Why Zack Snyder’s Vision for Superman in ‘Man of Steel’ Ultimately Failed

Despite the dawn of a new DCU with James Gunn’s Superman, the specter of Zack Snyder’s take on the character still looms large in pop culture. Man of Steel, Snyder’s Dark Knight-inspired take on Superman, was a box office hit, though it did not meet the unfair expectations Warner Bros. placed on it. More importantly, it was one that divided fans and critics alike. While many embraced Snyder’s darker take on the character, just as many rejected the characterization outright, finding it so far removed from what they love about Superman.

The divide, and the scene the DCEU never truly recovered from, was the climactic moment of Man of Steel, where Superman (Henry Cavill) snaps the neck of General Zod (Michael Shannon). Depicted in the movie as a traumatic act Superman committed to save a family, it was also deliberately intended to shock audiences as a very un-Superman moment. Watching Superman, a symbol of hope, optimism, and an inspiration to children around the world, kill someone with his bare hands was a step too far for many. Snyder defended the decision in a 2016 profile by The Wall Street Journal, saying:

“I was surprised with the fervency of the defense of the concept of Superman. I feel like they were taking it personally that I was trying to grow up their character.”

This scene and quote illuminate why Snyder never fully understood Superman.

What Does “Growing Up” Superman Mean?

There is much to take umbrage with Snyder’s quote about “growing up” Superman. Snyder’s comment suggests shame of the character’s inherently fantastical nature. Snyder’s creative decisions all seem rooted in the idea of making a Superman movie for people who don’t like Superman. Hence, so many shots in the DCEU highlight Superman’s heat vision, with the glowing red eyes feeling frighteningly demonic, inspiring fear rather than the joy Superman traditionally embodies. Scary is “cool” while kindness is “weak.” This isn’t just Superman, as Ben Affleck said his own son was “too scared” to watch his father’s DCEU Batman movies.

There is nothing wrong with a filmmaker wanting to add gravitas or treat the material with maturity. Richard Donner famously did so on the set of Superman: The Movie, with the phrase verisimilitude, the appearance of being real, as the production’s ethos. Donner and company were committed to making Superman fit within the real world without sacrificing the elements of the character that made audiences love him. Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy, Ang Lee’s Hulk, and Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movies also tackle complex themes, presenting unique directorial visions that draw heavily from their source material.

Snyder’s idea of a mature version of Superman really seems to extend to a gray, muted color palette that matches his version of the character’s morality. Instead of framing Superman using his incredible powers to save lives, Snyder is more interested in the destruction his abilities can cause and how cool things look when he punches them. Man of Steel has more in common with Dragon Ball Z than with Superman, which, while visually dynamic, clashes with the material harder than a freight train hitting Superman into a Sears. Man of Steel, emphasizing violence, destruction, and death, attempts to pass it off as grown-up, when in reality it is an immature notion of maturity.

Trying to do the gritty dark version of Superman is like trying to make Winnie the Pooh edgy. Now, 2018’s Christopher Robin did “grow up” the character and concept, literally, as a way to explore the passing of childlike innocence and what is lost in that. Yet Christopher Robin remembers the core themes and ideas of why audiences enjoy Pooh Bear. Then there is the superficial, shallow horror of Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey, which treats the idea of a killer Pooh Bear and Piglet as edgy, even though the finished result feels juvenile. Snyder’s justification for his Superman has more in common with Blood and Honey than with Christopher Robin.

And this isn’t to say that Snyder and writer David S. Goyer weren’t right to want to push Superman in a new direction. There were (and still are) mature and thoughtful ways to re-examine what Superman means in 21st-century America. They could have returned to the 1930s and ’40s depiction of the character as “the Champion of the Oppressed,” like Grant Morrison was doing in the pages of DC Comics at the same time as Man of Steel’s production. Fighting against class inequality and systems of power that exploit those who have less. With his arch-enemy, Lex Luthor, already being a billionaire, it makes perfect sense. The recent Absolute Superman comics tackle many of the same themes that Snyder and Goyer explored in Man of Steel, particularly highlighting Clark Kent’s alien heritage and how the world’s fear of his existence manifests, but do so without sacrificing what has made the character so enduring.

The Continued Mishandling of Superman in the DCEU

Warner Bros.

Despite Man of Steel’s flawed ending, it also hinted at a possible arc for Superman that might have justified its bold creative swing. The film ends with Clark Kent getting his job at the Daily Planet, putting on his glasses, and adopting the mild-mannered reporter persona from the comics. This scene implied that Man of Steel was an extended origin story for the traditional Superman set-up, and that killing General Zod could/would be a defining moment for the character. That he would be so traumatized by unleashing his full power that he would never do so again, which could dovetail perfectly with the Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice fight. That Superman could easily wipe the floor with Batman, but wouldn’t out of fear of killing another person, and that Batman would exploit that good-natured aspect of Superman.

That isn’t what happened, though. Instead, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice‘s opening act shows Superman throwing a human through multiple walls, likely killing them. Yes, the person was threatening Lois Lane, but it felt like there were many other ways Superman could have disarmed him. Killing people doesn’t seem to faze Superman, not only nullifying Man of Steel’s supposed traumatic killing of Zod as having any impact on the hero but also making his perceived grievances with Batman’s methods all the more baffling.

Batman v. Superman attempts provide commentary on the idea of Superman as a metaphor for American interventionism. Yet the movie never fully commits to that idea, still framing Superman’s actions as “noble” and anyone who questions them as ungrateful, spiteful, and wanting to bring him down from greatness. It is where Snyder’s injection of Ayn Rand’s objectivist themes of self-service clashes with the concept of Superman as a figure of selfless altruism who assists and saves others for the common good.

Even though Zack Snyder’s Justice League is a marked improvement on the theatrical cut and easily the best of Snyder’s DCEU projects, the movie still ultimately fails to grasp Superman. Snyder’s decision to have Superman wear the black suit from the comics is a great example of where his tendency to favor what looks “cool” undermines the intent he is going for. Justice League is supposed to be the moment when the DCEU version of the character embodies what the character represents. Powerful, good, and warm. Finally, through death and resurrection, Superman is truly born.

Yet instead of having him in his classic blue-and-red, Snyder chooses a black suit. While a reference to the character’s resurrection in the pages of DC Comics, the scene’s dark, muted tones can’t help but convey a darker feeling than the heroic arrival of Superman. It makes for a less visually appealing hero shot alongside Batman’s already dark costume. It would be like in The Avengers if Iron Man were wearing his Mark 1 gray metal armor alongside a Gray Hulk in the climactic hero shot.

Then, in the epilogue, when Snyder shows the evil Superman controlled by Darkseid, he is wearing the classic blue-and-red suit. So the traditional version of Superman’s image is meant to be tainted by evil, while the black suit that robs the character of his identity and is only a reference to a comic is the heroic suit. It doesn’t have a profound statement apart from shock value. Snyder’s cinematic visual eye becomes his own worst enemy, undermining the story he is trying to tell.

Zack Snyder’s Positive Impact on Superman

Warner Bros.

It has been 13 years since Man of Steel hit theaters, and this era of Superman is long over. James Gunn’s Superman, coupled with the premiere of My Adventures with Superman in 2024, marked a new era for the character, and now we have Man of Tomorrow to look forward to. Zack Snyder’s final involvement with DC was his cut of Justice League, which was released almost 5 years ago, longer than the time fans demanded to see the Snyder Cut. Yet even if Snyder might have been the wrong fit for Superman, that doesn’t mean his impact on the character wasn’t important.

From the shot of Superman punching General Zod in the air being referenced in countless media to even the way Superman’s flying is framed, many of Snyder’s choices are part of the character’s cultural DNA the same way that the radio series introduced Kryptonite, the Fleischer Studios animated shorts introduced flight, and the Richard Donner movie established Superman’s S-insignia being the House of El crest. It shows that even in a movie that doesn’t work, there is something to be gained. It just takes a few years to appreciate.

Release Date

June 14, 2013

Runtime

143 minutes

Director

Zack Synder