“Man of Steel” as an Argument Against “Decadent Copyright Law”

Man of Steel, Zack Snyder

This piece by Luke Harrington is one of my favorite Man of Steel pieces to date.

Part of the problem with Man of Steel is the unwritten law of PG-13 movies: namely, that you can show as much violence as you want, as long as you ignore its consequences. Another part of it is that its director, Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen), is never happy unless he’s actively insulting his audience. Both of those facts, though, pale in comparison to the problem at Man of Steel’s core, which is that the film is sitting on top of a pile of infinite money and zero ideas.

The sad truth about Man of Steel, which occurred to me halfway through the whole pointless mess, is that there are only two reasons it exists at all: (1) Warner Bros. only owns three profitable characters, and (2) Batman and Harry Potter both just ran out of movies. In other words, Warner Bros. made Man of Steel because they couldn’t think of another way to make money. I wonder if they realize that they also inadvertently made one of the best arguments I’ve ever seen for copyright law reform.

And it just gets better from there.

If you enjoy reading Opus and want to support my writing, then become a subscriber for just $5/month or $50/year.
Subscribe Today
Return to the Opus homepage