I think the movie may have just been too subtle with the human element for the target audience. People saying "Lois Lane doesn't recognize him as Clark Kent!"
Ummm, she recognizes him at the damn cemetary as Clark Kent, she knows his name is Clark Kent because she tracks him down to the home he grew up in. That scene is a subtle joke on the whole "Lois Lane doesn't recognize Superman when he puts on glasses" trope, and of course she recognizes him. Hence the double meaning of "Welcome to the planet."
Similarly for criticisms that he's not mild or gentle enough, or doesn't smile enough. The dude takes so much abuse from every one, and instead of lashing out, he just swallows it. He even saves the kid, Pete, who is abusing him on the bus.
The fact is, the movie is three things: 1) An examination of the psychology of Superman. This is the part that seems to TRIBBLE people up. 2) An examination of Superman as Christ/glorification of midwestern, conservative values. THis ties into #1 3) A frenetic action movie.
IMO it does all three of those things very well, and if there is a real weakness to the movie it's that many of the people around Superman seem unrealistic, with poor dialog. Lois Lane and the Colonel from Law and Order: SVU who for some reason shows up literally every where in the movie and says and does banal things.
I am going to be open and honest here about something. First, I have not seen the movie yet. I am taking my son Wendesday. I am crazy excited and he is too. Now, I am sick of reading how people don't like this movie because somehow the director or whoever lost what Superman was supposed to be about. Yeeeeeees, everyone has their opinion, and that's fair, but honestly I am sick of those opinions. This is 2013. The culture has changed, evolved. I love the Christopher Reeve movies but honestly, I hate the campy oh gee golly don't you look like the cat that swallowed the canary lines. I guess all of you who hate this movie MUST hate the game Injustice:Gods Among Us. I guess you hate the "New 52" versions of Superman. Different outfit and what not. Oh no, things changed since the 1940's. I guess all of you hated Smallville too. How they did Doomsday, Zod, Jimmy Olson, it must drive you insane. I read one post on here where someone said they aren't seeing this movie because of how it is. Seriously, go dude, enjoy the movie for what it is, Man of Steel, a new fresh Superman for 2013. Yes, Krypton changed. Yes, from what I read Jor'El rides some dragon looking beast. Soooo what!? Did any of you expect Krypton to not have animals? If you did what kind? Cats and Dogs? Seriously, all of you are acting like my Grandparents acted when I tried to explain to them that emails are faster and more effecient than snail mail.
I'll keep this in mind IF I ever decide to see this 'new' man of Steel. I'm not really a Superman fanatic but I liked the Christopher Reeve superman, and as a Batman fanatic I cannot get over how Nolan destroyed that character in the name of freshness and money.
Nolan's turn at the Batman films grossed almost 2.5 billion combined, so it would seem that there are quite a lot of people in the world who disagree the character was "ruined". Like him or not, Goyer/Nolan revitalized a dead franchise and introduced the character to a whole new generation.
All these comic characters have changed throughout the years. Batman and Superman probably more than others as they've been around so long.
Ya, these 'new' superhero's do alot more killing and have cooler toys than the old versions but that gross profit quote dont make the characters more respectable than the older ones who flaunted their morals and integrity. Maybe Nolan can do a Punisher relaunch, as he routinely killed bad guys and had some cool toys.
:P
Sorry, but the cheesy, Adam West super-camp heroes are better left to the 60's. IMO, you missed the point of the Nolan Batman trilogy and are trying to place the blame on him for changes to the character that began long before Nolan ever thought of directing a Batman film.
Did you not watch the films? Anyone could be a Batman. Anyone could be a hero.
I'm curious what you believe any of these superheroes were created for? The likes of Bob Kane, Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster didn't write/draw Batman and Superman for free.
Funny, just saw the final installment Saturday night, and had a short but heated discussion with the wife about how Anne Hathaways character was NOT Batgirl. No, not anyone can be Batman, and this point Bruce Wayne can't afford to be Batman anymore, he's bankrupt and physically unable.
Thank you for the remake, Joker and two-face are dead, Bruce is broke, Selina hasn't embraced her character yet, and Robin is just a disillusioned former cop.
I'd be interested to hear that conversation considering Ann was playing Catwoman.
You'de never know from the movie, she was never ID'd as such nor mentioned that way in the credits. She remembers the cycle from the old series and put 2 and 2 together, I remember the lore tho the name was a dead giveaway.
I'm glad Nolans turn is over and he's moved on to slaughter Supermans franchise.
You'de never know from the movie, she was never ID'd as such nor mentioned that way in the credits. She remembers the cycle from the old series and put 2 and 2 together, I remember the lore tho the name was a dead giveaway.
I'm glad Nolans turn is over and he's moved on to slaughter Supermans franchise.
While its easy to miss her name appears on the paper as a cat burglar. shes not really meant to be dressed as a cat. so she never gets the name. i guess its easy to confuse the two.
Now as for Nolan, i think he did an amazing job on the dark knight trilogy. i cant agree that he ruined it at all. i loved it.
sadly though it seems he might have (in part) ruined superman but its all personal opinion.
Nobody knows for sure, Batman just left him hanging off a building. Is he the only inmate in Arkham ?
<shrug> who knows.
I assume he's dead or should've at least had a mention in DK Rises, scarecrow was still kickin.
He's not dead. Nolan just decided to avoid using the character out of respect for Ledger. He felt that in his franchise, Ledger was the Joker and to use a stand-in would be disrespectful, so he decided to not mention him at all.
You'de never know from the movie, she was never ID'd as such nor mentioned that way in the credits. She remembers the cycle from the old series and put 2 and 2 together, I remember the lore tho the name was a dead giveaway.
I'm glad Nolans turn is over and he's moved on to slaughter Supermans franchise.
She was a cat burglar named Selina Kyle. And at the costume party, she was dressed in a cat costume and Bruce actually said, "That's a brazen costume for a cat burglar."
No disrespect intended here, but I don't know what Nolan could have done to make it more obvious other than having a flashing sign above her head saying, "CAT WOMAN."
She was a cat burglar named Selina Kyle. And at the costume party, she was dressed in a cat costume and Bruce actually said, "That's a brazen costume for a cat burglar."
No disrespect intended here, but I don't know what Nolan could have done to make it more obvious other than having a flashing sign above her head saying, "CAT WOMAN."
The whip was always her calling card.
:cool:
Anyhow, sorry we got so off topic and Heath Ledger did a good job imitating Jack Nicholson imitating Cesar Romero.
:P
I get enough 'harshness' in my everyday life, in the real world.
I don't want to go to the movies and be bombarded with it as well.
I like seeing the 'good-guys' win, without having to resort to the same ways in which I am deluged constantly, by the real world news.
Granted, Christopher Reeves' Superman also dispatched the villains, but it wasn't so 'in-yer-face' and was done in such a way as to leave a modicum amount of doubt as to whether or not they were actually dead.
To me, SUPERMAN has always represented the ideal that one could win as the good-guy, without having to resort to the 'bad-guys' way of doing it.
Things like this irritate me to no end. For this person and the others on here who feel like Superman is all "messed" up now because of the dark grittyness and the ending where he deals with Zod the right way, lets take a stroll down memory lane. In Superman 2, That's the one with Christopher Reeve, Superman crushes Zods hand, lifts him into the air and then happily disposes of his enemy by throwing him down a fog filled bottomless shaft. To top that off, Lois punches the other one in the face, sending her to her death by way of similar shaft. The other evil Kryptonian killed himself because before all that happened Superman filled area with rays from the red sun. Superman KILLED Zod in Superman 2. Right after he was all smiling cutting up with happy go lucky Lex. Where is the realism in that? Shouldn't Superman be upset that he just killed someone? All your arguments about how to "you" Superman is about doing the right thing, maybe you should'nt be so hypocritical. Someone please respond to this because I would love to see a counter argument.
And to the person I quoted, the only reason Zods death in part 2 wasn't in your face, or mine for that matter, is because we were children. Now when I watch it, it is obvious he deliberatly killed Zod. Then after he was all happy. To me that's a more sick maniacal, sociopathic Superman if I ever saw one. Reminds me of the evil Superman Injustice:Gods Among Us
I disagree, but there's no sense going on about it.
I will say this though...
I have always felt that in Superman II since the battle took place in the Fortress of Solitude, what Superman did was just drop Zod and Friends into a special holding area...
Not kill them.
We never saw a dead body and in fact, when the Directors cut came out, it shows them being taken away by the authorities.
So it was never the intent of the makers of that movie to show Superman as a vengeful being.
Batman has always represented the vengeful hero, not Superman.
And just for the record, as far as I'm concerned, the ONLY time I felt a story actually justified Superman killing his opponent, was against DOOMSDAY...
And we all know how that turned out.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I have always felt that in Superman II since the battle took place in the Fortress of Solitude, what Superman did was just drop Zod and Friends into a special holding area...
Not kill them.
Agree, evidently the younger audience feels the right thing to do would be kill them. Ya, I saw what you wrote before the change, felix.
It all depends on who wrote the story. There were times in the comics/films/tv shows where Superman wasn't exactly the "blue boy scout". As an example, he had his moments of acting like the "bad guy" in the Justice League Unlimited animated series. Watch the whole Cadmus story arc there.
Just my 2 quatloos, but it makes his character more believable to me if he says he'll never kill because he knows what it's like to do so.
He doesn't need to do it, to know what it is like...
His father instilled in his very being, the ideal that Killing is Wrong.
Jor El out-right refused to Kill Zod, even when it came down to saving his wife and child.
He fought Zod to a standstill, so that the pod containing his son could launch.
I've never killed anybody, but I learned through my upbringing and moral teachings that it is wrong...
Why should it be so different for Superman??
Especially considering who his Earthly parents were.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I disagree, but there's no sense going on about it.
I will say this though...
I have always felt that in Superman II since the battle took place in the Fortress of Solitude, what Superman did was just drop Zod and Friends into a special holding area...
Not kill them.
We never saw a dead body and in fact, when the Directors cut came out, it shows them being taken away by the authorities.
So it was never the intent of the makers of that movie to show Superman as a vengeful being.
Batman has always represented the vengeful hero, not Superman.
And just for the record, as far as I'm concerned, the ONLY time I felt a story actually justified Superman killing his opponent, was against DOOMSDAY...
And we all know how that turned out.
Okay, I might be remembering this wrong, but I remember in the director's cut, Superman leaving them in the fortress, then actually destroying it. I admit I could be wrong there. It's been a long time.
But none of that matters because in Man of Steel, Superman is not vengeful.
The closest thing we see to him being vengeful is the one scene that's a direct nod to the scene in Superman 2 with the trucker. You know, the ending scene in Superman 2 when Supes goes back to that bar for no other reason than to beat a man for revenge. And in Man of Steel, he doesn't do anything to the guy (just his truck).
In Man of Steel, he begs Zod to stop so he can spare him, then he is absolutely devastated by what happens next. Throughout the entire movie, Superman is kind, generous, constantly smiling, and caring. Lois tracked him down because he spent his entire life helping people.
I really don't understand the idea that he's vengeful or even dark in this movie. He's not.
In Man of Steel, there's absolutely no sense that he's vengeful. He constantly gets bullied in that movie and just takes it. He even saves the life of a kid who was - minutes earlier - bullying him.
Okay, I might be remembering this wrong, but I remember in the director's cut, Superman leaving them in the fortress, then actually destroying it. I admit I could be wrong there. It's been a long time.
But none of that matters because in Man of Steel, Superman is not vengeful.
The closest thing we see to him being vengeful is the one scene that's a direct nod to the scene in Superman 2 with the trucker. You know, the ending scene in Superman 2 when Supes goes back to that bar for no other reason than to beat a man for revenge. And in Man of Steel, he doesn't do anything to the guy (just his truck).
In Man of Steel, he begs Zod to stop so he can spare him, then he is absolutely devastated by what happens next. Throughout the entire movie, Superman is kind, generous, constantly smiling, and caring. Lois tracked him down because he spent his entire life helping people.
I really don't understand the idea that he's vengeful or even dark in this movie. He's not.
In Man of Steel, there's absolutely no sense that he's vengeful. He constantly gets bullied in that movie and just takes it. He even saves the life of a kid who was - minutes earlier - bullying him.
We obviously see it differently...
The diner scene in Superman II doesn't show the man getting a beating...
Superman lets the bully hit him and self injure his hand.
Then Superman picks him up, sits him on his dinner plate and gives him a shove, which slides him down the counter and into the jukebox.
He then tosses a wad of money on the counter for the damages.
In MoS, Superman completely destroys the jerks way to make a living, by utterly destroying his rig.
And also leaves a rather large mess, that the Owner of the bar has to deal with by himself.
Seems rather 'vengeful' to me.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
The diner scene in Superman II doesn't show the man getting a beating...
Superman let's the bully hit him and self injure his hand.
Then Superman picks him up and sits him on his dinner plate, then gives him a shove which slides him down the counter and into the jukebox.
He then tosses a wad of money on the counter for the damages.
In MoS, Superman completely destroys the jerks way to make a living, by utterly destroying his rig.
And also leaves a rather large mess, that the Owner of the bar has to deal with by himself.
Sounds rather 'vengeful' to me.
My point is that Superman only did that for revenge in Superman II. Which was fine. It was a comedy scene, for laughs. So was the scene in Man of Steel.
But the character of Superman in both movies was very much the same. He made mistakes, yes, and he was only human from time to time. But in Man of Steel, he devoted his entire life to anonymously helping people. That's how Lois tracked him down. He was bullied and took it. He helped people without ever revealing who he was or asking for credit. He stayed anonymous and saved lives.
There seems to be an "us versus them" thing happening here. Just for clarity, I'm 40 years old and I absolutely adore the Donner films (Christoper Reeve). They defined Superman for me as well. Those movies are - in essence - perfect.
But they existed in a different reality. It's not Superman that's different in Man of Steel. It's he world in which he lives. In Man of Steel, Superman was faced with a split-second decision about whether or not to kill a man or let him kill three other human beings. It wasn't something he could just evaluate. It was split-second. I'm convinced the Christopher Reeve Superman would have done the exact same thing. The difference is, the Donner films wouldn't have put him in that situation.
It doesn't have to be an either/or thing here. I loved the 60's Batman, I loved the Burton Batman, and I loved the Nolan Batman. They were different takes on the characters, but each managed to beautifully accomplish what they were trying to accomplish.
Man of Steel isn't replacing the old Superman movies any more than they were replacing the George Reeves TV show. It's a different take on the character, but the essence of who he is is the same. He still fights for truth and justice. He still loves humanity. He's still kind and loving. Human life is still something he values.
I'm fine with folks who don't like this movie. People have different tastes. That's cool. But Superman in this movie is very true to his character. It's just far more subtle and far more complex.
I get enough 'harshness' in my everyday life, in the real world.
I don't want to go to the movies and be bombarded with it as well.
I like seeing the 'good-guys' win, without having to resort to the same ways in which I am deluged constantly, by the real world news.
Granted, Christopher Reeves' Superman also dispatched the villains, but it wasn't so 'in-yer-face' and was done in such a way as to leave a modicum amount of doubt as to whether or not they were actually dead.
To me, SUPERMAN has always represented the ideal that one could win as the good-guy, without having to resort to the 'bad-guys' way of doing it.
Comments
Now, THAT, dear people, is Precisely what a movie about Superman should be about.
God Bless you daveyny for saying that, and God Bless all whom see that view.
Ummm, she recognizes him at the damn cemetary as Clark Kent, she knows his name is Clark Kent because she tracks him down to the home he grew up in. That scene is a subtle joke on the whole "Lois Lane doesn't recognize Superman when he puts on glasses" trope, and of course she recognizes him. Hence the double meaning of "Welcome to the planet."
Similarly for criticisms that he's not mild or gentle enough, or doesn't smile enough. The dude takes so much abuse from every one, and instead of lashing out, he just swallows it. He even saves the kid, Pete, who is abusing him on the bus.
The fact is, the movie is three things: 1) An examination of the psychology of Superman. This is the part that seems to TRIBBLE people up. 2) An examination of Superman as Christ/glorification of midwestern, conservative values. THis ties into #1 3) A frenetic action movie.
IMO it does all three of those things very well, and if there is a real weakness to the movie it's that many of the people around Superman seem unrealistic, with poor dialog. Lois Lane and the Colonel from Law and Order: SVU who for some reason shows up literally every where in the movie and says and does banal things.
I'll keep this in mind IF I ever decide to see this 'new' man of Steel. I'm not really a Superman fanatic but I liked the Christopher Reeve superman, and as a Batman fanatic I cannot get over how Nolan destroyed that character in the name of freshness and money.
New and improved isn't always a good thing.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Ya, these 'new' superhero's do alot more killing and have cooler toys than the old versions but that gross profit quote dont make the characters more respectable than the older ones who flaunted their morals and integrity. Maybe Nolan can do a Punisher relaunch, as he routinely killed bad guys and had some cool toys.
:P
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
So what was the point ?
...other than making a ton of money.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Funny, just saw the final installment Saturday night, and had a short but heated discussion with the wife about how Anne Hathaways character was NOT Batgirl. No, not anyone can be Batman, and this point Bruce Wayne can't afford to be Batman anymore, he's bankrupt and physically unable.
Thank you for the remake, Joker and two-face are dead, Bruce is broke, Selina hasn't embraced her character yet, and Robin is just a disillusioned former cop.
Yawn.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Hahahahahahahahahahaha !
Nobody knows for sure, Batman just left him hanging off a building. Is he the only inmate in Arkham ?
<shrug> who knows.
I assume he's dead or should've at least had a mention in DK Rises, scarecrow was still kickin.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
I'd be interested to hear that conversation considering Ann was playing Catwoman.
You'de never know from the movie, she was never ID'd as such nor mentioned that way in the credits. She remembers the cycle from the old series and put 2 and 2 together, I remember the lore tho the name was a dead giveaway.
I'm glad Nolans turn is over and he's moved on to slaughter Supermans franchise.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
While its easy to miss her name appears on the paper as a cat burglar. shes not really meant to be dressed as a cat. so she never gets the name. i guess its easy to confuse the two.
Now as for Nolan, i think he did an amazing job on the dark knight trilogy. i cant agree that he ruined it at all. i loved it.
sadly though it seems he might have (in part) ruined superman but its all personal opinion.
He's not dead. Nolan just decided to avoid using the character out of respect for Ledger. He felt that in his franchise, Ledger was the Joker and to use a stand-in would be disrespectful, so he decided to not mention him at all.
She was a cat burglar named Selina Kyle. And at the costume party, she was dressed in a cat costume and Bruce actually said, "That's a brazen costume for a cat burglar."
No disrespect intended here, but I don't know what Nolan could have done to make it more obvious other than having a flashing sign above her head saying, "CAT WOMAN."
The whip was always her calling card.
:cool:
Anyhow, sorry we got so off topic and Heath Ledger did a good job imitating Jack Nicholson imitating Cesar Romero.
:P
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Things like this irritate me to no end. For this person and the others on here who feel like Superman is all "messed" up now because of the dark grittyness and the ending where he deals with Zod the right way, lets take a stroll down memory lane. In Superman 2, That's the one with Christopher Reeve, Superman crushes Zods hand, lifts him into the air and then happily disposes of his enemy by throwing him down a fog filled bottomless shaft. To top that off, Lois punches the other one in the face, sending her to her death by way of similar shaft. The other evil Kryptonian killed himself because before all that happened Superman filled area with rays from the red sun. Superman KILLED Zod in Superman 2. Right after he was all smiling cutting up with happy go lucky Lex. Where is the realism in that? Shouldn't Superman be upset that he just killed someone? All your arguments about how to "you" Superman is about doing the right thing, maybe you should'nt be so hypocritical. Someone please respond to this because I would love to see a counter argument.
And to the person I quoted, the only reason Zods death in part 2 wasn't in your face, or mine for that matter, is because we were children. Now when I watch it, it is obvious he deliberatly killed Zod. Then after he was all happy. To me that's a more sick maniacal, sociopathic Superman if I ever saw one. Reminds me of the evil Superman Injustice:Gods Among Us
I will say this though...
I have always felt that in Superman II since the battle took place in the Fortress of Solitude, what Superman did was just drop Zod and Friends into a special holding area...
Not kill them.
We never saw a dead body and in fact, when the Directors cut came out, it shows them being taken away by the authorities.
So it was never the intent of the makers of that movie to show Superman as a vengeful being.
Batman has always represented the vengeful hero, not Superman.
And just for the record, as far as I'm concerned, the ONLY time I felt a story actually justified Superman killing his opponent, was against DOOMSDAY...
And we all know how that turned out.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Agree, evidently the younger audience feels the right thing to do would be kill them. Ya, I saw what you wrote before the change, felix.
They don't know Superman at all.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
He doesn't need to do it, to know what it is like...
His father instilled in his very being, the ideal that Killing is Wrong.
Jor El out-right refused to Kill Zod, even when it came down to saving his wife and child.
He fought Zod to a standstill, so that the pod containing his son could launch.
I've never killed anybody, but I learned through my upbringing and moral teachings that it is wrong...
Why should it be so different for Superman??
Especially considering who his Earthly parents were.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Okay, I might be remembering this wrong, but I remember in the director's cut, Superman leaving them in the fortress, then actually destroying it. I admit I could be wrong there. It's been a long time.
But none of that matters because in Man of Steel, Superman is not vengeful.
The closest thing we see to him being vengeful is the one scene that's a direct nod to the scene in Superman 2 with the trucker. You know, the ending scene in Superman 2 when Supes goes back to that bar for no other reason than to beat a man for revenge. And in Man of Steel, he doesn't do anything to the guy (just his truck).
In Man of Steel, he begs Zod to stop so he can spare him, then he is absolutely devastated by what happens next. Throughout the entire movie, Superman is kind, generous, constantly smiling, and caring. Lois tracked him down because he spent his entire life helping people.
I really don't understand the idea that he's vengeful or even dark in this movie. He's not.
In Man of Steel, there's absolutely no sense that he's vengeful. He constantly gets bullied in that movie and just takes it. He even saves the life of a kid who was - minutes earlier - bullying him.
LOL @ Oct 1988 copyright.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
We obviously see it differently...
The diner scene in Superman II doesn't show the man getting a beating...
Superman lets the bully hit him and self injure his hand.
Then Superman picks him up, sits him on his dinner plate and gives him a shove, which slides him down the counter and into the jukebox.
He then tosses a wad of money on the counter for the damages.
In MoS, Superman completely destroys the jerks way to make a living, by utterly destroying his rig.
And also leaves a rather large mess, that the Owner of the bar has to deal with by himself.
Seems rather 'vengeful' to me.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
My point is that Superman only did that for revenge in Superman II. Which was fine. It was a comedy scene, for laughs. So was the scene in Man of Steel.
But the character of Superman in both movies was very much the same. He made mistakes, yes, and he was only human from time to time. But in Man of Steel, he devoted his entire life to anonymously helping people. That's how Lois tracked him down. He was bullied and took it. He helped people without ever revealing who he was or asking for credit. He stayed anonymous and saved lives.
There seems to be an "us versus them" thing happening here. Just for clarity, I'm 40 years old and I absolutely adore the Donner films (Christoper Reeve). They defined Superman for me as well. Those movies are - in essence - perfect.
But they existed in a different reality. It's not Superman that's different in Man of Steel. It's he world in which he lives. In Man of Steel, Superman was faced with a split-second decision about whether or not to kill a man or let him kill three other human beings. It wasn't something he could just evaluate. It was split-second. I'm convinced the Christopher Reeve Superman would have done the exact same thing. The difference is, the Donner films wouldn't have put him in that situation.
It doesn't have to be an either/or thing here. I loved the 60's Batman, I loved the Burton Batman, and I loved the Nolan Batman. They were different takes on the characters, but each managed to beautifully accomplish what they were trying to accomplish.
Man of Steel isn't replacing the old Superman movies any more than they were replacing the George Reeves TV show. It's a different take on the character, but the essence of who he is is the same. He still fights for truth and justice. He still loves humanity. He's still kind and loving. Human life is still something he values.
I'm fine with folks who don't like this movie. People have different tastes. That's cool. But Superman in this movie is very true to his character. It's just far more subtle and far more complex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jUORL-bvwA0#t=43s
I mean...seriously...he didn't have to do that, or even kill him...
...right?