Anthony Stokes has some issues with the ending to Man of Steel…
![Superman vs General Zod]( "Superman vs General Zod")
It seems like nobody can agree these days and depending who you ask, Man of Steel is either the best movie of the summer or the biggest disappointment. There’s been some major criticism towards the ending, although some of it is just fanboys crying "It's not how I remember it from the comics!". I have the advantage of not being a huge Superman fan, so I have no choice but to objectively view the movie on its own merits. That being said there are some good points about the ending being lost in the hyperbole and I want to fish them out. Spoilers ahead…
The elephant in the room seems to be Superman's utter lack of concern for human life, and this has been an issue even for some of the biggest fans of the movie. Superman makes no effort to move his epic fight with Zod to a less-populated area, try to save anybody, or even avoid adding to the deaths of civilians himself. Defenders have stated that this is a new Superman and that he wasn't experienced enough or had enough time to save people because the swiftness of the fights. I completely agree - on the surface, Superman had no realistic way of saving anybody, and while it would've been nice for him to react to the all the losses, him fighting to save the world really is enough to express his love for humanity. Stopping to save people would've ruined the pacing and stretched the fight scenes out even longer then they were.
Upon deeper inspection, this leads to a number of problems with the movie. Namely the fact that instead of dealing with all the damage Zod and Superman caused, the movie decides to skip any scenes depicting the aftermath of said destruction and instead goes for a forced romantic scene, followed by a forced lighthearted scene. Now my biggest concern coming into this movie would be that the fights would have no consequences and skipping past this puts the nail into the coffin. If Superman and Zod can't hurt each other, the civilian deaths don't matter, and there's no longer a global threat, why should I be emotionally invested in the fight scenes that go on for what seems like 20 minutes at a time? At that point they're just there for the sake of spectacle, without advancing the story or developing the characters, and without even a significant break between them to give the audience a chance to breathe. Not to mention that Jonathan Kent let himself die to protect Clark from people’s reactions to him, when ultimately the reaction was non-existent - essentially making all that good storytelling in the beginning and Jonathan’s arc completely pointless. Sure they can go in depth about what people think of Superman in a sequel, but they at least needed a scene of them rebuilding Metropolis or – as with The Avengers (a movie that doesn't strive for any realism, by the way) - a news reel to follow things up and give the scenes some emotional weight.
![Michael Shannon as General Zod in Man of Steel]( "Michael Shannon as General Zod in Man of Steel")
Now we come to the whole "Superman Kills" controversy. I have a problem with this for a few reasons, but not because Superman would never kill. That's precisely why it's interesting - it's unexpected and unorthodox for the character, without being completely out of left field. I have no problem with the act itself, but rather the way it's executed. This should have been saved for a sequel, where it had been properly built up and teased to increase tension. Zack Snyder has said that it wasn't the original ending, but they added during production, and honestly you can tell. What happenned to the Jesus metaphor? Shouldn't that have come into play during the third act? And given Superman's lack of concern for human life, him killing Zod to save three people - in a hysterical scene where a family stands completely still waiting to be melted by heat ray vision – just doesn't sit right emotionally. It feels really forced and heavy handed. In having this pivotal character moment they really should've changed the mechanics of the entire story, and by not doing so it makes this scene stand out as sloppy. They should've had Zod attempt to kill Lois Lane, since that's the only individual Superman seems to really care about.
So Superman kills somebody, becoming the last of the Kryptonians, and through Henry Cavill's great acting he sells Superman’s pain. And once again what makes this scene jarring is that it's then followed up with two super-cheesy light-hearted scenes. It goes from Superman being an emotional wreck to making lame jokes with Lois. If this had been a smooth transition I'd be more forgiving, but it literally goes from sombre character moment to forced romantic scene. How do they follow this jarring scene of forced romance that should've been saved for a sequel? With another lighthearted scene of Clark Kent walking into The Daily Planet. I'm going to ignore the fact that there shouldn't be a Daily Planet still standing, and the fact that Superman looks like a supermodel and the idea that a pair of glasses would serve as a disguise is still ridiculous… I'm even going to give the movie the benefit of the doubt and say that Metropolis wouldn't have been bankrupt trying to fix the city. But the fact that a largely character-based personal movie ends on such a lighthearted and sappy note completely undercuts the entire film. Once again there are all types of insinuations and metaphors that should've paid off in the last scene. What's most frustrating is that there's a missed opportunity for storytelling. The Daily Planet could've printed a newspaper headlined "Alien Causes 9/11 on Bath Salts", or even had a quote from a famous billionaire on the matter... Maybe Bruce Wayne or Lex Luthor? There was a way to set up Clark's job as a reporter and finish telling the story, but this was not it. As I was watching it I said "please don't end like this", but sadly the credits rolled with me feeling wildly unsatisfied.
There's a pretty standard template for superhero movies. The origin story should be the most focused on character, with the action coming second to mythos building. A sequel is typically more exploration of the mythos with a signifcantly increased emphasis on action. This movie feels like the first half of a good superhero origin story, and the second half feels like the climax to a sequel where they’ve upped the stakes – the problem being that the elements of the first half are dropped completely, while the second half doesn't have a movie-and-a-half of character development to give it the platform to just go crazy and throw out the story. Sure I might be nitpicking at some parts and people who love the movie are willing to fill in the gaps of storytelling, but if so many people question the logistics of the story then that's a problem. Not to say that Man of Steel is a horrible movie. I wouldn't even call it a bad movie - just really uneven. I guess part of me wishes by some miracle this message will reach the filmmakers and they can learn from the mistakes and deliver a follow-up I can thoroughly enjoy from start to finish. I fully believe that Man of Steel laid down a solid foundation to really knock the sequel out of the park, and I think everybody can agree that it could've been a whole lot worse.
What did you make of the ending to Man of Steel? Let us know in the comments below...
Anthony Stokes is a blogger and independent filmmaker.
It seems like nobody can agree these days and depending who you ask, Man of Steel is either the best movie of the summer or the biggest disappointment. There’s been some major criticism towards the ending, although some of it is just fanboys crying "It's not how I remember it from the comics!". I have the advantage of not being a huge Superman fan, so I have no choice but to objectively view the movie on its own merits. That being said there are some good points about the ending being lost in the hyperbole and I want to fish them out. Spoilers ahead… The elephant in the room seems to be Superman's utter lack of concern for human life, and this has been an issue even for some of the biggest fans of the movie. Superman makes no effort to move his epic fight with Zod to a less-populated area, try to save anybody, or even avoid adding to the deaths of civilians himself. Defenders have stated that this is a new Superman and that he wasn't experienced enough or had enough time to save people because the swiftness of the fights. I completely agree - on the surface, Superman had no realistic way of saving anybody, and while it would've been nice for him to react to the all the losses, him fighting to save the world really is enough to express his love for humanity. Stopping to save people would've ruined the pacing and stretched the fight scenes out even longer then they were.
Upon deeper inspection, this leads to a number of problems with the movie. Namely the fact that instead of dealing with all the damage Zod and Superman caused, the movie decides to skip any scenes depicting the aftermath of said destruction and instead goes for a forced romantic scene, followed by a forced lighthearted scene. Now my biggest concern coming into this movie would be that the fights would have no consequences and skipping past this puts the nail into the coffin. If Superman and Zod can't hurt each other, the civilian deaths don't matter, and there's no longer a global threat, why should I be emotionally invested in the fight scenes that go on for what seems like 20 minutes at a time? At that point they're just there for the sake of spectacle, without advancing the story or developing the characters, and without even a significant break between them to give the audience a chance to breathe. Not to mention that Jonathan Kent let himself die to protect Clark from people’s reactions to him, when ultimately the reaction was non-existent - essentially making all that good storytelling in the beginning and Jonathan’s arc completely pointless. Sure they can go in depth about what people think of Superman in a sequel, but they at least needed a scene of them rebuilding Metropolis or – as with The Avengers (a movie that doesn't strive for any realism, by the way) - a news reel to follow things up and give the scenes some emotional weight.
So Superman kills somebody, becoming the last of the Kryptonians, and through Henry Cavill's great acting he sells Superman’s pain. And once again what makes this scene jarring is that it's then followed up with two super-cheesy light-hearted scenes. It goes from Superman being an emotional wreck to making lame jokes with Lois. If this had been a smooth transition I'd be more forgiving, but it literally goes from sombre character moment to forced romantic scene. How do they follow this jarring scene of forced romance that should've been saved for a sequel? With another lighthearted scene of Clark Kent walking into The Daily Planet. I'm going to ignore the fact that there shouldn't be a Daily Planet still standing, and the fact that Superman looks like a supermodel and the idea that a pair of glasses would serve as a disguise is still ridiculous… I'm even going to give the movie the benefit of the doubt and say that Metropolis wouldn't have been bankrupt trying to fix the city. But the fact that a largely character-based personal movie ends on such a lighthearted and sappy note completely undercuts the entire film. Once again there are all types of insinuations and metaphors that should've paid off in the last scene. What's most frustrating is that there's a missed opportunity for storytelling. The Daily Planet could've printed a newspaper headlined "Alien Causes 9/11 on Bath Salts", or even had a quote from a famous billionaire on the matter... Maybe Bruce Wayne or Lex Luthor? There was a way to set up Clark's job as a reporter and finish telling the story, but this was not it. As I was watching it I said "please don't end like this", but sadly the credits rolled with me feeling wildly unsatisfied.
There's a pretty standard template for superhero movies. The origin story should be the most focused on character, with the action coming second to mythos building. A sequel is typically more exploration of the mythos with a signifcantly increased emphasis on action. This movie feels like the first half of a good superhero origin story, and the second half feels like the climax to a sequel where they’ve upped the stakes – the problem being that the elements of the first half are dropped completely, while the second half doesn't have a movie-and-a-half of character development to give it the platform to just go crazy and throw out the story. Sure I might be nitpicking at some parts and people who love the movie are willing to fill in the gaps of storytelling, but if so many people question the logistics of the story then that's a problem. Not to say that Man of Steel is a horrible movie. I wouldn't even call it a bad movie - just really uneven. I guess part of me wishes by some miracle this message will reach the filmmakers and they can learn from the mistakes and deliver a follow-up I can thoroughly enjoy from start to finish. I fully believe that Man of Steel laid down a solid foundation to really knock the sequel out of the park, and I think everybody can agree that it could've been a whole lot worse.
What did you make of the ending to Man of Steel? Let us know in the comments below...
Anthony Stokes is a blogger and independent filmmaker.