he directed in 2009, Snyder said he wanted to depict the true nature of violence rather than the sanitized, unrealistic version.

“It’s just funny to see people really taking it personally … because I made (Superman) real, you know, I made him feel or made consequences (in) the world,” he said. “I felt like, it was the same thing in ‘Watchmen.’ We really wanted to show it wasn’t just like they thought, like the PG-13 version where everyone just gets up and they’re fine. I really wanted to show the violence is real, people get killed or get hurt and it’s not fun or funny.”

“Batman-Superman” will face off against “Captain America 3” in theaters on May 6, 2016. The movie stars Henry Cavill as Superman, Ben Affleck as Batman, Jesse Eisenberg, Jeremy Irons and Holly Hunter.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 590

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Andrew Dexter says:

    What on earth is Zac Snyder talking about? Christopher Reeve was the only actor who was the closest ever the the comic.

  2. dawnmkelley says:

    Load of Bull. Yes I grew up with Christopher Reeve’s superman, but I also liked Dean Cain’s Superman in Lois and Clark, and (at the very least) the early version of Tom Welling as Clark Kent in Smallville….plus an entire slew of animated versions of Superman….Reeve is not the issue that made Man-of-Steel annoying to me….it was a plot that was afraid to actually deal with Clark Kent, Clark Kent was just missing. It was so heavy in special effects and Kryptonians punching each other, that it bored me. And everytime it got near a genuine moment, it flashed to it only to back away from it…..heck if we’re just talking character and not the ton of other things wrong with it, there were things I liked about Superman Returns (despite other badness) more than Man of Steel – in fact, Man of Steel made me appreciate elements of Superman Returns. The thing about Superman is he is, to a point, ridiculously powerful…which means if you make a movie just about how hard he can punch, you’ve already failed.

    Clark Kent is, much like Buffy Summers in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, trying his best to achieve Joe Normal despite this higher calling to help the world. That is the story, that conflict and pull between the life of the man that is Clark Kent and the fact that he’s basically a demi-god walking the earth, who could crush the world and shape it to his will, and choses not to. If Buffy the Vampire Slayer had just been a dark grumpy gal who lived in the darkness of her world, the contrasting images of Buffy the blond teen seeking a normal life and the darkness of the things she must deal with, because no one else can…wouldn’t have worked. Now there was a point where life really sucked and things got really dark for her, but they got there fluidly. In establishing Superman you can’t start in grumpy darkness, you can journey there, you can have him work through it, but you start there and live there and you’ve lost what makes Superman not Batman. You also lose a bit of that struggle and growth as a team when Lois finds out in two seconds flat that Clark Kent is Superman without a Daily Planet through-line to even make them friends. There was no Daily Planet-ness worth talking about in Man of Steel, that’s where you shape the Clark Kent that we give a crap about, in those offices, that’s where he’s accessible. That’s where we care if Lois and Clark ever become more that friends. I really didn’t care about the instant mix relationship in Man of Steel.

    Also, going with Zod as a series opener was a flat out mistake. There’s a challenge of writing a good Lex/Superman story…you have to *think* harder about creating that story that’s sellable. You can’t do a story about who’s punching the hardest in the fight. Because Lex obviously can’t challenge Superman that way, yet he is a challenge to Superman. And part of that is because of that internal struggle that won’t allow Superman to just randomly go and beat a human down for no reason. Even if said human is a bad dude and he knows it, he has to be actively doing a “bad” thing for Superman/Clark Kent/Kal-el’s moral wall to allow a “fight”. And if at-some-point, he questions his own resistance to just taking the man out (if he can, and Lex hasn’t created some barrier – like Kryptonite protection), great…but lets get there fluidly. That’s the problem with kicking off a hopeful Superman franchise with Zod the way Man of Steel did, you’ve jumped to the big battle without any of the preamble….you’ve done the season finale, without a proper Pilot and build-up season to make us *care* first or believe in the struggles of the character. Also, there’s something to be said to Superman suddenly having a physical equal long after he’s use to that not being the case. In most cases, something besides his enemy being a physical equal is holding him back, so Zod is a bad place to kick off a movie series. It’s something you get to after warm up battles, after we already know and like Clark Kent. There are Superman stories, besides Reeve’s, that do this well.

  3. Clark says:

    Man of Steel was a hot mess of digital effects and wooden performances with no heart or substance IMHO. Reeve will always be Suoerman to me. His warmth of performance will resonate always. God Bless him!

  4. Aenar says:

    The Reeve Superman is an exemplary example of a good human- something we do not see anymore. The Man of Steel Superman is a headcase, like everyone else I know. So he is not super but mediocre man

  5. I am watching Sups II now. Why are Donner’s movies better? I heard Zod say that he knew of Sups weakness. The fact that he cared for us earthlings. No amount of action, CGI or whatever Hollywood will cook up today (Transformers excluded) can erase this.

  6. tony D says:

    Snyder is a bitter Hack and angry cause STM was superior on every level

    • Thomas Hobbes says:

      Thank you for that psychic reveal of what is going on in Snyder’s mind. It’s more remarkable for its complete lack of grammar and basic understanding of English.

  7. Alex says:

    I burst out laughing when I read the bit about how Snyder claims to have depicted a “realistic” version of Superman, in which deaths have consequences. This was the most mindless destruction fest I have ever seen.

    Way to go, Zack. Keep denying reality, by trotting out stock phrases from Christopher Nolan interviews.

    • Thomas Hobbes says:

      Every poet is a fool; and I’m sure you know it.
      But you, sir, do serve to show it
      That not every fool
      Is quite a poet.

      I burst out laughing when I read the bit about how you claim that MoS was the “most mindless destruction fest I have ever seen.” You have either a very limited memory, or have not seen many films.

      Way to go, Alex. Keep denying reality, by trying to make your point with extreme statements, rather than reasoned debate.

    • b says:

      You preach about “denying reality” when you can’t even realize that destruction in itself is mindless and leads to the same results. That said, I think Snyder has done what he has saught out to do.

  8. Shayne Bruce says:

    I love what Zack is doing with this mythos. Making it more in line with the TRUE tale of the man from Krypton. I can’t wait to see what he is going to do…. True visionary!!

    • John Allen Small says:

      The “true” tale? In what universe is this the “true” tale of Superman? There is nothing “visionary” about Snyder’s version of Superman. All he’s done is taken a iconic American original and turned him into just one more anti-hero.

      • dump lump says:

        man of steel*

      • dump lump says:

        If you have read the comics, you would have realized he is more of an anti-hero. People are idiotic to think that someone like Zod would fight superman in a secluded place. It is downright comical that people lambast a movie like superman for this considering in the cartoon tv shows you see superman and the rest of the justice league pretty much destroying cities.

    • Sefy says:

      TRUE tale? exactly where in the TRUE tale is Superman a genocidal murderer? but wait, where in the tale his adoptive parents are a couple of losers who teach their adopted son to fear upto a point he is told to let kids die. Teaching him to be a drifting loser with no purpose in life and disrespect to his own heritage or even have zero connection to earth.

      Zach Snyder is as bad as Brian Singer, two losers who claim to be fans and managed to be worse then Kryptonite by not even understanding why Superman does what he does. He doesn’t help people cause he HAS to or cause he feels he NEEDS to, and he doesn’t do it to feel accepted, he does it cause he CAN and because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

      He is a light to guide us, he is a Super Man, cause he brings hope with him.
      There is no guiding or morals or even hope with this STEEL, and Superman he most certainly is NOT!

      • He is furious because even Smallville’s TV show Superman is waaaaaaay better. Helloooo! You don’t tell your super powered son to let people die so that his secret is safe. That is wrong!

        Yes, Sups killed in one comics and that put him in a tail spin. He didn’t go on like nothing happened to kiss his girl and give orders to the army on how he wanted to help. That is not work together. It is more like he is menacing man kind and we got to ask what he would do if we don’t play by his rules. Super was turned into a terrorist-like entity that we should be afraid of.

        We didn’t happen to see much of Papa Kent in the first Sup, but it is clear that Clark learned to use his powers in a careful way. That was the point that allowed Smallville to happen by the way.

        MAN OF STEEL was a loser ignorant of his power.

  9. Aaron Price says:

    Reading what Zack Snyder said proves to me, he doesn’t understand the character of Superman at all. All he’s trying to do, is justify the direction he’s taking Superman in his mind.

    Superman has had dark moments in the comics I agree, but Superman isn’t the darkness like Batman is. Compare Christopher Reeve’s Superman next to Burton’s Batman/Nolans Batman. You have the perfect examples of what makes both characters different from each other, the light and the dark.

    My concern with the next movie, is that we will see a Superman and Batman who are dark in the shadows and troubled. No balance between the two, and this is something that you need to do with both these characters. If you take Batman out of the dark and put him into the light. You lose a big part of the character of Batman. The same happens with Superman taking him into the darkness.

  10. DE says:

    Totally agree with Joe Quesada’s comments, a Marvel’s guy, that MOS was a let down.

    The Marvel Chief Creative Officer says that the Superman film left him “angry.”
    “As a comic book fan, I wanted to love that movie so much,” he said. “I wanted to love it so much, and I didn’t love it so much. Again, there are little things here and there that you could pick at and things like that, but I just think at the end of the day, Zod was the hero of the movie to me.”


    I too felt that Zod was justified. We had just seen Krypton blow up and a race that we come to like blown up, and this guy comes in to do his job and bring it back. I’d would too. Zod had the token of sympathy from me, and I actually rooted for him in some way.

    If Earth blow up and we wanted our planet back, and someone held the human genome hostage, wouldn’t we do it too? absolutely.

    Superman didn’t show anything that showed us that Earth meant anything to him. I could’ve cared less for him, and why wouldn’t earthlings give him up anyway? Zack Snyder ruined this film, and it’s obvious. The man is not writer, and it shows. This same scenario was with Nero in Star Trek. He wanted revenge for the death of his wife and daughter, and that’s justified. He wasn’t pure evil. Who wouldn’t want revenge like that?

    Snyder will ruin the next movie too, if someone doesn’t step in write it for him.

    The one, one thing that Reeve’s Superman offered that he was more human that kryptonian. In spite of all of his powers, he couldn’t overcome the butterflies for Lois and felt like a teenager. When he tried to tell Lois after that romantic flight, entering her apartment as Clark, wearing his suite, as he took off his glasses in her apartment, poised as Superman, instantaneously he just melts away as Lois comes back in the room, and becomes a total human being, failed and scared, and it’s something we can all relate to.

    In that moment Reeve’s Superman is totally human. Every single human being can relate to him in that moment in that scene, a super strong guy, becoming a wuss and a teenager. He has heart, and his heart is broken, and can’t solve his emotional problem, in spite of all of his strengths and powers. He has unearthly powers, but can’t solve a simple earthly problem. He’s thus a full human being, with vulnerabilities and insecurities.

    But Snyder’s Superman doesn’t give us anything like that, and, he gives the token of sympathy to Zod. Donner’s Zod was selfish, ignorant, didn’t care about anything, wanted power for himself, at the cost of others. But MOS’s Zod wanted to reestablish Krypton, bring back the civilization, and this makes a sympathetic character. And this what Joe Quesada’s comments go to the heart of the matter.

    This is why we cling to Reeve’s Superman, because he was as human as us, the audience, and everyone could relate to love problems. Everyone.

  11. Steve B. says:

    I really enjoyed Man of Steel, but I did have a problem with the destruction in both Smallville and Metropolis. My problem wasn’t the massive destruction itself. Of course there was tons of collateral damage. The problem was that Superman never seemed to be trying to avoid any of it. While smashing or throwing the other Kryptonians around, he never seemed to think about the people inside of or near all the places being smashed. The Zod fight at the end has a lot of examples of this. I understand that the action was supposed to look cool and it did. It was fantastic! I just wish Superman had seemed to care about all of the people in the way.

      • KelEl93 says:

        Steve, I understand what you are saying, but I think the reason he doesn’t seem to avoid any of it is because during a fight your emotions are so high and so much is happening you don’t focus on much else besides the next punch. You have to understand that this Superman is totally unexperienced in this regard; he doesn’t know what choice is the absolute best, but he tries the best he can and in this case all he could do was do his best to stop Zod. I think in the future, once he gets more used to fighting and sees the total devastation that is happening, he will perhaps try to lead the enemies away from populated places. You can’t always do things the best way though, just like how in the movie the military attacked Zod’s forces in the middle of Smallville. Collateral was unavoidable and the stakes were high.

  12. Because Reeve’s Superman brought hope, his strength was his heart and genuine care for those he protects. Zack’s MAN of steel, has NOTHING to do with “REAL world”, it’s a low life loser who wastes his life doing nothing good, then commits a mass genocidal while committing murder.

    In all the comics, Superman ALWAYS tries to avert the battle some place else.
    He also gets TIRED and EXHAUSTED when fighting someone as strong as him.

    There is no magic, wit or charm in Zack’s world cause he has zero imagination. All he does is destroy cause apparently that’s what fan-boys want to see Superman do, kill and destroy without any care. Superman doesn’t help cause he HAS to or NEEDs to, he does it because he WANTS to!

    He is supposed to represent the good in humanity, to inspire us to improve ourselves and be a light.
    Zack’s “Real World” Superman makes out with a woman he doesn’t even know, ontop of bodies of people he himself killed and at NO point tried to help them.

    Lastly, since when does a major newspaper hires a man with no qualifications? that’s real world?!

    • Thomas Hobbes says:

      The sheer idiocy of this post, combined with its utter disregard of what actually was shown in Man of Steel, is evidence of a puerile mind. I recommend you stop overusing capitals, get some exercise, and relax.

      Or, you could do what you really want to do: strip down naked, get all slathered up with Mom’s canola oil, turn the heat on full blast in her Nissan Sentra, and drive around the local mall, all the while tweeting yourself the following: #GrrrrrWitlessZackGetsMeSoRiledUp

    • rocky-o says:

      so well stated g2-81eff09b1c46d56ee663b1688423cc43…’man of steel’ was a mess o’ plenty…

    • JoeR says:

      “Lastly, since when does a major newspaper hires a man with no qualifications? that’s real world?!”

      Plenty. If you were paying attention. Perry White specifically states that Kent was hired as a stringer. You don’t need a lot of qualification for that, except to demonstrate the needed writing skills. And “real world” is a misnomer. What they were going for was a “plausibility” within a fantasy.realm.. And I’ve read PLENTY of comics and animated films where Superman (and other super-heroes) have battles with lots of destruction without mention of casualties. At least MoS showed people dying…unlike the bloodless NYC battle in AVENGERS, which was more “video game” than anything in Mos..

      • g2-81eff09b1c46d56ee663b1688423cc43 says:

        Plenty? most be the reason of bad writing and lack of honesty in newspapers.

        I’m trying to think what is more sad, the fact the Director/Writer don’t believe in what the character represents and destroyed anything and everything from the ground up. Or the fact the so-called fans of Superman will accept ANYTHING to justify ANYTHING just to see a movie with a title of “Superman” so they can have more garbage movies coming out with the same title, even if it has no relation to the real character represented.

        Funny you should mention Avengers NYC battle, which looked FAR more realistic on many accounts:
        1) the heroes fighting got Exhausted (even the Hulk!) and some got wounded, and Superman (since you said comic book realism) didn’t get scratched, tired, exhausted or anything during the ENTIRE battle he had with an EQUAL forced enemy. In the comics Superman gets tired, exhausted and even at times wounded. But you’ll accept anything won’t you? and you’ll find reasons to justify it too.
        2) During the mentioned battle, one of the first things Captain America said to everyone is to try and CONTAIN the battle to a certain area! to minimize the damage, and yeah you could see people getting hurt in the process and atleast nobody made out at the end of the battle with a stranger he just met.

        Please be honest, the only thing people wanted to see, is Superman destroying an entire city by doing a battle with someone. There was no story, there was no logic, there was no realism or any type of hope in this movie. This PoS movie showed a MAN who couldn’t care less for anyone until the garbage script said he should murder to “protect” a family of 3, which would have been far more convincing if this MAN didn’t probably kill thousands during the battle where he thru Zod into the buildings which he KNEW wouldn’t do anything to him.

        But hey! what better way to respect those who lost family and friends during 9/11 then to show the one hero who was created to bring hope, destroy buildings in the same manner. I’m not even going to expand this into the pathetic “upbringing” Jonathan Kent did with his emo-loser kid. In conclusion, if this director and the writer, had any respect for what Superman represented in 75 years, then they wouldn’t have made a single minute from this unmemorable garbage which failed SO BAD that each week it dropped 2 numbers on the chart list (1st to 3rd to 5th to 7th to goodbye!).

        The ONLY reason it made money at all, is cause people so wanted to see a Superman movie, and they were treated to a Genocidal Pathetic Loser Murderman instead. Atleast they can “fall back” to the Emo Spineless Stalker Deadbeat Deserter Man in Bryan Singers version right?

  13. Pamela Parridh says:

    I think the people love Chris Reeve so much as he played Sups like a real person and did not come off as some hack job in a suit… Brandon tried to play it as real as Chris did and he caught hell for it.. The new guy that plays sups now looks nothing like the comic icon.. The changes in the suit did not help ether.. Chris IS THE BLUEPRINT for Superman and cannot be matched…

  14. Shela says:

    Christopher Reeve will always be the greatest superman of all time, His acting was great and the older superman movies were much better compared to the new one. To me there is only one Superman and that is Christopher Reeve no other actor can replace him, if we do replace him in a movie the movie should go to Tom Welling, because Christopher Reeve game Tom Welling his blessing to be the new superman of this generation. R.I.P Christopher, even in death you are showing us that “a man can fly”.

  15. James Reilly says:

    I feel another man if steel movie should hav been made before the batman thing .. Man of steel was fantastic , but I felt it didn’t really establish superman on earth .

  16. rocky-o says:

    first of all, ya’ know the studio thought ‘man of steel’ sucked, because, instead of doing a straight-out sequel, they have to do their faux-justice league thing…and do ya’ get the feeling that ben affleck is being set up as a scapegoat as batman, so when the next movie bombs, they can blame him instead…the fault lies in you zack and not in your stars…

  17. ateofi says:

    Is there some sort of competition between Snyder and Goyer as to which of them is a bigger douche? Firstly, Goyer says not to listen to the fans and that his writing is critisized by “vocal minority” and now Snyder talks *beep* Well, Mr. Snyder Superman also killed Zod in “Superman II” and somehow hardly anyone objects to that. The problem lies somewhere else you arogant IDIOT! Tell me in which comic book is Superman is depicted as a wierd loner, bullied in childhood with parents completely unable to teach him basic moral values? Where do we see 33 years old loser looking for “his place in the Universe” and unable to enter in deeper emotional relationships with people? Where do we see a guy completely devoid of any sense of humor? Clark in MoS barely spoke to anyone – he was just running all the time – how are we supposed to believe he cares about our race? Not to mention, he is equally ruthless for his own race “Krytpon had its chance” – anyone remeber these words gtom Kal-El? That was fucking cold blooded.
    Donner version its despite flaws showed us birth of a true hero. What did MoS show us? Birth of super strong, flying sociopath, unable to connect with anyone (don’t get me started on his “romance” with Lois). He showed us Superman that most people will fear after the destruction he caused by pointing Zod to Earth. He is no hero – he is just super strong flying loser!

    • james raytner says:

      I sense your frustration because most of the viewers are ‘comfortable’ with a 2+ hr movie where the origin story and becoming an established hero flying on a sunset is lumped within one film. The thing is that “Man of Steel” never followed the cookie-cutter formula that the other studios are rolling out. A whole lot of the critics fall into this trap EASILY. It’s fun reading it in because they don’t see the big picture outright and their ignorance shines brilliantly :)

      Try thinking outside the box because Superman has a rich history and Snyder is telling a story that spans 3 movies! I’m totally hoping the Superman that we know in the comics will be set at the end of the 2nd or perhaps on the 3rd movie… there is a gradual progression on each movie and talk about character development!… again, different way of telling a superhero story, which makes it very special.

      I don’t think you even realize that the 1st movie is mostly all about finding out who he REALLY is … which is unfortunately spoiled when Zod showed up so soon (the backstory in Krypton is a solid reason for that). This is what sets Snyder apart from Donner because Zack delve with the issue of growing up knowing you are not normal (with the natural tendency to help others) and is coupled with the current American paranoia of the government along being engrained with old country values. This is as ‘American’ as an apple pie that you could get from it. I would understand that you won’t see it this way if you live outside the US…

      If you want escapism, there’s a Marvel movie for that. If you want an AWESOME Superman movie/story, there’s a Snyder for that ;)

      • Thomas Hobbes says:

        Finally, a post worth reading. The vast majority of the comments here wax bombastic about Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve, and in doing so somehow use that as evidence that Snyder’s Superman is an abomination. Reeve’s Superman fit his time. Snyder’s reinterpretation is, quite frankly, brilliant, and fits THIS time. Snyder is correct in showing a battle with consequences. For those unthinking brutes who are so angry about the destruction of Metropolis, why don’t you try getting in a fight, rather than sitting behind your keyboard and typing such brave condemnations? While you’re at it, get in a fight with two or three people who are equal to you in physical prowess, and have more training. It shouldn’t be hard to lead them to whatever area you prefer to fight in, right?

        There was a particularly idiotic statement above that Reeve’s Superman could NEVER be surpassed. In what world? Your so-called mind? Do you have a time machine that travels to the infinite edges of the space-time continuum? If Reeve’s Superman is your favourite, that’s one thing. Good for you. But don’t make claims that he can never be surpassed. Nothing is so puerile as asinine, defenseless opinions spouted as absolute truths.

        And to the mentally challenged who write that Snyder’s Superman is a “genocidal flying loser”: I won’t even bother breaking down how pathetic this type of soapboxing is. I suggest that you may want to simply loosen up and try to have sex once in a while. The extremity of a statement and its accuracy are in inverse proportion.

        There is a plan at work here, and Snyder’s reinterpretation is not only welcome, it’s unique, and by far the most interesting Superman realized to date. The problem, geeks everywhere, isn’t with Zack Snyder. The problem is you. You want to tear down his interpretation of Superman because it doesn’t fit with YOUR vision. And many of you also have the audacity to take it as a personal affront because it conflicts with your nostalgia of Reeve and Donner. Get over yourselves. It’s simply a different take on a well known character, and one that doesn’t disrespect the Superman of the comics or the movies.

        Why is the destruction of New York in the Avengers acceptable to you, and the destruction in MoS unacceptable? Because it’s a Zack Snyder film? Because he’s trying to plug into a deeper emotional interpretation of Superman, and that somehow suddenly makes you a serious critic?

        What is wrong with showing an elaborate character arc, drawn out over two or three movies–I’m talking to you below, Darren. Rather than spewing your ignorance all over the internet, perhaps you could take a look at no less than Shakespeare, and the characterization of Henry IV, done over two full length plays. Too highbrow for you? Then why not take Game of Thrones, and the characterizations of Jaime and Tyrion Lannister, done over thousands of pages, and surpass any character arcs present in Lord of the Rings?

        That’s the trouble with most of you on here–you have a talent for inconvenient facts. Or rather, you suit the reality to fit your pre-conceived argument, and come hell or high water before you dare question your own sensibilities.

      • Darren says:

        My frustration sets in when people claim there’s a big picture that isnt fully realized in the first film because of a planned trilogy. Do you know how rediculous and lazy that is, so instead of a three act structure with Clark struggling with his identity abusing his powers, only to mature into a hero who puts others before himself and is an inspiration to all, we instead have the first third. All because Zach Snyder thinks we need to elaborate and complicated origin told through 3 movies! I’m sorry but that’s not how filmmaking works, you cannot plod out one movie with nonsense just because you are intentionally baiting your audience to see the 2nd part in 3-4 years to get another third. You need to tell one complete story with a hero rising not one where his morals and icon status is in question. The public’s mistrust and his work at the Daily Planet are more than enough to bait audiences for a potntial sequel while still giving us Superman in part 1. That’s how Donner did it, baiting the outcome of the Krypton outcasts, and Lois’quest to unmask Superman while giving us a film where the hero triumphs ad gives audiences a stand up and cheer moment.

      • John Allen Small says:

        Our frustration stems from the fact that SNYDER’S MOVIE SUCKED! I don’t care if his version of Superman is compressed into a single film, or sprawled out over an entire trilogy; his version, his “vision,” whatever the hell you want to call it, sucks at ANY length. And all your inane, “I know more than you do” arguments to the contrary do not change that simple fact. End of argument.

      • james raytner says:

        Unfortunately ateofi you still want to ‘lump’ it in a single movie. The state of Superman in MOS is not
        yet at par with the Superman in comics because of character development that spans into 3 movies.
        +– This is the part that you don’t comprehend that’s why you complain about it :)

      • ateofi says:

        Look I understand what MoS was supposed to convey. I get that. Unfortunately it failed to show us Clark’s journey. it failed to show us Clark’s growing and maturing into responsible and confident adult who knows that he cannot abuse his powers. Finally the movie failed to show us birth of a hero – there is no “outside the box” here. Sorry. Superman’s character was masacred – his essemce and core values were ignored. And I am not talking here about “no kill” rule. Supes killed in Superman II and also in Superman returns (when the rock fell on Lex’s goons).

    • John Allen Small says:


      • Thomas Hobbes says:

        Amen, you say. You haven’t given one credible argument in defense of your loathing for Snyder. You simply spout over and over again that the movie sucked. You use capital letters as a weapon, as though they give your opinion legitimacy. Well, sir the same shall be used against you, sort of like an eye for eye, as they do in the Bible, a book you seem to be fond of:

        Your comments suck, at any length. I don’t care if your opinion is compressed into a single sentence, which would at least spare us some of your banality. Your inane insistence on your own rectitude does not change that simple fact. End of argument.

  18. rocky-o says:

    the only way to truly enjoy ‘man of steel’ is to simply turn off your brain before the opening credits…closing your eyes and ears may help as well…

  19. johnsmall says:

    re: the director told Forbes that he’s merely depicting the “real world we live in.”

    That right there is the problem. This is a superhero story we’re talking about. IT’S NOT THE REAL WORLD! They call it “escapism” for a reason. I don’t want the real world depicted in my fantasy stories.

    And please, Mr. Raytner, stop already with the “it’s a win-win for Superman fans” nonsense. Snyder’s character is NOT Superman. And I’ll take “cheesiness” over dark, brooding gloominess every time. If Zack Snyder wants to make a dark, brooding superhero movie, let him create his own character; stop mucking about with an American icon.

    • james raytner says:

      Mr Johnsmall — I sense your frustration because most of the viewers are ‘comfortable’ with a 2+ hr movie where the origin story and becoming an established hero flying on a sunset is lumped within one film. The thing is that “Man of Steel” never followed the cookie-cutter formula that the other studios are rolling out. A whole lot of the critics fall into this trap EASILY. It’s fun reading it in because they don’t see the big picture outright and their ignorance shines brilliantly :)

      Try thinking outside the box because Superman has a rich history and Snyder is telling a story that spans 3 movies! I’m totally hoping the Superman that we know in the comics will be set at the end of the 2nd or perhaps on the 3rd movie… there is a gradual progression on each movie and talk about character development!… again, different way of telling a superhero story, which makes it very special.

      I don’t think you even realize that the 1st movie is mostly all about finding out who he REALLY is … which is unfortunately spoiled when Zod showed up so soon (the backstory in Krypton is a solid reason for that). This is what sets Snyder apart from Donner because Zack delve with the issue of growing up knowing you are not normal (with the natural tendency to help others) and is coupled with the current American paranoia of the government along being engrained with old country values. This is as ‘American’ as an apple pie that you could get from it. I would understand that you won’t see it this way if you live outside the US…

      If you want escapism, there’s a Marvel movie for that. If you want an AWESOME Superman movie/story, there’s a Snyder for that ;)

  20. james raytner says:

    Some people hated MOS because they hated Snyder’s style in the first place. Anyways, there’s always the Donner + Bryan Singer versions that they can always fall back into whenever they feel nostalgic about it. With this along with Snyder’s version, there’s an interpretation of Superman for everyone’s taste! Its basically a win-win for all Superman fans!

    And oh, continuing with the ‘cheesiness’ moving forward is really a bad move that’s much worst than ‘brooding’ or ’emo’ theme.

  21. Maybe the reason everyone clings to the Christopher Reeve version of Superman is because IT WAS BETTER THAN ZACK SNYDER’S!!!!!!

  22. James Reed says:

    MAN OF STEEL was the worst Superman movie ever made! The story made little sense, and the casting choices were done to be politically correct. Jimmy Olsen wasn’t in the movie, so instead we got a Jenny Olsen! Pardon me for being a traditionalist but I didn’t care from a black Perry White either. I don’t believe iconic characters should be changed. Instead, why not create new characters and hire black actors and women? Krypton was established as a completely different planet than Earth, yet they apparently tell time the same way we do. Zod says it took him 33 years to find Kal-El and yet he doesn’t appear to be 33 years older. Even if Kryptonians age slower, shouldn’t he be a bit older looking, and Kal-El / Clark be a bit younger? How did Zod learn English and other Earth languages so quickly so that he could send out his message about his search for Kal-El? The film’s last portion was just an excuse for special effects. I guess violence, destruction, CGI, explosions, loud music and nothing in a way of a discernible plot or characterization is what modern audiences want in their overlong, merchandise promotional “consumer products” which are trying very hard to convince the public that they are actual films.

    • james raytner says:

      Nice nitpick but still better than whatever is out there in the comic book movie genre esp. overcoming the challenges to bring a different origin story in live action.

    • james raytner says:

      Nice try in nitpicking. Still better than whatever is out there esp. with the amount of challenges the production team faced to bring a different take in the character.

  23. Martin says:

    Man of Steel was an awesome movie! It’s what got me into the comic books at all.

    • johnsmall says:

      I’m sorry, but “Man Of Steel” blows. So do most modern comic books. Go back and read something from the Golden or Silver Ages. THOSE are comic books worth reading!

      • james raytner says:

        It’s truly good that the Donner + Bryan Singer versions exists to cater to your kind :) Now for the general mass, we have Snyder’s… win-win situation for Superman fans!

  24. Exiting Hollywood says:

    “The thing I was surprised about in response to Superman was how everyone clings to the Christopher Reeve version of Superman,” he told Forbes. “How tightly they cling to those ideas, not really the comic book version, but more the movie version. … If you really analyze the comic book version of Superman, he’s killed, he’s done all the things. I guess the rules that people associate with Superman in the movie world are not the rules that really apply to him in the comic book world because those rules are different. He’s done all the things and more that we’ve shown him doing, right?”

    This is a ridiculous statement by a terrible Director. I went into the movie business because of Directors like Richard Donner and his Superman film. If Snyder thinks his Superman reflects “the real world”, he’s living in the world inside his mind (er, Zach — there are no superheros in the real world, nor aliens). Watchmen is indeed violent because the source material — a graphic novel included in lists of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th Century — was written that way (and is the one Snyder film I actually enjoy); portraying Superman as a violent character is a modern convention.

    Directors like Snyder who excuse wanton destruction as “giving the people what they want” is what has pushed me away from the film industry. As someone charged with creating the visuals audiences finally see on-screen, every time a Director or Producer tells me, “Show me something I haven’t seen before.” I feel like responding, “How about a good script?”

    THIS is the reality and THESE are the problems of the industry in the times we live. In its need for Hollywood to pander to the almighty dollar and audiences around the world, films with more action and less dialog are the currency of today’s studios.

    If Superman has killed anyone in the past, as Snyder asserts, it was outside the original “cannon” of the comics, and merely a convention of post-70’s comic book writers and artists who excuse bankrupt storytelling by calling it “modern”. The lack of character arc and story development can’t be covered up by choppy editing and shaky camera work.

    Snyder fits the bill as someone who grew up in the MTV era the same way today’s audiences think of Sean Connery’s James Bond as a dinosaur compared with Roger Moore and more recent incarnations (strange how the latest version of Bond, Daniel Craig, is praised for returning 007 to his Connery roots. But I digress…).

    A more recent examination of Superman’s history reveals this trend:

    “Sucker Punch”, one of the worst films ever produced by a major studio, is as much a statement of the wet-dream in Snyder’s head as the cheap shot he has administered to the legacy of Superman, and a more telling example of his overall lack of taste. When studio bosses were actual filmmakers with story sense, movies like “Man of Steel” would never have made it out of the script stage. The only saving grace of Zack-the-hack is that he didn’t sully the character further by including Superman’s name in the title.

    • ateofi says:

      You nailed it. I will just add that if Snyder’s movie was any good, people would probably chjoose it over Superman the movie. Look at how Chris Nolan redefined Batman. Who is now talking about Tim Barton’s movies? Maybe some 35+ year old fans of the comic book genre like me.

      • johnsmall says:

        Actually I still prefer Tim Burton’s Batman movies (especially the first one) over the Nolan trilogy. But I don’t mind Nolan’s version, other than ledger’s portrayal of the Joker which just did NOT work for me. And I say that as a fan of Ledger’s other work.

  25. JediJones says:

    As a kid we always thought Superman killed Zod in Superman II by dumping him in the ice after depowering him. That’s what happened and he just flew away (the arctic cops scene was cut, even in Donner’s recut version). And Superman then went back to beat up the bully in the diner (another Donner-directed scene). So I simply don’t see the big difference between Donner’s and Snyder’s Superman. Donner’s Superman was not some non-violent peacenik. He used force when necessary and sometimes just to teach a bully a lesson.

  26. Longbowhunter says:

    “Its not fun or funny”-well he’s right there. Man of Steel was neither of those things. Why would we ever expect a comic book movie about an alien in tights to be fun? DC and Warner Bros seems to think that the only version of their characters they can sell are the ones that are super-serious and “realistic”-i.e. boring. And they wonder why Marvel and Disney are making a billion dollars per movie…..

    • JoeR says:

      Maybe because Marvel is NOT making a billion dollars per movie. Only IRON MAN 3 did (and it took 3 movies to get there) and maybe AVENGERS did. Right now, it does not look like even CAPT AMERICA will make as much as MoS did.

      • Yeah, the Captain America: The Winter Soldier DID make more than The Man of Steel.

      • I believe that Captain America will make more money than Man of Steel. Simply put Marvel Studios have put together a concept that unites it’s audiences rather than divides them. To throw out some of the tropes established in such an iconic portrayal of Superman was short sighted. Just like with Bond there are elements that should be incorporated intelligently for a ‘modern audience’ the theme for one, should not have been so idly thrown away.

        MoS had me feel like The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR) in the sense that the journey would have been fine if the conclusion to both of these films was the finished iconic character. The context would have produced a definite ‘wow’ factor allowing both franchises to flourish in future outings. What we have been left with is a mess: Batman in a creative cul du sac and Superman watered down and neutered by a Director incapable of telling an engaging story for more than 30 mins.

        The box office for MoS does not lie. The current creative team cost that franchise atleast 600m worldwide. The comparison to Captain America in boxoffice terms sadly only underlines how far Superman has been allowed to fall.

  27. Diana says:

    People please know your superheroes right before thinking one interpretation is the real deal when it is not.

    I understand that nostalgic memories can be powerful but keep an open mind.

  28. Diana says:

    Here is how I think this debate goes:
    1)The Superman that non-comic book fans know is coming from Superman the movie by Donner/Reeves (which by the way I still love even with the high dosis of cheesines) and they think this Superman is THE DEFINITIVE SUPERMAN when he is just an interpretation of the times the movie was created.
    2)Those fans does not know that there have been a lot of interpretations of the character over the 75 years of his history. There are several ages of those stories contained in comic books, they are the golden age, the silver age, the modern age, etc.
    The Superman of Donner is based mostly only in one of those ages: the silver age, when most of the superman stories were cheeseful, with the most powerful boyscout that most of the general audiences know…
    But in the beggining (golden age) superman punched normal people, threw them and was not a boyscout but that age was not represented in the 70s movies.
    Then there is the bronze age in which cheesines was not that heavy handed and finally The Modern Age of Comic Books which depicted a superman who is some occasions had to kill being this the most difficult decission in his life to protect the innocents and himself… Guess what? Man of steel is mostly based on the last comic book ages of superman, bronze and modern.

    so that goes as this:
    General Audiences does not know about the origins and material source.
    Man of steel is accurate to the source but the people who does not nothng aboutt it belive that donner wrote the comic books.

    There have been many authors who depicts a Superman who worries more about making the hard decision of kill to protect the human life when there is no more option:
    -alan moore
    -John byrne
    -Dan jurgens
    -Grant Morrison

  29. leo says:

    hell if your idea of life is to have superman killing/destroying and acting “human”…then I don’t think I want to live in your world..
    I’ll gladly curl up on the couch and pop in the christopher reeves superman version

  30. Tom Morgan says:

    Understand this, Snyder: people aren’t criticizing your film for what it isn’t. They’re criticizing it for what it is, or what they have taken away from the experience. If you couldn’t handle the flack you’re taking, why did you make the movie? Saying that Superman did his fair share of killing in the comic books overlooks that in said comics, the violence was deliberately presented in a less realistic manner than what you’d find in, say, “Man of Steel.” And as far as criticizing the (first two) classic Superman films goes, you’re in need of a massive ego check. Christopher Reeve brought a blend of vulnerability and confidence to the role of Superman/Clark Kent that was lacking in Cavill’s performance (okay, NOW I’m criticizing the film for what it isn’t). Donner and his team labored in their approach to presenting the 1978 Superman film as a three-act play for the screen, elevating the film to an aesthetic which your movie fails to achieve. Don’t be mad at people because they think “Man of Steel” sucks. It didn’t suck. It just pales in comparison to the 1978 version.

  31. leo says:

    the problem is your not making the film for the comic book fan boys ( ergo having to stay true to cannon)…rather your making a film for people who grew up with the christopher reeves movie superman. I can’t make up my mind if your either a moron or just stubborn. People don’t want a “dark” superman!…and using the comic book (that noone has read in years ( superman is really a bottom feeder in terms of issues sold) as your justification for showing extreme violence and death really is a shame. Why would I pay 20 dollars to watch violence and death and omg..”real life” on the big screen? Hell I can stay home and watch that crap for free by turning on the news..
    You sir are a complete idiot..I hope your movie bombs

    • Diana says:

      I see a walking contradiction here, first you say that he is not making a movie for the comicbookfanboys and then you say he is doing it for the people who grew up with the donner’s film… and you call him stubborn? Irony much?

      • ateofi says:

        I’m sorry but who are you to judge that Snyder made Superman faithful to the source material? to which source material – please quote me the title where I can find this version of violent super flying loser that everyone should fear instead of looking up to? You are just like Snyder with your pathetic ramblings!

      • Diana says:

        who decides the movie should be made for the reeves fan’s and not to the comicbooksfans? you?
        ah ok

  32. Mada says:

    See, my big gripe over MOS wasn’t the violence level.

    It was that the amount of action, violence, and explosions pretty much drowned out the overall message of hope and optimism he’s supposed to inspire.

    Would it really have killed the movie to get some shots of him near the end flying around and helping rebuild Metropolis?

  33. cwebb2327 says:

    Man of Steel looked more like a Godzilla movie…destroying a city for your favorite fight scenes is for people who either don’t know how to tell a story or are making a monster movie… and rely on special effects and explosions to try to hold interest. Other than the fireworks, MOS was dull, lifeless, humorless, not to mention a fundamental plot change regarding Lois knowing his identity. Maybe Synder would be better served focusing on why Reeve’s first movie STILL resonates almost 35 years later.

  34. Nick says:

    Watchmen was a horrible adaptation. He removed realistic violence and added fart jokes. We like well written and directed films, and if you are remaking something, you better do it better than the last guy.

  35. Damian says:

    Mr. Snyder – the problem isn’t that people are clinging to the Chris Reeve/Dick Donner version so much as to the idea of what Superman is or supposed to me – yes, from the comics. Superman was always the ultimate “boy scout” – the all America ideal etc. The perfect foil to Bruce Wayne/Batman which I hope you figure out in time for your next film.

    No — alas the main problem with Man of Steel was that is was kind of a crap film with a horrible script and no concept of how to portray Superman — even if you were trying to tell a different – “more modern” and realistic version.

    Lets look at what Superman at his basic core is:

    –Alien from another world with great powers.

    Ok you got that – even with a very convoluted and unnecessary backstory on Krypton. (And seriously what was with the “Jedi Ghost” Jor-El on the ship guiding Lois around? Who came up with that brilliant and thrilling scene?)

    –Superman believes in truth, justice and the American way. The protector of earth and it’s peoples. Basically an earthbound God that saves people.

    Okay you totally failed with that. He didn’t even save his own father! I know what you were going for there — Pa Kent trying to instill how important it was for Clark to keep his identity secret etc. (Not that that seems to be a big concern since in your film it seems that everyone in Smallville already knows about Clark – the bus, the school etc) But that was something that Superman – or Superboy as the case maybe — would never do. Sit ideally by as a tornado kills his father while Pa is saving a dog? WTF were you thinking? Seriously? So f-ing bad. Whoever wrote that should be fired and never allowed to even look at comic book material ever again let alone be involved in making film adaptations of them. And you shot that?

    Back to the Donner/Reeve version — remember how Pa Kent died in that? Heart attack. Natural causes. Clark – even with all my great powers, I couldn’t save him. See — that is a scene that has impact. Jesus. This is basic storytelling.

    –Superman is looked at with great love by all of mankind. He’s our protector.

    Well failed on this too in a MAJOR WAY. Lets look at where Superman is at the end of Man of Steel. The world had no idea of his existence till Zod arrived and forced him to coming out of hiding. So basically the greatest disaster in the history of the world – an alien invasion and the destruction of the planet and all it’s people — and it turns out he is one of those very aliens – and the reason they are destroying the planet – and just decides to turn against them and help us. Thanks I guess?

    So basically Superman is looked at by the entire planet as the instigator of greatest threat the world has ever known — his mere presence here almost caused the destruction of everything — all this long before anyone knows the name Superman or he saves one person or does anything to help mankind.

    (Back to Donner/Reeve — Superman was Superman – loved and admired the world over — long before Zod arrives.)

    How are you going to get to “Superman” from the end of Man of Steel? You’re not. People would never trust him or look at him the way the character is supposed to. Not to mention the wonton destruction of major cities that he was the partial cause of that everyone talks about as a criticism of the film already.

    –Superman’s secret identity of reporter Clark Kent and relationship with Lois Lane.

    Well you pretty much messed that up as well. I know you or Nolan or whoever thought – no one would buy Superman wearing glasses would fool anyone. So lets just have Lois find everything out before he even becomes Superman. Great solution.

    But you know what? We are already suspending our disbelief – a man from another planet is here and he can fly! So buying the glasses we are totally fine with. That was a poor choice.

    Now you don’t have the Clark/Lois/Superman interaction which is a mainstay of what makes the source material.

    So anyway I could go on and on — but there are some many things wrong from a story level with Man of Steel — don’t you dare to try to put blame on Reeve or on people’s fond remembrances of his Superman. You and your team failed and messed up pretty bad.

    There is a reason this story — and comics in general work — that’s because at their foundation are good stories. So respect that and be true to them. Respect the material. I wish you nothing but the best on the next film. But remember — just because something is different — doesn’t make it better.

    • ateofi says:

      Bravo! My thoughts exactly, “Superman” in this movie is someone people will fear instead of look up to! Because of him Zod destroyed half of the city and wanted to eradicate entire human race – yeah, thanks a lot for coming here siper asshole!! That’s the biggest failure of this movie. and Goyer’s and Snyder’s pathetic ramblings about “vocal minority of fans” that don’t understand them or “people clinging onto Reeve’s Superman” is just embarrasing!!! Everything (well maybe except CGI) about this movie is wrong!! MoS fails to deliver on basic storytelling level, acting, pacing, character development, even music is forgettable! Zimmer composed few music themes which he constantly reworks! It fails to inspire positive feelings – the only thing you think of Kal El at the end is “what a reckless and arogant douchebag”!

    • Frank says:

      As a lifelong Superman fan (learned to read reading Superman comics in 76) I couldn’t have said it better myself. What ticks me off is the “Superman kills in the comics” comment. He has done it ONCE in his 75 year history, and it screwed him up so bad he ended up getting a split personality and exiling himself into space due to his guilt. He’s not Wolverine for God’s sake, he’s Superman!

  36. Dave-Phoenix says:


    The criticism of Man of Steel is because it morphed Superman into an an alien invasion movie.

    I though I was watching a reboot of War of the Worlds, rather than a Superman movie.

    • Don Lucking says:

      Sorry to have to state the obvious so bluntly here, but all of those below (like Diana who condescendingly repeatedly uses the term “kids”) who are pining for the Superman of yester year are just dinosaurs plain and simple. The guy below draws the parallel w/ the various Bonds over the years and he is spot on. But please, please stop trying to tell me it’s about the comics or source material. Comics are written for kids and they always (especially in DC where all the characters are ridiculously powerful) have diminished the collateral damage of fights between ultra powerful characters. In fact, that was something of a draw back for me and I liked when we saw comics (and cartoons later, someone very astutely mentioned the showdown between Captain Marvel and Supes that leveled a city) start to deal with the idea of collateral damage and even attempting to hold the heroes responsible for such. And don’t even get me started on Superman’s disrespect for personal property LOL.. He’ll toss a car at someone in a minute. Everytime I think like dude what if that was my car LOL

      Now there are some legitimate concerns w/ MOS but it was largely a GREAT movie and an awesome reboot and modernization of the Superman story. The departure from some of the normal fixtures was a little wierd (like Lois knowing who he was from the beginning) but it was interesting and I was okay with it. I did have a problem with Superman destroying the genesis chamber since what was always a part of Superman was a longing to be a part of something and a connection to his homeworld. I think it wasn’t true at all to his character to essentially condemn future Kryptonians to death. However, in terms of the rest, he hit the right notes, truth, justice and the American way.. after all he was born in Kansas. “Doesn’t get much more American than that.”

      Anyway many people have already stated this, but let me crystallize it… for us “kids” the cheesy “can you read my mind” superman was good for its time, but it will never play for todays audience. Just break out those old vhs tapes (that I’m sure you still have) and watch it again and stay off of message boards.

  37. james raytner says:

    Too… many… Marvel…Kool-Aid…drinkers… here… ugh.

    • Tom Morgan says:

      “for us “kids” the cheesy “can you read my mind” superman was good for its time, but it will never play for todays audience.”

      It isn’t your place (or mine or anybody else’s) to say such a reckless, irresponsible thing. Do you even know the first thing about cinema? The only reason you think it won’t play with “today’s audience” is because it requires two things lacking in the contemporary world:

      a) attention span
      b) imagination

      “Man of Steel” may capture the attention, but “Superman: The Movie” captures the imagination.

  38. Jeff Chapman says:

    I thought MOS was OK, but his comments here are pretty immature. He’s basically saying: “My movie was great, and everyone else is wrong for not liking it!”

  39. Michael Beusch says:

    This is total crap. The original Superman comics, created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, presented Superman as a protector of the innocent and an unabashed defender of freedom who did everything in his power to save the people of his adopted home planet from all evildoers. The dark side of Superman came out more recently along to keep up with the industry wide efforts to made superheroes darker and more brooding. The Christopher Reeve Superman movies tapped into Siegel and Shuster’s original vision — that’s why they’re still so beloved. The city smashing orgy of violence seen in Man of Steel is a bastardization of the Superman legend and not, despite Zach Synder’s claims, an homage to it. The Man of Steel Superman preaches the “save humanity” mantra, but he destroys most of Metropolis and probably kills thousands of people battling General Zod. Snyder can preach all he wants to about his film reflecting the world as it really is. However, the Christopher Reeve Superman films gave us the hero that we all wish this world had. The hell with reality — when I see a Superman movie, I want a sense of hope and not the ugly, mindless violence portrayed in Man of Steel.

    • james raytner says:

      Highly doubt you are a comic reader? Where did you get your info, Wikipedia?

      • james raytner says:

        If both of you gents paid real attention to the movie, the “city smashing” that truly involves Clark/Kal was when he was pummelled by Zod — and the physics involved to demonstrate the level of power was awesome! This is something the rest of the other comic book movies failed to do…The rest of the destruction (majority) were done by the villains’ machines… And before you could say ‘bring the fight elsewhere’, it was already established that Zod is already hellbent to destroy humans as a revenge for Kal in spoiling his plan to recreate Krypton in Earth (so no use for Kal to trick Zod to chase him).

        Sorry to say the level of thinking for enjoying DC movies is different from those when watching Marvel movies. It’s not meant as an insult but as a fact that I perceive from the comments here. If you want predictability and less effort to absorb, you would prefer the latter.

      • insulting people as a way of sounding valid in an argument is a sign of desperation, my friend. Read the comic yourself and tell me that’s the same Superman. Read Morrison’s All-Star Superman, which nailed the character to his core on pretty much every single level, including the death of Jonathan, his father. Read that comic, or read Mark Waid’s version of his origin story and get back to me about how the the movie got it right.

      • Michael Beusch says:

        I am a comic reader — that’s why I know that Superman wasn’t created as a city smashing psychopath. Before you preach about my supposed lack of knowledge, try reading the old Superman stories from the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. Then, maybe, you’ll be less apt to sneer at what I have to say.

  40. chris says:

    I just saw a Justice League Unlimited cartoon episode where Superman and Captain Marvel went toe to toe and destroyed most of Lexor City in the process……and did I mention, this was in a children’s cartoon on Saturday morning? With that said, I’m all for more realism and destruction in superhero movies….I’m just glad Snyder didn’t use Superman’s cellophane “S” throwing powers against Zod in Man of Steel lol =)

  41. Brian says:

    I was a fan of Superman from the time I was 3 up until this New 52 and Man of Steel. It ended with new 52 and Man of Steel put the nail in the coffin for me. I do not just cling to Christopher Reeve’s Superman. I cling to comics I grew up on where he did not kill and he was the light of the world. I clinged too the 2nd greatest Superman of them all from tv’s Smallville Tom Welling. I loved Smallville it was iconic. It filled in the gaps between him coming to Earth as a Baby and becoming Superman as an adult. It did reflect the world too a point and you sure could see it happening in your neighborhood. But it retained the American Pie quality it was created in 76 years ago. It was amazing storytelling once you got passed the meteor freaks. Man of Steel does not have that. I love Marvel Studios and the X-Men movies. Seeing them build up to the Avengers is vintage classic storytelling. I loved those movies and could not wait too see what happened next with this group. I have seen the Winter Solider twice now and I have to say. Marvel has the edge because when Cap 3 comes out, it will be Kryponite for Man of Steel 2. Why do I say this cause Kevin Fiege and Marvel Studios have an epic plan. They weren’t thinking 1 movie at a time they planned 10 movies ahead. That number keeps growing. Too me each movie leaves you thirsty for me. Like whats gonna happened to Agents of Shield now that Hydra has been brought to the surface? What is the revelation gonna do the the Avengers and Post Age of Ultron? Everytime you see the new movies you are left with whats gonna happen next. Nick Fury showing up at the end of Iron Man with the Avengers Initiative. The collective gasp I heard at the Drive in when I saw it! I am like this is gonna be a rush. Man of Steel does not do that for me! If I was doing Superman I would modernize the Donner Superman story to fit the context of the 21st century and retain the Americana Apple Pie. Man of Steel 2 has too many stars and too many heroes and it will fail.

    • A Super Fan says:

      Well put, and I agree. Smallville showed how you can successfully modernize and update the character without destroying the core values that make it worth while.

      If they made the movies a continuation of that, the way the Marvel people have created universal continuity in their projects, DC / Warner Bros. Would have a great juggernaut. It takes a studio exec with vision to push it through and a collaborative team to make it happen, but Marvel has shown it can be done!

    • james raytner says:

      Having Hydra infiltrate Shield is ludicrous. Haven’t they learned in the WW II fiasco in TFA that got Dr. Erskine killed? It’s totally juvenile writing and MOS writing is leagues better than this. Of course, you wouldn’t get this unless you read both Marvel and DC comics for a long time.

      • ateofi says:

        I’m sorry what? Writing in MoS is better than in CA2? You mean the ridiculous writing of Krypton backstory where Kryptonians know the planet is goind to be destroyed and just stay there to die? You mean the writing for Zod – who is absolute failure as a villain. He cannot even hold on to a dying planet for 10 minutes before it is taken away from him? You mean the writing where Clark let’s his father die in tornado? Or maybe the writing where Lois is everywhere even though it doesn’t make any sense? Dear Lord, some fanbboys live in some sort of Matrix !

  42. CNN is Krack says:

    I’m surprised the people of Metropolis didn;t kick Superman out for all the destruction HE caused.

  43. Joseph Patrick O'Malley says:

    I think the reason people are upset, or rather why I am upset, is because the violence is supported by such a piss poor script. To watch that many people die in a film where the themes and ethos of the ones doing the destruction seldom rise above a first grade reading level or a kindergarden understanding of the world is…yes, frustrating. If he had made a better film, people would be lauding him as a genius.

    • james raytner says:

      What would you have done to improve it? Superman Returns WAS already a Donner tribute and it tanked.

      • david monaghan says:

        Who are you, some Zach butt kisser? You are constantly pushing Snyder’s agenda, for what reason? You think Zach is a good director? Hell, Christopher Reeve stood tall, and was twice the man as Superman that Snyder’s creation is. Snyder’s total destruction of Metropolis, Smallville and surrounding areas was over the top, as it was in Avengers. I see DC’s utter failure of SvB, or Superman II as imminent. DC and WB are complete morons. Marvel has a vision that will set industry standards that DC/Warners will not be able to compete with. Eventually, there will be an end to any Superman movie due to the incompetence of bad writing, sloppy directors and “personal visions” of what they feel Superman is. As to your comment of the slim numbers of diehard fans, you are so wrong. I don’t know who you represent, but I doubt that you have ever attended a ComicCon. Superman vs Batman will be a HUGE disappointment. Like someone else stated, too many stars, too many other heroes thrown for good measure and no real point to the story. The reason that the Cat, the Bat and the Penguin was a letdown…too many things going on at once and the story line went south. I see this happening with the next Superman movie…too many details, too little time to explore all the backstories, and a disaster of a film. I’d spend all of my money on Marvel, at this point, then watching another idiot ruining a childhood icon.

  44. B Gates says:

    Keep doing what your doing. Man of Steel was solid movie making. Always feeling good about super hero movies is not what I want. Dark Knight had realism and I believe that Man of Steel shared in that darkness that is our world. That is why we love super hero movies in the first place.

  45. kenmandu says:

    Superman is a good guy.. Get it. Not some hideous dark force with self-esteem problems from a pathetic graphic novel.

    • james raytner says:

      Do you think its better to portray a person as cheerful/cheesy/happy-go-lucky when he has no clue why he was sent to Earth in the first place? The self-esteem ‘issues’ is part of being “human” growing up and Kal cannot just ‘google’ it to find the answers.

    • Art says:

      I would have to agree with you.

    • Diana says:

      You should read some comicbooks then kid.
      You know those things were superman was created?
      Gosh, kids these days

      • RonBlack13 says:

        Yeah, created 76 years ago. Audiences are constantly changing to reflect the state of the world at any given time. What worked in 1938 isn’t necessarily going to work now. I’m glad the Man of Steel gave Superman a more contemporary origin story.

  46. If Snyder truly feels that people are “clinging” to the Christopher Reeves version of Superman, maybe he should have presented another version of Superman that would make people WANT to forget the Reeves version. Clearly, that hasn’t happened. And with Batman, Wonder Woman, etc. crowding out the next movie, there’s not going to be much time for characterization. Not that Snyder is big on that anyway.
    Whatever happened to Superman being fun and heroic and being the “light to show the way?” If Superman is too bogged down in Snyder’s “want(ing) to show the violence is real, people get killed or get hurt and it’s not fun or funny,” no wonder it’s only scoring 59% critical and 79% audience approval on Rotten Tomatoes.

  47. Jurry B says:

    I… I think I figured it out. Zach Snyder is Superboy Prime depowered! It all makes sense now. Not taking responsibility for fucking up and it’s always someone else’s fault. It all makes sense now!

    But seriously. Man of Steel is not a horrendous or awful movie. But it’s not a good one either. Not just because how Superman is depicted. It’s how the story is told. Never mind the plot holes and weak plot threads. Never mind Superman not truly be the beacon of hope he needs to be and basically is. He can become the beacon later, when he establishes himself as a hero.

    No, where the movie falls flat on it’s ass is the jumpy, flash back and forward, choppy narrative. The reason Avengers Assemble was a great movie is because it’s FUN to watch. Wedon knows how to entertain his audience. THAT is what they came for. A fun romp with a logical and chronologically correct story. A to Z, beginning, middle and ending. Snyder’s movie was all over the place, I had a hard time following story because it jumped back and forth to past, future, past, present, near past, and so on. If people don’t get what’s going on, they tune out.

    Avengers Assemble also had a sense of humor. The scenes with both asgardians (Thor and then Loki) where very entertaining, The whole cast had great chemistry and the whole thing was just a fun romp to watch.

    Man of Steel was downtrodden, dark, gloomy and depressing. That will work for a Batman movie, not for a Superman one. There was only a bleak future, a looming threat, a Father figure holding him back because of fear. The script was weak at best. There was a far better story that could be told, even if you wanted to do it realistically. Show Superman that inaction has consequences, show him that he, and only he, can save this world by becoming it’s champion. That by becoming a shining beacon of hope, justice and honor he can lead the way to a united world. He should not shy away from ending threats to our world, even if he has the kill the villain, but show your audience, in word and image, that there is no other way. Because then, and only then, does the modern Superman take a life.

    It was a weak story, crappy editing and a turd of a narrative that made MoS a weak movie. And that’s mostly on Snyder in this case.

  48. Carlos J says:

    I am not going to get into a comic book battle with anybody but I like the movie. The Man of Steel was more really then the other superman movies. Don’t get me wrong I think Christopher Reeve ( R.I.P) was a good superman for that era. Killing a villain in a superhero movie is the way to go. I hope Zack can do the Batman vs. Superman the same way.

    • Diana says:

      Most of the kids that comment on here do not know a thing about comic books and superman anyway.

      They just think that Donner’s Superman is the Bible of Superman comics, when in fact it was just a cheesy interpretation according to the time it was made.

      So yes, no comic book batle when all this kids do not know nothing about Superman.

  49. Guillermo says:

    Man Of Steel was worth watching. A decent blockbuster. I really don’t think Fans from the original movies care that Superman killed Zod, I just think they wanted a better movie. Whether is it hurts anyone, the best Superman movies have already been made. Zach Snyder gave it a shot, but I think it only struck a chore with fans of CGI and current generation. The original movies took notice of everyone. Thats not to say someday someone will do it all over again, but MoS did not.

    • Diana says:

      The Best superman for the 70’s and 80’s generation : )
      Each generation has his character…
      My father thinks Moore is the greatest James Bond and that his 007 movies are the best; to me the best interpretation of Bond is Craig and Skyfall the best 007 movie ever.

      My aunt thinks Nicholson is the best Joker and the Burton Movies are the best while for me Hedger is the ultimate Joker and the Batman – Nolan movies are the best Batman/gotham movies we will ever see.

      My point is, we cannot generalize and think that if “my version” is great to me it has to be for everyone.

      My two cents

  50. rocky-o says:

    …and to all those who mention how much money the film made…listen…you could break box-office records because everyone wants to see your film, but…if everyone comes out of the theatre saying it sucked, the money don’t mean nothing…

    • Diana says:

      well let me explain you how things work little buddy, if a movie makes a boat load of crazy money then it means something… it means a lot of people saw it… and the same people if it was actually that bad would have given the movie a bad word of mouth to friends and family alike lowering the box office of the movie… which did not happen.

      You need to try harder

      • Shaun says:

        Wow. You are snarky, lady.

        The fact is, the movie left a lot of money on the table because it simply was not a good film – and WB knows it, which is why they’re skipping a straight sequel and trying to bulk it up with Batman and Wonder Woman whilst simultaneously attempting to jump start their Justice League franchise (without doing the proper diligence and laying the groundwork the way Marvel has). It’s cheap and smells of desperation.

        The sequel will do less box office. Period.

      • JoeR says:

        Which is exactly what happened with SUPERMAN RETURNS…which was basically a love-letter/retread of the first two Donner films. The MoS film made hundreds of thousands more. Also, let’s not forget this is a reboot…the next movie will make even more, just as the Batman films did. (BATMAN BEGINS only made a bit over 200 million domestic…on a $150 million budget. Nowhere near the money MoS made. Yet they forged onward with their take on the character and DARK KNIGHT made over $530 million. The same will happen for the Superman/Batman flick, I’m sure.

      • Diana says:

        no my son, that is my take on what he said “if everyone comes out of the theatre saying it sucked, the money don’t mean nothing”

      • Dude – REALLY??? That’s your take on box office vs. how good a movie is?

More Film News from Variety