No Kryptonite in ‘Man of Steel’; Superman ‘Lost & Angry’; Powers Not Kryptonian?

[Kham-Ryn Kurios]

[WARNING: Possible Spoilers Ahead!]

Though Man of Steel will be the first standalone Superman film since 1978 – Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns was more or less a sequel to Superman 2 – the anticipation for the film isn’t exactly through the roof at this point. According to Fandango’s Most Anticipated 2013 Summer Movies poll, MOS didn’t event break into the top five. Of course, that’s partly because the film’s marketing campaign has yet to be fully unleashed.

Speaking of marketing, the cast and crew – including director Zack Snyder, producer Charles Roven, star Henry Cavill (Superman/Clark Kent), and co-star Amy Adams (Lois Lane) – recently talked in some depth about what we can expect from this new take on the Man of Tomorrow.

The interview – courtesy of Entertainment Weekly – covered everything from plot details, action scenes, character development, superpowers, and whether or not Superman’s greatest weakness, Kryptonite (that green rock that renders him weak and sometimes deathly ill), will make an appearance in the film.

But first, check out the June cover of EW, featuring Cavill as Superman in a fairly iconic-looking pose:

According to EW, the focus of this new Superman film is, in many ways, to humanize the character. A common argument as to why Superman’s star hasn’t shone as brightly as it once did – both in the comic book world and in the movie world – is that he’s become too perfect, too much like a boyscout, too ridiculous, too much like a god, and therefore totally unrelatable. (It’s debatable how true this is - Grant Morrison’s All-Star Superman (2008) created a Man of Steel that was all of the above and yet simultaneously relatable, successful, and hailed as a masterpiece far and wide.)

So the question is, how does Man of Steel intend to depict a flawed and “human” Superman? Well, not with Kryptonite, that’s for sure. Says Zack Snyder:

“I’ll be honest with you, there’s no Kryptonite in the movie.”

While Kryptonite has been successfully utilized in many Superman stories, it’s also true that it has often functioned as a crutch for creating convenient conflict. Apparently, Zack Snyder and company wanted to avoid using that crutch at all costs. (Which isn’t to say it couldn’t pop up in a sequel.) Instead, this Superman will be vulnerable emotionally. From EW:

Once on Earth, his adoptive parents, Ma and Pa Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), urge him not to use his immense strength – even in dire emergencies — warning that not every human would be as accepting of him as they are. So Clark Kent grows up feeling isolated, longing for a connection to others, and constantly hiding who he is. As a result, Man of Steel presents the frustrated Superman, the angry Superman, the lost Superman. “Although he is not susceptible to the frailties of mankind, he is definitely susceptible to the emotional frailties,” Cavill says.

The “frustrated, angry, lost” Superman certainly brings to mind the one recently introduced by Grant Morrison in The New 52 Action Comics. That Superman – who more closely resembled the rough and tumble version that first appeared in 1938 – was angrier, more violent, and more likely to use outright intimidation tactics to stop criminals from committing dastardly deeds. In the comic, a portion of that anger came from the deaths of his parents. Will something similar happen in Man of Steel?

The EW article also reveals that, even on Krypton, Superman – or Kal-El – is considered to be “special.” So special that his birth “caused alarm” the world over. Uhh, say what?

So what does this mean exactly? Could Superman’s powers in Man of Steel be unrelated to his Kryptonian heritage? Might he have been endowed with said powers from birth by his scientist father, Jor-El (Russell Crowe)?

It would explain why Superman could plausibly defend the Earth from not only General Zod (Michael Shannon), but numerous Kryptonian enemies (possibly even an army). Perhaps Zod has no “superpowers” at all. Perhaps his strength comes from his Kryptonian armor and advanced alien technology. Of course, this is all speculation at this point, but it’s interesting to consider. If true, it would likely be a really controversial change for comic book fans.

What about Lois Lane? What can we expect from her relationship with Superman? According to Amy Adams:

“I think she’s very transient. She’s ready to pick up and go at a moment’s notice. I think that definitely could be part of what she sees in Superman — not really laying down roots, not developing trust.”

Lois Lane will end up being one of the main reasons Superman steps forward to defend Earth from Zod. While he’s grown into adulthood feeling alienated (see what I did there?) from the Earthlings around him, Lane will turn out to be someone he genuinely cares for and wants to protect.

Lastly, producer Charles Roven talked about the “building-smashing, train-slinging, heat-vision-blasting” action scenes we’ll see in the film – something Superman fans have been waiting for since the dawn of modern special effects technology:

“You want to give the audience great spectacle. You want them to go to the movie, be eating their popcorn and be like, ‘Wow!’ But it’s just not good enough to give them the ‘Wow.’ You want them to be emotionally engaged. Because if you just have the ‘wow,’ ultimately you get bludgeoned by that and you stop caring.”

Sounds good to me. Even if Man of Steel doesn’t end up “wowing” both in terms of action spectacle and emotional engagement, it’s encouraging to know that the filmmakers are determined to do just that. Only time will tell if they can pull it off.

What do you think, Screen Ranters? Are you okay with Kryptonite not being in the film? Are you interested in seeing an action spectacle that also happens to be emotionally engaging? Let us know in the comments.

If you want more details on why Kal-El might be extra-special (beyond just being the last of his alien species), you’ll have to read the June issue of Entertainment Weekly.

Man of Steel hits theaters June 14th, 2013.

Source: http://screenrant.com/superman-man-of-steel-no-kryptonite/

——

It makes me happy to know that they really wanted to get away from anything campy. Als, you can't show everybody his weakness within the first film. Technically nobody should know what Kryptonite is.

[RLYHYPERGUY]

This is the first time I've ever been excited for anything Superman-related. Everything's sounding great so far! Bring it on!

[TheHobbitofDune]

According to EW, the focus of this new Superman film is, in many ways, to humanize the character. A common argument as to why Superman’s star hasn’t shone as brightly as it once did – both in the comic book world and in the movie world – is that he’s become too perfect, too much like a boyscout, too ridiculous, too much like a god, and therefore totally unrelatable.

That is actually the reason why I've always been a fan of Superman. He is supposed to be a champion; a shining beacon of hope and justice in a world full of hate and fear. I love that he is a boy-scout, because it just adds to the notion that he is incorruptible, and truly is all about being good. I also always find the relatability (is that even a word?) issue to be quite silly.

[Aurentis]

While I can certainly understand what you mean, I would argue that modern audiences want characters to which they can relate -- characters we empathize are the reason some movie scenes have the emotional power they do.  If there's nothing to connect the audience with the character, they will be far less engaged in your story than you want them to be.

This is why a lot of people think Batman is the best DC character (I disagree with this, but on the whole I just don't like DC all that much); he's not an alien, like Superman or Martian Manhunter, he's not superhuman like the Flash, he doesn't have phenomenal cosmic powers like the Green Lantern.  He's just a rich dude.  In a roster of invincible aliens, goddesses, and science experiments gone wrong (or right, however you view the end result), the regular man stands out more than anything, because we can look at him and say "hey, he's just a normal dude.  I don't know how he's hanging with all these unstoppable man-sized engines of destruction, but I already like him."

Personally, I have never been drawn to Superman, but it isn't because of the "incorruptible boy scout" aspect.  It's the fact that he's a walking Deus Ex Machina, moreso than any other superhero.  For example, in Justice League: Doom, he gets shot in the heart with a kryptonite bullet, and still doesn't die.  I was just...  done at that point.

[TheHobbitofDune]

Superman actually is quite relatable once you get past the fact that he is an alien with god-like powers.

Here is why:

1. Superman never even knew who his real parents were. There are a lot of people who unfortunately are in that situation. Or, they did know their parents, but their parents died, just like Superman's parents died.

2. He is an alien from outer space, his whole world blew up, and he had to relocate to Earth, and live among mortals. My parents came over to America from Hong Kong, ditched their whole lives in the process, didn't know any English, and struggled to fit in. See? Relatable.

3. He always strives to be good, no matter what. A ton of people can relate to that. We all try to be the best that we can be, no matter how many times we fall.

4. He has foster parents.

Also, aside from the fact that he lost his parents, has no superpowers whatsoever, etc., Batman really isn't all that relatable. He is a master of various forms of martial arts, is the world's greatest detective, is a billionaire playboy, lives with a butler, raises a whole family of superheroes, had his spine broken, still managed to fully recover as if nothing happened, etc.

I believe that both Superman and Batman are equal in terms of how relatable they can be.

[Aurentis]

The vast majority of movie-going audiences don't see Superman in any of the manners you list.  It's just the truth.  It may be an unfortunate one, but it is.
I don't know my biological parents.  I don't really care to, to be honest with you.  I don't really see that as common ground with Superman.
Also, I hate to nit-pick, but your second point is entirely subjective, and not applicable in most cases.

The base psychological principle at work here is "this one guy is an invincible alien" vs. "this is a regular dude who decided to fight crime."  That's all that matters to the majority of movie patrons.  That, and seeing the title characters doing cool stuff.  People cannot naturally relate to Superman as easily as they can Bruce Wayne, simply based on the fact that Superman is not human, and that is a hurdle the brain simply will not clear most of the time, unless someone is a classic (read: comic/early movie) fan.
Again, it's unfortunate that it gets boiled down to that simplistic, black-and-white level.

Also, I should point out: I am not actually boosting Batman *at all.*  Like I said, I am not a DC fan, and I honestly think that while Bruce Wayne is not a meta-human, he has entirely too many "abilities" to be a like-able character.  (There's an entry on tvtropes that explains this, but long story short, expert in everything ever = really boring character.)
I'm not saying I personally find him relatable at all.  In fact, I think he's probably one of the easiest comic characters to write, ever.  He's like a Mary Sue, except he's a brooding jerk.

[TheHobbitofDune]

When you put it that way, I do agree with you. I was simply listing reasons why anyone could relate to Superman. I was not talking about modern audiences, I was talking about people in general. Also, I think my second point is fine. Kids who move from state to state know the feeling, and people often move from country to country and experience culture shock. These things don't have to be as extreme as the example I used.

I do agree with your view on movie-goers. It is definitely unfortunate.

It's okay, really. I didn't take offense to anything that you have said, I was merely explaining why I think the way I do.

[Waxman]

Sooooo, basically we're going to be seeing A LOT of angst.

[TheHobbitofDune]

I got this from Screenrant, but I wanted to share it because its a pretty awesome idea:

The credits end in Man of Steel, and shot fades into a rooftop in a city that is clearly not Metropolis. Superman is standing there, and a man races to the rooftop, a gun in hand. It’s Commissioner Gordon. Gordon, very surprised at who he sees, asks Superman what he’s doing. Superman apologizes – ever the boy scout – and says he believed it was the best way to contact him. “Who?” Commissioner Gordon asks. “Me,” A new voice proclaims. Superman turns around, and there stands The Batman, with the Bat-Signal off in the night sky. Fade to black.

However, I would want it to be a different Gordon, and a different Batman. I thoroughly enjoyed Nolan's take on Batman, but at the same time, I don't like it because it couldn't have come at a worse time. I feel that this whole time should have been spent creating a shared universe, not creating one single universe, then having to scrap said universe and start over, which will just take even more time to do. Batman has gone through the ringer so many times before on the big screen, and rebooting it again can work, but seems very messy, for lack of a better word. I believe everyone should be able to have their artistic visions realized, but Nolan could have waited a few years after Justice League is over. At the same time, Green Lantern tanked, and rebooting it would be even messier. Making Green Lantern 2 would also be awkward. Flash had an amazing TV show, so I hope that they look to it for inspiration when the time comes.  

Point of my rant is this: I am frustrated at just how poorly the DC universe has been handled, and I pray that Man of Steel will undo all wrongs and pave the way for the Justice League movie that I've wanted to watch ever since I was little and read my first comic book (which was DC).

[Kham-Ryn Kurios]

I got this from Screenrant, but I wanted to share it because its a pretty awesome idea:

The credits end in Man of Steel, and shot fades into a rooftop in a city that is clearly not Metropolis. Superman is standing there, and a man races to the rooftop, a gun in hand. It’s Commissioner Gordon. Gordon, very surprised at who he sees, asks Superman what he’s doing. Superman apologizes – ever the boy scout – and says he believed it was the best way to contact him. “Who?” Commissioner Gordon asks. “Me,” A new voice proclaims. Superman turns around, and there stands The Batman, with the Bat-Signal off in the night sky. Fade to black.

However, I would want it to be a different Gordon, and a different Batman. I thoroughly enjoyed Nolan's take on Batman, but at the same time, I don't like it because it couldn't have come at a worse time. I feel that this whole time should have been spent creating a shared universe, not creating one single universe, then having to scrap said universe and start over, which will just take even more time to do. Batman has gone through the ringer so many times before on the big screen, and rebooting it again can work, but seems very messy, for lack of a better word. I believe everyone should be able to have their artistic visions realized, but Nolan could have waited a few years after Justice League is over. At the same time, Green Lantern tanked, and rebooting it would be even messier. Making Green Lantern 2 would also be awkward. Flash had an amazing TV show, so I hope that they look to it for inspiration when the time comes.  

Point of my rant is this: I am frustrated at just how poorly the DC universe has been handled, and I pray that Man of Steel will undo all wrongs and pave the way for the Justice League movie that I've wanted to watch ever since I was little and read my first comic book (which was DC).

5 ways to save Green Lantern 2: http://screenrant.com/green-lantern-2-sequel-reboot-story/

[TheHobbitofDune]

5 ways to save Green Lantern 2: http://screenrant.com/green-lantern-2-sequel-reboot-story/

Thanks for sharing! I agree with all of it.

[JEStucker]

Necro-Thread alert!

Yes, I'm digging up an old thread, because this seemed the proper place, instead of starting a new one altogether.

So, I've been down with a flu bug for about a week, this has given me time to play catch up with some of the movies in the local Redbox (bless my wife and her patience for renting them for me.)

I finally got to see "Man of Steel" and honestly... I was disappointed.  If this is the direction DC/Warner is wanting to go, I'm not going to go out of my way to watch their films anymore.  It was a Superman movie, and it felt less Superman than Batman Begins.

You don't mess with Superman's Origin Story... and you don't do it badly, even "Lois and Clark" and "Smallville" left the Origin alone.  Superman III, IV, and Superman Returns looked awesome compared to this.

[Darth_Phobius47]

Necro-Thread alert!

Yes, I'm digging up an old thread, because this seemed the proper place, instead of starting a new one altogether.

So, I've been down with a flu bug for about a week, this has given me time to play catch up with some of the movies in the local Redbox (bless my wife and her patience for renting them for me.)

I finally got to see "Man of Steel" and honestly... I was disappointed.  If this is the direction DC/Warner is wanting to go, I'm not going to go out of my way to watch their films anymore.  It was a Superman movie, and it felt less Superman than Batman Begins.

You don't mess with Superman's Origin Story... and you don't do it badly, even "Lois and Clark" and "Smallville" left the Origin alone.  Superman III, IV, and Superman Returns looked awesome compared to this.

Ouch! Agreed, MoS had some good things going, but in the end the bad outweighed the good. If I were to watch it again, it would only be for the fighting. That's it.

[TheHobbitofDune]

Man of Steel is a very polarizing film, that's for sure.

The people that hate it usually have reasons such as "disjointed storytelling through flashbacks" and "excessive use of violence" and "way too much Jesus imagery and exposition on how damn important Superman is" and "not enough character development for anyone" and so on and so forth.

While the people who love it usually have reasons such as "disjointed storytelling through flashbacks" and "Superman is pushed to the limit and tested like he has never been tested before" and "profoundly emotional dialogue" and "some of the best fight scenes put to film" and "amazing / breathtaking visuals" and so on and so forth.

I can totally understand both sides of the debate, and personally do not view either one as being right or wrong necessarily. People just have their own opinions about things, and that makes the world go 'round I can dig it.

Speaking of superhero movies, I just watched Superman Returns and Batman Begins both for the second time today. I love those movies.

[Darth Cephalus]

Well hey, if we're digging up this dead thread, let me put in my two cents.

I have to say that I liked MOS a lot. DC has been trying to reinvent itself and this is, in my opinion, the most successful attempt to date. They set out to make a new and stand alone superman film that was its own movie rather than a poor remake of one of the old ones. This usually does not go so well. I appreciate a superman who struggles with things that I have always thought Superman should struggle with. The main thing I saw it trying to do was define Superman to a critical audience through the choices he makes when he must choose. So often, a super villain tries to force this choice on a superhero with a classic, your girlfriend or the city scenario. Pretty well all of the time, the super hero manages to do both and skip off into the sunset avoiding any kind of moral statement. I appreciate that this movie did not allow Superman the easy option to have his cake and eat it too. It made him choose between his father and his identity and between his ideals and innocent lives and defined him by these choices. It also gave us a superman who was more adult and secure than in past through the way he deals with the government. Finally, for the first time, superman looked and felt like a man from another world. Usually the story is Clark Kent puts on a suit and becomes Superman. Here, Superman gets to be a character rather than an alter ego. Clark discovers that he is Superman and has to put on a costume to be Clark Kent.   

Now the movie had flaws but all of them do. It changed things, but that's how comics work. They must reinvent the classic to make it relevant. Many may be too young to remember the time that superman was a blue energy being in a containment suit for a time in the 90s or the long haired superman phase. Comic heroes change, even their origin stories. What makes them timeless is that they somehow retain the essence of what it means to be that character even when they are rebooted. That essence was there in MOS I thought, though the character was forced into situations he had not been in before. It was an exploration rather than a divergence and I like to think that the classic superman of old would have done the same thing had push come to shove and an absolute win was not an option.