Man of Steel (Movie)

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. I'm LeaderVladimir1993 and with Superman: Legacy hitting theaters in 2025, I'm wondering whether that movie, or any Superman material for that matter, can be embraced by general audiences.

Now, before you rush to your keyboards and say "of course it can! How can you ask that? Superman is a cultural icon!", please hear me out. I know some of you will deliver a positive answer because, let's face it, we're fans of DC, but I felt inspired to write this post after watchiing videos discussing the difficulties of adapting Mickey Mouse and Star Trek into film. Much like Superman, Mickey and Star Trek are also considered icons of American culture and the owners of those IPs have faced difficulties in making movies based on those IPs.

I also felt inspired into writing this post by the smashing (see what I did there?) success of The Super Mario Bros Movie, recognized for adapting a character more popular than Mickey into the big screen. The Super Mario Bros Movie was successful with men, women, children and adults. It was a summer blockbuster in the style of the Marvel Cinematic Universe or Transformers, with enormous mainstream appeal.

If Mario, a character that rivals Superman in cultural relevance, enjoys mainstream success, can Superman do the same? It's true that Superman: The Movie shot the franchise into the stratosphere, but let's face it, the tastes and interests of audiences have changed since 1978. I'm legimitely wondering what kind of chance does Superman have in hitting the mainstream.

I'm not gonna pull any punches about this: Superman is not as popular as he used to be. Yes, he is still popular, but Batman and Spider-Man sell more merchandise than Superman does. If Superman is to regain his mainstream popularity, a movie is easily the best way to do it.

Don't get me wrong. I love Superman and Lois and My Adventures with Superman, but those two shows are made for very distinct audiences. The former is a family drama and the latter is an action series with elements of romantic comedy and shonen anime. Those audiences are incompatible.

We also have to look at Superman's previous cinematic outings. Despite its positive critical reception, Superman Returns did not hit $500M worldwid. Alan F. Horn was quoted saying that the movie would have made a much higher profit if it tried to appeal to the younger male crowd, i.e. pre-teen boys, and writer Michael Dougherty wanted to add more action in the sequel.

While Superman Returns delivered a humanized, downright conservative portrayal of the titular superhero, Man of Steel went for a more action-packed direction. Superman became an action hero in the style of Captain America, Optimus Prime and even Batman. Despite the mixed reception from fans and critics, Man of Steel would go on to make $668M worldwide.

I'm not here to talk about the benefits or disadvantages of turning Superman into a generic action hero. I'm just trying to discuss what Superman needs to do so he can be embraced by general audiences again. What can you do with Superman? Superman does not have the same problem Mickey does. Unlike Disney, DC is not afraid to make a movie that runs the risk of tarnishing their beloved icon and his reputation, which is a really stupid reason to not make a movie, if you ask me.

Superman is a highly versatile character that can be adapted into any kind of story, as we have seen in countless movies and TV shows, but considering the reluctance of people to see Superman as anything more than a generic Boy Scout, it would seem that he doesn't take to reinvention as well as Batman does. Since Superman is expected to behave in a certain way, it seems difficult to make a movie that could develop him as a character and give him a meaningful conflict to overcome.

We, as a society, are partially to blame for DC's reluctance to experiment with Superman beyond comics and, to a lesser extent, TV shows. Thanks the movies, Superman is mostly remembered either as a vanilla goody-two-shoes, an overpowered demigod and, to a lesser extent, a blank slate of an everyman. He just isn't allowed to get darker or more mature like Batman does, and this is coming from someone who actually enjoyed the DC Extended Universe.

Ever since the failure of Justice League 2017, DC has moved away from darker stories with Superman and stayed with the limits of family-friendly, light-hearted stories like Superman and Lois or My Adventures with Superman, and that obviously limits Superman's potential as an effective protagonist in a dramatic story. That's kinda disappointing because we don't allow creators to display their full potential and explore new stories with Superman.

How do you make a Superman movie? Do you focus on Superman and his journey to develop into something we haven't seen before or do you focus the movie on a secondary character, maybe Lois, who is transformed by his/her experience with Superman? Does Superman even need to evolve as a character or does he simply need to trigger another character's evolution? We could discuss these questions all day long and we wouldn't reach a definitive answer.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see till 2025 to see what James Gunn has in store for us. As a fan of Superman, I always look forward to my best to suppoert him in whatever he does, but for now, we still have a lot of content we can enjoy. It's true that Batman and Spidey are more popular than Superman these days, but if Superman didn't have dedicated fans, he wouldn't have two successful TV show or a cult following on his recent movies. Superman means a lot to those who love him, maybe now more than ever. Whether we like it or not, Superman will always be with us.

Well, that's all I have for you this time. Now, it's your turn to tell me what do you think about this. Do you think Superman: Legacy can help the Man of Steel achieve mainstream appeal again? If so, what do you think that movie should do? This is meant to be a friendly discussion, so please be polite and argue your points in a civilized manner. We are all fans of DC and, hopefully, Superman here. We just see things differently.

So leave a comment below, thanks for your time and stay safe out there!

On August 20, 1974, Amy Adams, the actress for Lois Lane in the DC Extended Universe, was born!

Happy birthday to such a fine and talented actress! Thank you for all your marvelous work throughout the years and may you continue living the dream!

Hello, ladies and gentlemen! I'm Leader Vladimir and I'm here to talk about my love for the Superman from the DC Extended Universe.

This particular Superman has resonated so well with me, thanks in large part to Henry Cavill's amazing talent as an actor. He brings Superman a level of moral complexity and emotional nuance not seen since the DC Animated Universe. This Superman breaks the "goody-two-shoes boy scout" stereotype that has plagued the character for a very long time and instead shows us, the viewers, the struggle of doing the right thing in a world that constantly scrutinizes Superman's actions.

Henry portrays Superman as a very human character and I think Superman has very human responses and very genuine reactions to his experiences, and for some, he might remind them of how they went through or got through some struggles of their own or some dark times. Since Henry himself has expressed interest in putting on the cape again, I thought now would be as good a time as any to talk about why I love DCEU Superman.

Personal choice is an important theme in Superman's journey throughout what I call "the Superman saga" of the DCEU. Each film presents Superman with a choice: he can either accept he has a personal stake in the main conflict of each movie and get involved, or he can just go home and hope for things to magically sort themselves out. His fathers, Jor-El and Jonathan, always told Clark that while he had great potential and a special destiny, they wouldn't be something that Clark would achieve easily. He would have to actively to choose to develop that potential and pursue that destiny. By accepting the mantle of Superman and choosing to help people despite the personal discomfort it might bring him, Clark truly proves himself to be the son of his two fathers.

And this is probably the point where a lot of you will criticize, call me horrible things and ask me, in the most aggressive way possible, how is it possible for me, or anyone else for that matter, to like this "fake" or "inferior" Superman who will never be considered be one of the all-time greats like Christopher Reeve, George Reeves or Tim Daly. That's fine, that's perfectly fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting and expecting different things out of the same character and the same franchise. We're all Superman fans here, we just see things differently.

The truth is that I love DCEU Superman is because while crafting his story, Henry and Zack Snyder chose "confrontational and compelling" over "safe and boring". They decided to make this particular version of Superman more fallible and human compared to other incarnations of the character. I myself enjoyed that this particular Superman was created for the purpose of fighting this supremely annoying misconception of Superman being an overpowered, unrelatable god whose only function is to inspire people to be and do good and that has no emotion beyond eagerness to do the right thing.

The DCEU is ultimately about the power of DC stories and I love how Zack and Henry used the legend of Superman to try to understand why Superman matters so much to us. While there are fans who see the DCEU movies as betrayals to Superman and his community, the stories within those movies are what so dramatically effective in achieving the DCEU's thematic goals. The whole point of the Superman saga is to show that, maybe, the legend of Superman isn't necessarily best used as an escapist power fantasy because, despite his feats and accomplishments, Superman isn't perfect and he will always have flaws, and when those flaws are exposed, they will always feel like a betrayal to the ideals and expectations we have placed upon the character and his community. Instead, the DCEU uses the legend of Superman as a tool to galvanize people behind a cause and make people believe in that cause. If an insecure, rookie Superman can choose to save a world that fears and hates him and then inspire others to follow him into the light, then maybe there's hope for us. All of us.

Ultimately, this all comes down to personal taste, like most things, really. I'm not demanding that you like DCEU Superman. I totally get why Superman fans, both long-time and new, prefer more idealized Supermen like Christopher Reeve or Tim Daly and why their respective stories as so highly regarded as they are, but just because they are the Supermen you prefer, please don't suggest that the fans that like DCEU Superman are in any way fans of a less legitimate kind of Superman because, whether you prefer an idealized and highly cheerful Superman or a flawed and more human Superman, these are all official and valid versions of Superman.

We have to remember that Warner Bros. and DC Comics are not singular entities that have remained mostly unchanged throughout the passage of time, but rather, publically owned companies with ever-changing infrastructures and hierarchies and that they operate within the highly competitive market that is the entertainment industry. In our modern society, people have virtually unlimited forms of entertainment at their disposal, which means Warner and DC have to make a lot of... controversial decisions to grab their audiences' attention for more than just a few microseconds. I may not agree with some of their decisions, but I do understand them.

Superman and his community have been around for 80+ years, which means Warner and DC must continously reinvent them, deconstruct them and reconstruct them in order to make them more interesting and appealing for modern audiences, lest Superman and his community will become parodies of themselves. As far as Warner Bros and DC Comics are concerned, DCEU Superman is a valid and legitimate interpretation of the character, so why should we believe otherwise? In 2013, Henry, Zack and their co-workers were tasked by Warner and DC to make a movie that would revitalize Superman for a modern era and honor his legacy. Whether they succeeded or not is a matter of opinion, but DCEU Superman's an official and legitimate version of the character that has endured the passage of 80+ years is not.

Well, that's all I have for you this time. Now, it's your turn to tell me what do you think about all of this. As always, this is the start of a dialogue and you have my thanks for participating in it and for taking the time to read what I had to say. Posting my opinions in this website doesn't make them any greater or more valid than yours and I'm just glad to have this privilege and this honor to share my opinions with you, although I do admit I did hijack this particular topic a little bit. The only thing I ask of you is to deliver your opinions in a polite and civilized manner. We're all Superman fans here, we just see things differently. So leave a comment below, thanks for your time and stay safe out there!

Hello, everyone. I spent some time thinking about Superman's portayal within the DC Extended Universe and I found him a bit too similar to Luke Skywalker from the Star Wars original trilogy.

Both stories are representations of the hero's journey, which George Lucas directly used to craft Luke's story. No, the comparisons are not perfect, and even if they are, I don't think Zack Snyder copied what Lucas did while creating Superman's story for the movie, but they still work to a certain extent. Think about it:

In the first chapter (Man of Steel/A New Hope), the hero (Clark/Luke) has a normal life as a farmer until an old mentor (Jor-El/Obi-Wan Kenobi) reveals to him that he has a great destiny. The hero discovers his powers and embarks on a journey to defeat a villain (General Zod/Darth Vader) who is connected to his family and has a weapon of mass destruction (World engine/Death Star) at his disposal. The first act ends with the hero destroying the villain's weapon and helping a resistance group (U.S. military/Rebel Alliance) to victory.

The second chapter (Batman v Superman/The Empire Strikes Back) is absolutely brutal to the hero, breaking him physically, mentally and emotionally. Not only does the hero struggle at everything he tries to do, he continuously makes the wrong choices. The villain (Lex Luthor/Emperor Palpatine) manipulates the hero and lures him into a trap, either by threatening his loved ones or undermining his ideals. By the end of the second chapter, Superman gets killed by Doomsday while Luke loses his hand to Darth Vader. The only difference here is the small victory the hero gets. Superman manages, at least indirectly, to get Lex to face justice for his crimes while Luke ultimately rejects the dark side and chooses death, but as we all know, he survives, either by pure luck or by the will of the Force.

It's only in the third chapter of the story (both versions of Justice League/Return of the Jedi) that we see true growth in the hero, that he starts coming into his own and achieving his heroic destiny. The hero has become more powerful and we get to see him use his powers in ways we've never seen before. The major difference is in the outcome of the story. The only victory Luke gets is a moral one, while Superman ultimately succeeds in everything he does. Yes, Luke defeats Vader, but only after briefly tapping into the dark side and almost throwing away everything he learned over the course of the story. Even he had destroyed Vader, it's unlikely he would have stood a chance against the Emperor. The only moral failing Superman has is when his resurrection goes badly and he attacks the Justice League.

Like I said before, the comparisons aren't perfect but they still work. Overall, I've enjoyed the DCEU and its version of Superman. No, his story isn't perfect, but it was enjoyable enough and with some polishing, it could have redefined the hero's journey for a new generation of moviegoers. DCEU Superman could have been the Luke Skywalker of the superhero genre, and maybe to some people, he already is the Luke Skywalker of the superhero genre. No, I don't think Superman is perfect or infallible, nor do I believe he should try to live up to those expectations, because more often that not, he will fail. Even so, I can appreciate the DCEU's efforts to put Superman's character before his archetype, and in my opinion, Superman's character development was handled correctly in the DCEU and he did become the hero the Justice League needed, even if that journey took him to some dark places.

Ultimately, Superman is an escapist power fantasy and a highly versatile character that can fit multiple roles, depending on the era and the preference of authors and audiences, and I do my best to have an open mind to his story and evolution.

Well, that's all I have for you next time. Now, it's your turn to tell me what do you think of DCEU Superman and his similiarites to Luke. Just be polite and leave your comments in a friendly and civilized manner. This is meant to be a friendly conversation and we're all DC fans here, we just see things differently. I already made a post as to why it's okay to have different opinions. So leave your comments below, thanks for your time and stay safe out there.

Today marks the 8th anniversary of Man of Steel, Superman's first solo movie since Superman Returns and the beginning of the DC Extended Universe.

Now, a lot of people disliked the movie, and that's perfectly fine, but this movie means a lot to me for a lot of personal reasons. First of all, like I said, it was Superman's first solo movie since Superman Returns, meaning that he was the main character of his own story, without having to share the spotlight with another superhero.

Second, I thought this movie was much better than the comic books at the time (the New 52 weren't all too kind to Superman, if you ask me) and I do believe that it did a good job at modernizing Superman and understanding what it means to be a man who could change everything.

Now, it's your turn to tell me what do you think about Man of Steel. Remember, this is meant to be a friendly conversation, so please be polite and leave your comments and civilized comments. We are all fans of both Superman and DC here, we just see things differently. So leave your comments below, thanks for your time and stay safe out there!

Hello, everyone. This is my first time making a post in the DC forum, so I thought it would be a good idea to make a post about Superman, my favorite DC character ever. To be more specific, I want to talk about Superman's portrayal in the DC Extended Universe.

Now, for better or worse, back when Superman's movies in the DCEU were in full swing, Superman's portrayal has been one of the most debated and argued-over topics in the history of DC Comics. There are two firmly-entrenched sides, those who refuse to accept this is Superman and can't be considered a valid interpretation of the character and those who think that this is genuinely Superman and that he is a valid interpretation of the character, not to mention all those people and fans somewhere in-between this debate and have probably become tired of it all.

Anyway, with the Superman saga on hold for now and Warner and DC going back to the drawing board to decide where do they want to take Superman and his community next, Superman fans are left to debate the merits and flaws of these movies, and in this case, Superman's portrayal. Whether you like this version of Superman or not, and no matter how good your argument on defending/criticizing Superman is, some people will never change their minds about this because, to be fair, I've read some really good arguments from both sides and I want to believe I've made some good arguments myself. Personally, I did enjoy the Superman we saw in the DCEU and I'm not ashamed to say that this is one of my favorite versions of Superman ever. Still, people on both sides in the debate have never budged in their beliefs and neither have I, and this makes me believe that there isn't and there can never be a definitive answer about what an actual person named Clark Kent living in the city of Metropolis with his life experiences would have done in the same situations we saw in those movies because he's not actually real.

And yes, I realize that's obvious and I'm not trying to insult your intelligence by pointing it out or make myself sound like an idiot for figuring it out. Instead, I'm trying to highlight the fact that not only does Superman himself not actually exist, which doesn't mean he isn't or can't be important (I'll write about that later); furthermore, every situation he finds himself in his contrived life or set up by a creator (be that a writer, a filmmaker or whatever). Literally everything that has happened or will happen in his life is contrived.

There is no actual causation in fictional stories, only the illusion of it and it's the creator's job to mask that dirty little secret to the best of their ability. It's their job to feel that everything that happens is natural or organic, like it's happening in a completely linear fashion. Even though, oftentimes and usually, when you're creating a fictional story, you're working in anything but a linear fashion. A lot of times, you know the end or, at the very least, have a rough idea of where you wanna go with the story or what you want to say with your story before you even begin. In other words, you need to create a beginning and a middle that gets you to the end you want, and again, you need to deliver the illusion of actual causality and hide the fact that everything is indeed contrived.

And again, I know that I'm saying a lot of obvious things here, but sometimes, people kinda forget them and even if you work in a sort-of linear fashion when writing, even if you start with some characters and come up with something to happen to them, you have no idea on how you want the story to go, much less end, you're still the one making the choices for the characters, even if you're making them based on how you think they would act and then deciding what happens to them as a result.

For example, when it comes to the DCEU movies and how Superman was portrayed in them, Zack Snyder and his creative team were faced with the question "how can we make Superman interesting for a modern audience?" and I'm assuming this is how they approached and went on about it, but they then decided on what would make for the most interesting story, in their opinion at least, is that humans don't have a lot of confidence in Superman's ability to protect them and, instead treat him with suspicion and even hatred, something that understandably disturbs Superman, because he just wants to do the right thing. Then, Snyder and his creative team would have to come up with a situation that would make Superman change his mind and do something heroic again.

So, what it all comes down to is whether you agree or not something like that would be a believable or organic scenario for Superman to experience and whether or not you agree his reactions to that scenario are understandable. While we can certainly debate it, and we do, it is impossible for know for certain because, again, he's not real and every single real person has different experiences and reactions in their lives. And though, sure, we could theoretically, through it would probably never answer this question, imagine what other versions of Superman (comic books, movies, TV shows) would do if they experienced the exact same situations DCEU Superman experienced and I think most of us would respect that answer, whatever it may be.

But still, we wouldn't have a 100% definitive answer because, it would still be an arbitrary decision made by the creators of those stories, not the reaction of a living person who, again, lived a life like DCEU Superman had and/or had the limits or mental fortitude he may or may not have.

And look, we can never know for certain how someone would react to something until they actually face it or know how someone named Clark Kent would have reacted to those experiences, contrived or not, because there are those in the real world who come out bold and strong, like they're full of courage and ready for anything, but then give up and then turn their backs on everything for the smallest of setbacks or the first hint of danger. There are way too many examples of people you'd never think they'd give up and over things that some would consider minor obstacles at best. But there are also examples in the opposite direction. There are people perceived as weak or go through awful tragedies and come out on the other side somehow stronger and wiser for them. Tragedies that, by all rights, no one should have to deal with even though, yes, one universal truth of life is that we will all face adversity or tragedy or loss. It's just part of the deal, which is why Superman can be and is so important to me, for many different reasons.

Because of how he persevered, fictional character or not, shows us that we, too, can persevere through our own trials in our time, and sure, some people, myself included, can and do love Superman in these movies because, to us, he feels very human. We think he had a very human response or a very genuine reaction to his experiences, and for some, he might remind them of how they went through or got through some struggles of their own or some dark times.

But others hated him that way because they never wanted him, or the DC Universe itself, to be an entirely accurate reflection of humanity or us as individuals, but rather they see Superman or want to see Superman as some sort of ideal that represents the best we could potentially be, one that might be forever out of reach, but one definitely worth striving for, nonetheless; which, no, isn't to say they wanted Superman to be perfect or god-like and I see people saying that all the time. They didn't want a perfect and flawless Superman to always save the day, to always have the answers and to never show any emotion beyond eagerness to do the right thing. In reality, they just wanted a Superman that was, yes, maybe a little bit more powerful than what we're used to, but wanted a Superman that didn't give up and thus betray the ideal they placed upon him and believed in.

They would have been absolutely okay with Superman facing new struggles, even failing to some degree, but they still wanted him to embody this belief that there are those among us who simply do not break or give up no matter what, that they would always fight and find some way to overcome and that maybe, just maybe, we can be like that, too; that the impossible in our lives might just become possible.

But to see Superman fail and give up because of it is a reminder of our own fragility as humans, that some things might just be impossible to overcome or achieve, no matter how hard we try or fight for them, which is, again, not why they watch or read Superman. They don't want to be reminded of their past or potential failures but instead, they want to be dared to dream about what could be, what could they accomplish.

And look, whether you love or hate the way Superman was portrayed in these movies, that's perfectly fine, I have no problem with that. It's okay to disagree about something and to discuss as rational human beings, even in the end, all we accomplish is agreeing to disagree, and I'm not trying to say that you're pessimistic if you like these movies or you're overly optimistic if you don't. My message here is that was really to say that we all look at things and see them and, ultimately think of them and treat them, differently, not to mention we can all want something different out of the very same thing and to each their own when it comes to DC and what it does or doesn't mean to them and it can be as important or unimportant to you as you want it to be and there's really no reason to fight over it or make fun of others who are passionate about it nor should we be angry or attacking others over the actions of a fictional character, especially when you have to keep in mind that, it is all just a series of fictional contrivances conjured up in the imaginations of writers.

That doesn't mean, that for fun or for the sake of a good and spirited debate, that you can't treat DC as some sort of documentary about the lives of superheroes or the characters or events are real or actually happened, which is something I encourage. I love treating these characters and stories as if they were real and talk and think about them as if these characters are real people and did perform these events. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't get emotional over the stories DC tells. If anything, that goes to show how important and powerful storytelling can be when it's done right. We can literally be influenced and inspired by stories made up by other people. We can want to do better and be better in the real world because of fictional characters like Superman and, really, there are few things greater or more important that we can do as people than to help or inspire those around us.

Well, that's all I have for you this time, now it's your turn to tell me what do you think about Superman in the DCEU. This meant to be friendly discussion, so please be polite and argue your points in a civilized manner. We are all DC fans here, we just see things differently. Posting comments on this website doesn't make my opinions greater and more valid than yours and I'm just glad I have the privilege and the opportunity to share my opinions with you. So, leave a comment below and thanks for your time.

Who is older, Batman or Superman and who is the leader of the Justice League? Btw quick question, if Warner Bros. ever wants to make a new DCEU with Robert Pattinsons' Batman, which Superman would you choose? Henry Cavill or Tyler Hoachlin? Consider this Henry Cavill is 37 years old and Tyler Hoachlin is 33 years old. Robert Pattinsons' Batman is 34 years old.

My favorites have got to be the Man of Steel ost, by Hans Zimmer, and the Watchmen (2019) ost, by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross.