Thomas Roach on why people really need to get over the destruction in Man of Steel….
One thing that has surprised me is that people are still really angry that Superman caused so much destruction in Man of Steel. Firstly I would say “it’s only a film, get over it”, but you can’t really say that to fans. We wont get to see Henry Cavill’s Superman again until Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice in 2016, but fans are still furious at the level of destruction he caused – even so long after the film’s release people still joke about it and critisize his actions in the film. Director Zack Syder has stated that the levels of destruction in Man of Steel will be addressed in the sequel, so maybe everyone should just calm down until then.
Personally I feel that the levels of destruction were justified. Man of Steel was about Clark Kent becoming Superman. Yes the character is supposed to be a shinning example of perfection, but we don’t want that from a film, especially from DC. As with The Dark Knight, the characters seem more real and are not perfect, which makes them more interesting. Exploring the story of how a young alien was wreckless and careless in his youth is far more engaging for audiences that following a character with no flaws.
In my opinion Superman is quite a difficult character to relate to because he is so perfect. Many fans will say that over powered characters are pointless as they can’t be defeated and that makes them boring. People like flawed characters and want to watch them change over the course of a film. Superman has been portrayed as a perfect outstanding citizen in other media, but for me that makes him so boring. Many people will disagree with that statement, but still I’ll stand by it.
In Superman’s defense he was fighting of a race of aliens who were trying to destroy the planet. Yes, the fight between Zod and Superman destroyed a lot of Metropolis and probably killed lots of people, but Superman saved the planet from being terraformed to Krypton’s standards. Superman could have tried to take the fight away from the city but I am sure that seeing the two characters fight in the middle of nowhere would have been a visual dud.
It’s a film at the end of the day. Its main purpose is entertainment. Frankly, it’s only fanboys who had a problem with the levels of destruction and if they wanted to see that version of Superman they can always watch the other films. I am glad that Zack Synder changed the character a little and made him flawed. Seeing the same thing we have seen since the 1930s would have made Man of Steel redundant. So, to the critics I say get over it for now, and if Superman is still careless and not the character you want in Batman v Superman then you can have a moan. Until then, just enjoy Man of Steel and stop with this criticism.
How do you feel about the amount of damage Superman caused in Man of Steel? Are you still bothered by it? And how do you think Batman v Superman might tackle it? Let us know your thoughts…
Thomas Roach
