*Again, I’m going to start addressing some spoilers now. Beware.*
Because Superman’s story has been around so long, people have had a lot of time to develop attachments to their favorite versions and their own personal idea of what Superman is. Any depiction that diverges from that perception, for many, is not Superman, and therefore not just a different interpretation of the character but a wrong interpretation. I suppose a character that is so steeped in hope and idealism and is essentially a deity would carry with him a certain sacred status.
I’ve been reading arguments about two pivotal moments in Man of Steel. There’s the scene where (did I mention I’m spoiling things right here?) Jonathan Kent dies in front of Clark and Martha’s eyes, because Jonathan insists Clark not save him so as to preserve the concealment of his true identity. Then there’s the moment at the conclusion of the Superman-Zod showdown: Superman snapping Zod’s neck. Many are outraged at the fact that Superman would kill a villain to save innocent lives. Others believe that the moment with Jonathan rang false, that his sacrifice was unnecessary and illogical. Then there are those that think both are completely consistent with the Superman character, who has killed in the past, and who wanted to demonstrate the trust and love he had for his adopted father. I’m less concerned with which of these positions possesses more merit than I am with why folks are so intent on their own conception of what Superman would do in any given situation. Instead of discussing the character’s decisions, whether Clark should have saved his father, whether he could have found another way to save the people Zod was threatening, people are discussing the filmmakers’ decision to tell the story this way. And that’s a result of the (understandable) sense of ownership fans have over this character and his story. Which brings me to my final point.
Continue reading on the next page…
