Man of Steel. Nolan Superman Reboot.

He's not criticizing the film because of it's fans. He's criticizing the film because people can seemingly take whatever meaning they want from the film and there will be stuff in there to justify it. It's a film without a core message to it — it has multiple messages that are all jumbled together and you can pretty much pluck out whatever you want to read from the film. I mean, this isn't even "Death of the Author" type stuff — the movie itself is just so jumbled, I can't even recall a straight through-line that happens. (Even the maguffin of the movie is never brought up again after a certain point.)

Basically. Nearly every ideological aspect of the film can be depicted as either side of the argument. Is Sup killing Zod depicted as endorsing killing villains, or against it? Is Pa Kent supposed to be unjust or justified in telling Clark to stay hidden? Are Clark's vigilante actions meant to be disobedience of his dad's orders or fulfillment? Was he ever supposed to save Krypton or never bother?

I think this is consequence of Zod's arrival in the plot having nothing to do with Clark's choices in the first half. His arrival boils down to "Clark unknowingly stepped on the right button", so none of the prior arcs about identity or destiny or personal safety resulted in the second half. As such, these questions are not so much unanswered as they are abruptly left hanging, so they can be answered with anything.

Of all the loose ends BVS attempted to tie up from MOS, it's worth noting that very few of the actual subplots were continued. Is Clark even regretful at all about having to ensure Kryptonian extinction? Jor-El said restoring Krypton was Clark's purpose on Earth but it's come up absolutely no times after Jor-El said it once.

edited 25th Mar '17 2:01:09 AM by Tuckerscreator

I decided to sleep on it before responding immediately. Was originally going to have a much longer post but I'll be as succinct as possible and not overstate my thoughts.

I have found deeper meaning in the silliest episodes of Spongebob Squarepants. That is the greatest privilege the audience has, in finding deeper meaning in art. Whether or not it was intentional on the part of the artist. So yeah, "Your deeper meaning doesn't count because the movie is flawed" is bullshit of the highest degree and I have zero respect for any attempts to justify that stance.

But, once again, that wasn't what he was saying. He was saying that any deeper meaning could be justified (and therefore does count), because the movie is so jumbled. Death of the Author means that the meaning of a work is divorced from the author's intentions, but Man of Steel could have so many meanings, because of the way every scene is presented.

So Mackley, your objection was unnecessary.

And if you ask Garak, the moral of The Boy Who Cried Wolf is to never tell the same lie twice, but that's hardly a fault of the story. It can be argued that BVS is outright explicit with the theme that not even Superman can save everyone, and sometimes saving some people means sacrificing others, as in Jon's tale. In fact this actually ties into MOS, with Jon knowing from personal experience that Clark may endanger himself when helping others. Taking that into account, what father wouldn't do as he did, regarding his son as more important than any random disaster victim around?

I wouldn't say the story is jumbled or that it can be interpreted for any meaning. Rather, I find some fans simply expected other meanings, retreads of established ideas or just plain old sacred cows, and the film developing otherwise wasn't too pleasing. Like, say, does the film endorse killing villains - yeah, it pretty much does. Superman is disturbed by the act, as any normal person would, but it's clearly not an arbitrary boundary he can never turn back from. Ditto Batman still going for kill-shots even when saving Martha - sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. These themes may be controversial, but that doesn't make them ambiguous in the films proper.

edited 25th Mar '17 10:51:11 AM by indiana404

It also points out why these discussions go in circles - no one has any reason to believe their interpretation has no basis.

Nope, still bullshit. Snyder outright said he prefers leaving some things open ended so that people can come to their own conclusion. Complaining that people are still discussing and finding new and different meanings to a film is nonsense. It undermines the very premise of film discussion, what the hell are we doing if not finding previously undiscovered meaning.

And let's be clear, Man of Steel's problems are certainly not because it's a David Lynch-esque "What was THAT about?" confusion.

There's a wide difference between "open ended" and "so jumbled that any interpretation can fit." The first can be good or bad. The second is definitely bad.

Man of Steel, as a movie, is incredibly unfocused. As I said before, even the Maguffin doesn't matter and is outright ignored in the second half of the film. There is no plotline that goes all the way through the entire movie. It is a movie made of a dozen different parts and none of those parts connect with each other.

Yes, one can find and is allowed to find unintended meaning in art. But in doing so one should still keep in mind that unintended meaning is unintended. For instance, the new Jungle Book can be read as an allegory for immigrants who face xenophobic prejudice while simultaneously feeling disconnected from their original culture, but the movie clearly wasn't written with that intention. One can read it how one likes and show how the story supports it, but without authorial clarity, one should not claim that's what the creator actually intended.

And also keep in mind that most works are written with an intentional meaning that is meant to be argued for in the text. What's the new Jungle Book's actual meaning? That nature can co-exist with humans if the law of the jungle is preserved, allegorized through the film's elephants. Man of Steel is much harder to parse, though, because as said earlier it tends to raise arguments and then drop them. The best films that are ambiguous make a clear point about their own ambiguity.

edited 25th Mar '17 2:54:08 PM by Tuckerscreator

Issue is, this interpretation relies on using BVS to interpret MOS. That's not an incorrect thing, but it does show how limited MOS is if it can't rely on itself to clarity its own points. Same thing with the recap of the Metropolis fight in BVS and about critics said it felt like an apology for MOS.

The point of Man Of Steel makes a lot more sense upon realizing that it isn't about Superman at all. Superman is more of a focus character in a story that uses him a plot device.

Man of Steel is about Krypton. It's end, it's legacy, and whether or not it deserves to be reborn - and if so, how it will be reborn. That's why Jor-El and Zod have way more character than anyone else in the movie, while Superman generally feels like he's being led around by the plot rather than having agency of his own, and why most of the story's weight is directed towards the Kryptonian elements than the Earthborne ones.

Superman represents Krypton's legacy and possible salvation: he is the greatest thing they ever created, a messianic figure above both Krypton's faults and humanity's. He is Jor-El's vision for the future. Zod represents the past, of the negative parts of Krypton, attempting to claw their way back and control its future. The entire plot is essentially a battle between Jor-El and Zod's visions, and ultimately gives the answer that old Krypton has to die for its legacy (Superman) to have any worth in the future.

It's a decent idea, but in order to pull it off the movie sacrificed characterization and depth for everything that wasn't specifically about it. It's a movie that's more about the message and icons than it is about the characters, and it shows.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Lovely. Also irrelevant. Just because you also hate Man of Steel doesn't validate what the guy is saying.

To be clear, I agree with the idea as an observation. It is using it as an attack against Man of Steel and it's fans I object to. And if he was just responding to people yelling at him for "not getting it" I would understand that too. But he could make that claim against any movie and I would still call it bullshit.

That theme makes much more sense as the movie's main point, but it's a shame the movie kind of forgets about it after Clark destroys the Genesis Chamber and kills Zod. From there Krypton's legacy is basically never brought up again, as well as not in BVS. Even just one scene of Clark reflecting on abandoning Jor-El's directive (and it seems, Pa Kent's too) would've tied up the story much better.

No, I don't think that claim can be made about every movie. There are many movies with clear enough and supported messages that it's very hard to argue against them otherwise. For instance, trying to argue that The Winter Soldier thinks mass surveillance is a good thing, or that Zootopia claims only "mean people" do racism.

edited 25th Mar '17 3:33:00 PM by Tuckerscreator

I wouldn't say that, not regarding Superman in particular. He ends MOS on a pretty high note. He also says verbatim that he wants to help on his own terms, neither being forced into the fray, nor shying away from it. Neither being a fan of lethal action, nor abstaining from it when necessary. That's what I see as the theme of the whole film - what kind of place Superman has in the modern world. In that regard, I find the story to be pretty self-contained.

And just because you love Man of Steel doesn't invalidate what the guy is saying. Again: the movie is so jumbled, with almost no resolution to any of the flashbacks or plotlines that nearly anything can be read into them. This is not true of most movies.

^^^ The argument is that people wouldn't be searching for deeper meaning in MOS if it was more clear on its own themes. It's really not about the quality of the movie or the deeper meanings being discussed.

^ How can you be on the internet and make that claim seriously? About half the articles on Cracked are "Hidden meanings in 30 year old classic movies." Any movie of relative popularity will generate those kind of discussions. And most movies lose track of their themes by the end. Civil War ended with a bro slap fight rather than actually resolving anything about accountability.

" that concept still doesn't work because Bruce already know he have a mother"

yes and no, Bruce just talk as concept and without any shade of empathy, just like how many talk about shouting the border to stop refuges without thinking were this refuges come from, Bruce divorce the idea of Clark having parent who care for him until it hit him.

"Batman's issue with Superman is more about being a political rival, with loads of subtext with The War on Terror and Realpolitik. When Alfred says Superman isn't their enemy Bruce doesn't argue, he places his emphasis on what already happened and what could happen"

THERE IS a element of racist or a more likey paranoia, the idea of a "other" that come and bring chaos in any moment

"Yeah, remember when this was at least somewhat unrealistic? "

Yeah, what it surprise me the most is that of all version of luthor, Bv S one will be the most realistic.

" I hope the upcoming DC movies have a bit more levity."

key word here, levity can mean a lot, from superman enjoy time with Lois to him being happy to safe someone, just saying because a lot of people seen to implied it have to have quip and jokes which in a way annoy me(hello doctor strange)

" As such, these questions are not so much unanswered as they are abruptly left hanging, so they can be answered with anything."

I disagree, Zod arrival change the situation because now Clark dosent have the luxury of showing whatever he liked, without zod arrival the movie would be closer to Spiderman than Superman, here the question become another "if people dosent trust you, will you do th right thing?" Bv S explore what happen with Batman and Luthor wanting to destroy clark

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

That's because MOS is trying to be this big artsy movie about falls and godlike beings and messianic symbolism, and then incidentally is also trying to be the movie that launches a cinematic superhero universe. It's possible to do both at once, but MOS didn't really try that hard to do so: it leans very heavily on the side of the former.

But once that plot is over, they suddenly switch gears entirely to a more superhero theme and setting, and we rapidly get him becoming protector of Metropolis/Earth, Earth joining the Planet, yadda yadda. Krypton very suddenly becomes as a regular superhero movie would portray it: as Superman's Owen and Beru, gone in the backstory but not important in the present.

Still I remember walking out of the theatre after watching MOS and wondering how it was going to set up a universe from that - if I didn't know better, I'd even think it was initially conceived as a standalone.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Initial development was just a standalone Superman movie, but the genesis of the DCEU was in discussing how to close the film and someone said Batman should receive a shipment of Kryptonite. They were initially leaning towards Metallo for the sequel, but found it irresistible to have Batman as the villain.

I think that is better, metallo is just to forgettable to matter at any rate.

Kinda, something I have said before is that while Marvel does a "chararter before story" DCEU is the oposite: a story before chararter, Superman dosent learn much as follow the story of other people and trying to disern what is best which as result make him a ping pong protagonist, stumble between Zod and Jor EL without a clear answer, that have is strong point and is flaw and it kinda show.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Those are all about hidden meanings and often they are joke articles. Man of Steel doesn't even have any blatant meanings that I can understand — any meaning you would get from it can be contradicted by something else.

Not good movies.

The theme of Civil War was never accountability — that was the plot of the movie, but the theme was always the relationship between Captain America and Iron Man. That's why the very first scene of the movie is Bucky killing Tony's dad. That very first scene sets up the very last fight. The theme is completely there throughout the film.

edited 25th Mar '17 8:01:47 PM by alliterator

Joy, redefining terms to suit your argument. Deeper meaning, hidden meaning, core meaning, all interchangeable. And for one, plot and character are the same. A poor plot harms character. The very fact we are disagreeing on this kind of already proves the point I'm making about discussing themes and elements in a story.

If you're really that confused about Man of Steel's Central Theme, here is a simple breakdown with prominent quotes supporting it.

• Alien from a failed society lives in secret on an adopted world. He doesn't fit in well but wants to help however he can. "For some he was a guardian angel. For others a cipher, a ghost who never fit in."
• Is given a chance to reveal himself as an emissary of that world. "They will stumble, they will fall. In time, they will join you in the sun."
• Given a choice between resurrecting the people he came from or destroying his adopted world. "You destroy this ship you destroy Krypton." "Krypton had its chance!" Admittedly not a very hard decision, but still one that made him hesitate.
• Embraces his first steps as a public figure and protector. "What makes you think they'll listen." "I don't know General, I'll just have to trust you."
• Seeds of him becoming accepted are planted. "This man is not our enemy." "It's the alien, it's what they're calling him." and, most importantly, the last line of the film "Welcome to the Planet."

To make it even simpler, the central meaning of the film is someone who has to choose between the world he grew up in but never really connected with and reviving a nearly extinct race and the only ones who could really understand him.

I'm not redefining anything. There's a difference between the central theme and the "hidden meaning." We've been talking about the themes of the movie, it was you who brought up the "hidden meanings" that people joke about finding in movies.

No, they really are not.

You could see that as the theme, but then again, you could easily see the theme as "A man discards his chosen role and becomes a savior" or "A man embraces his chosen role and becomes a savior" or "A man is forced to kill in order to become a savior."

Again: the movie is so jumbled that ALL OF THESE WORK.

Hell, you say that Clark "never really connected" but he did connect with his adopted parents. And while he could have revived his race, he has no idea if they would understand him either. So clearly, your theme is subjective as well.

But there is a theme to Man of Steel. You said there wasn't. Contradicting themes are irrelevant, because anyone can come up with a counter theme interpretation. Yes, you see the theme of Civil War as being about the relationship between Tony and Steve. I see the the theme of the heroes arguing over how they take accountability for their actions. It's all subjective, and it's all equally valid. Hence why I call the original argument bullshit.