Man of Steel vs. The Avengers

A wonderful thing happened when I wrote this.

I realized that The Avengers is now available on instant stream on Netflix. Two and a half hours after this realization I relived the complete utter awesomeness that is The Avengers. If you follow my blog, you'll know that I recently saw Man of Steel. Now I have always been a big Superman fan but until Man of Steel, Marvel was stealing my heart when it came to Superhero movies. Superman Returns didn't really do much for me (although I didn't hate it) and the Dark Knight Trilogy is a brand of its own. 

Now seeing the two side by side, I realize the similarities between the two movies. Obviously, they're both Superhero movies. They both have the protagonists dealing with an alien invasion. And yet The Avengers hit 600 million dollars in the box office, and Man of Steel, as of today was replaced at the top by Monster's University. Its a hard comparison, because the Avengers was so anticipated and the Man of Steel did have its success. For all the similarities I mentioned, there are a lot of things that are different between the movies and I want to discuss them. 

The Directors

I think this is a good place to start. With this I will also discuss the producers and writers of both as each has their own unique element to their film. 

The team for the Avengers was quarterbacked by Joss Whedon and written by Zak Penn... along with Joss Whedon. Now I'm a believer of the idea that you are not a true nerd unless you have an alter to Joss Whedon somewhere in your house. It might be small, it might be hard to find, it might just be in your mind but every nerd who is a nerd worships Joss Whedon. I am a similar case. I watched Buffy, I loved Firefly. I was there every time Joss Whedon's brillance was shot down and I cheered when he was finally given the recognition he deserved with The Avengers. Two things Whedon is very good at, drawing evidence from Firefly and Buffy, are team driven stories and clever comedy interwoven into an action/adventure story. The Avengers gives both. Along with Zak Penn, the writer of some of the X-Men movies, the good Hulk movie and other comic book movies, The Avengers was in the hands of guys who write comic book movies. That's exactly what you got with The Avengers. A live action vision of Marvel comic books that are just darn entertaining. 

Man of Steel was a totally different case. The team consisted of Zach Snyder as the Director, David S. Goyer as the writer, and Christopher Nolan as the producer. I don't want to glorify Christopher Nolan's role in Man of Steel even though I do believe he had an essential part. The fact of the matter is, Nolan was a producer. He pitched the movie to Warner Brothers because he saw a great script and he had faith it would be a good movie. The respect I have for Nolan tells me he wouldn't have pitched Man of Steel if he didn't think it was a good choice. I'm sure he had a role after that that contributed to the movie, but I think the real team was Snyder and Goyer. Zach Snyder is a very visual director. He may not be the creative genius that a lot of nerds believe Joss Whedon to be, but he knows how to make something look absolutely freaking epic. Evidence of that comes from 300, Watchmen, and as awful as Sucker Punch was, it looked beautiful. If you want to have Superman look epic, Snyders the man to do it. Then there is David Goyer. Goyer did the writing for the Dark Knight Trilogy and lot of dark movies like Dark City. Goyer and Nolan's mind are cut from the same cloth and it gives a dark, edgy, very serious tone to a franchise not always known for how dark it can be. Was Man of Steel as dark as the Dark Knight... Kinda? I mean if you mean by lighting, hell no. But it had a realistic edge and didn't feel like a comic book. It didn't have the realistic feel of the Dark Knight but it provided that larger than life feeling to it without having to make fun of itself to assimilate the audience. An example of this is Thor. Comedy was again interwoven to make the audience suspend belief enough to forget the silly costumes and language of Thor and enjoy an epic movie. Man of Steel instead focuses on making Kal-El a relatable character and focusing on his humanity. Very little comedy is used and that's the style of all three of the big guys in this production team for Man of Steel.

Neither way is better than the other, its all about how its executed. That is where the story comes in

The Story

This section may be a little hard to discuss because Man of Steel is an origin story whereas The Avengers gathers a group of people we have already been introduced to. Regardless, I'll try to look at this subjectively and see what we can pull from both stories. 

When I was finally calmed down a little from my fit of joy when I saw The Avengers was on Netflix, about a half hour in, I realized that not much happens in the Avengers. 

Think about it: Loki steals the teserack to start an invasion. He wants to drive the Avengers apart before the invasion. The Avengers fight but eventually come together to stop the invasion... that's it.

Each character has their own little problems but they're barely scratched and they are all resolved by the end. 

Iron Man: Hero complex

Thor: Capturing Loki/ seeking Loki's redemption

Captain America: Assimilating to the future

Black Widow: Clearing her ledger...? (Not really resolved, unless you count saving Hawk Eye)

Hawk Eye: ...not being possessed?

Hulk: ...when are we gonna see him Hulk out again?

These problems are quickly forgotten when aliens invade and the only one that really feels resolved is Iron Man's hero complex situation... and the Hulk (I'm always angry, OH DAMN!)

Despite individual stories taking a backseat to action sequences, Whedon does a fantastic job at giving each character his or her dues and creates great relationships within the team. Nothing feels forced and its just damn fun. However, I go back to my analysis of the story, its pretty simple. Its simple, straight to the point, and puts more emphasis on putting these heroes together and having them fight anything rather than putting them into a complex story. (This will be touched on later)

Man of Steel, I think, is a little bit more story driven. It's an origin story so it is put at a little bit of an advantage. The movie is able to focus on one Superhero and not 6. Man of Steel is able to focus on the relationships between Kal-El and the Kents, Jor-El, Lois Lane and General Zod. Is it the absolute best character development? No, but it is better than The Avengers. 

I mean Man of Steel's story changes, develops into different connecting layers. Beginning on Krypton and giving a look into Jor-El's story. From there it focuses on Kal-El's development from a drifter unsure of his place to a caped symbol of truth, justice, and the American way of life. Along with that, there's Lois Lane's investigation into the mystery that is Clark Kent. It finally all ends with the invasion by General Zod and Kal-El's decision between his Kryptonian or Human sides. 

Again, these are two different movies. It's not fair to compare The Avengers's story to that of Man of Steel because one is an origin story and the other is a gathering of several stories finally to make an epic mashup. That is a very good transition into my next aspect, prior movies.

Prior Movies

I foresee this being a small section, however it does contribute to the success of the films in question and does help us understand how different of movies they are. 

Its incredibly obviously that The Avengers was a culmination of Avengers movies, Iron Man 1 & 2, The Incredibly Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. Fans had been waiting for this movie for four good years, ever since May of 2008 when Nick Fury showed up at the end of Iron Man 1 ready to tell Tony Stark about the Avengers initiative. The build up to this movie was huge. 

Again, Man of Steel being an origin story was different type of movie. It had no build up with previous movies. However, there were a lot of Superman fans, myself included that wanted a Superman film to be proud of. This especially after the Superman Returns fiasco. I'll say again, I didn't dislike the movie, I was just expecting more. Also, there is something to be said about putting Nolan's name on the movie, especially with the closing of the Dark Knight trilogy last year. But neither of these elements give movie goers a full frontal reason to go see Man of Steel like the people who went to go see the Avengers.


So, overall the The Avengers and The Man of Steel are two very different movies. They have different themes directed by the different minds working on them. Their stories are different due to the nature of where the movie takes place in their universe. And they had differing success based on the movies that followed it.

These two movies are two of my favorite comic book movies and they both make me very excited for the future. The Man of Steel of course for the universe that it opened, and prospects of the Justice League perhaps in the future. And the Avengers for all the sequels whether it is the Winter Solider, or the next Avengers movie itself, I am just excited.