Also, this is going to be folded into the Man of Steel spoiler discussion. Dissenting opinions are great, but they don't need their own, separate thread. Better to add to the ongoing discussion than duplicate a discussion. And, a belated welcome aboard.
People like WetRats complaining that Superman doesn't kill is the perfect example of comic fans stuck in a comic book era fast becoming extinct. Gone are the days of the gee golly boy scout Superman.
I feel like you could pull that quote from the 90's.
Superman HAS killed before, comics AND in prior movies. Off putting & wrong, yes...but you can't really say "something he's never do."
But in the comics (at least) it has always been under different circumstances. And, more importantly, there have always been repercussions, and he has always had to pay a price for it. We're not getting that in this film.
The only instances I can think of Superman killing anyone intentionally have already been mentioned: killing the Phantom Zone villains in the pocket universe; killing Mxyzptlk in the Alan Moore story (which was essentially an Elseworld story); and Doomsday.
He didn't just kill the PZ villains; he executed them. And he did so after deliberating over it, realizing that he was the only one who could as a representative of their shared culture and as the only one left alive on that Earth. And he paid for it by questioning himself for the next several months, experiencing a nervous breakdown that had him develop a split identity that assumed the role of Gangbuster for a time, and eventually wound up driving him into a self-imposed exile into space.
Mxyzptlk, a foe he could never defeat through ordinary means because of his magical abilities, threatened to destroy not only all of Superman's friends but the world besides -- so Superman felt forced to kill him with the PZ projector. But immediately afterwards he destroyed his own powers with Gold Kryptonite and walked away into the frozen wastes, into obscurity. Because, in his own words, "Nobody has the right to take a life -- not even Superman."
And the battle with Doomsday (which the movie battle with Zod eerily echoes in some respects) was a battle that got out of hand. (Note how often in that story Superman at least tries to take the battle away from the cities; he fails, but not from lack of trying to protect the bystanders.) The battle reaches its peak where the two combatants cannot defeat each other without serious bodily harm, and ends only when they kill each other. Superman kills Doomsday, but only at the cost of his own life.
In each case, when Superman is forced by circumstances to kill, there is a price to be paid for his action. There are always repercussions. I don't see that in the movie, outside of a moment of grief and regret for having killed Zod. And I'm not convinced that it was his only option. Even during that scene when he was struggling with Zod, trying to keep him from frying the people trapped in the corner, I kept wondering why he didn't clap a hand over Zod's eyes to prevent the beams from striking their target. Sure, it would have torched his hand instead, but that's what Superman would have done. Or why didn't he use his own heat vision to cut the floor away under them so that they'd both drop away from the immediate situation and carry out their battle on another level. Right there at the theater I saw both of those options -- and Superman couldn't!?
This one scene of the whole movie, which winds up defining exactly who the hero really is, is actually the worst written scene in the whole film. And it fails to give us the real Superman.
I'm curious if the people who have the biggest disdain for the movie are the diehard Superman fans, while the ones who are mostly okay with it casual fans.
M
Not me. I have never been much of a Superman fan. I enjoyed the Donner movies as a kid, I enjoyed the Singer movie, but the character, in general, has never appealed to me much, and I have only rarely read him in his own comic. I was always much more of a Batman kid.
In fact, the look of this movie in the trailers, as well as Nolan's involvement, got me hopeful that this would be a Superman I could enjoy as an adult.
And for me, the problem was not that it was dark, but that it was dumb. I just wanted it to be better written, and more grounded in a world that I believed the way that the Nolan Batman trilogy was. I wanted it to be about something, again, the way that the Nolan Batman movies felt like they had thematic weight.
Instead, it just felt like it was a big, loud thing that I felt completely disconnected to. Especially in the latter half. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing, to borrow the quote.
For me, Superman killing Zod was actually not a problem. Rather, it was the false stakes of that moment-- there had been such an abundance of destruction and reckless abandon in thickly populated places. Buildings collapsing. Rubble and aircraft crashing all around. And we are really supposed to imagine that no one got killed in that? Or that Superman somehow knew, with every building he flew through or threw an enemy through that no one was at risk? And therefore this cowering family in the museum would somehow be the only casualties if he didn't stop Zod? I didn't buy it. I can get behind Superman selling a bit of his soul to stop a monster, but that decision should ALREADY have been made. It didn't need the false stakes of the family and the eye beams.
And it would have helped if Superman seemed to give a damn about the damage and risk he himself caused, in Metropolis and Smallville. The most Superman thing to do would have been to get the enemies away from people.
But, of course, then we wouldn't have got all that CG, building-busting mayhem. And I guess that is what people want in a Superman movie? Personally, had it been in a dessert, or space, had it been somewhere that I could actually watch and enjoy the choreography of the fight without all the background destruction, then I would have had much more fun.
But, everything has to be Transformers these days, so this is what we got.
But, to circle around to your original question, I am definitely not a Superman fan, I am usually skeptical about the character, and approach any Superman thing with one leg already out the door. (As a number of listeners to CGS Episode 470 found out and didn't quite appreciate ;) )
To backtrack and throw in some positives (even if some of these may be a bit off the back hand) for a moment--
- I really liked the opening of the film. I loved how alien and specific Krypton felt. And I enjoyed Crowe as Jor-El (even if I immediately had to try to imagine a fat, cranky, overpaid 1979 Marlon Brando doing all those same scenes, with all that running and jumping and diving in his Zeus robes. By God I'd buy that for another 14 dollars!)
- All those thing a lot of people hated or worried about in the trailers, like the color-bled shots of Clark as a kid, or off lonely wandering David Banner Hulk TV style, I loved that. The whole movie would have elevated for me if there had been more of that. Clark saving the guys on the oil rig? Excellent. It was just about the only rescue in the movie that wasn't saving Lois over and over.
- Shots like that flashback at the end of the Kents watching a young Clark run around with his cape? Beautiful. That actually felt iconic in ways that the grown up Clark in the supersuit so rarely did. In general all the young Clark scenes with the Kents were strong. Lane and Costner were very well-cast, and some of those scenes, like Martha coming to the school, were given room to breathe in a way I appreciated.
- Clark learning how to fly was great. And, as it was happening in a big, open space, I could watch and appreciate the specific physicality of it.
- I love Michael Shannon, he has become one of my favorite actors, onscreen and onstage. It is a bummer that they gave him a pretty one-note character here with terrible dialogue. But I still give them credit for casting him. He was a very unusual and interesting choice. And the payday and exposure from this will probably allow him to do much more interesting things in future.
**How bad is my OCD when I correct typos in quotes?
In this case, I appreciate the correction. I suspected I had misspelled it, but was too caught up in the moment to search out the correct spelling. Bad me.
And the battle with Doomsday (which the movie battle with Zod eerily echoes in some respects) was a battle that got out of hand. (Note how often in that story Superman at least tries to take the battle away from the cities; he fails, but not from lack of trying to protect the bystanders.) The battle reaches its peak where the two combatants cannot defeat each other without serious bodily harm, and ends only when they kill each other. Superman kills Doomsday, but only at the cost of his own life.
I loved that! That fight truly showed who Superman was for me. I love that innocents were always on his mind.
And I didn't mind Superman killing in that instance. He had little choice at that point.
Superman HAS killed before, comics AND in prior movies. Off putting & wrong, yes...but you can't really say "something he's never do."
But in the comics (at least) it has always been under different circumstances. And, more importantly, there have always been repercussions, and he has always had to pay a price for it. We're not getting that in this film.
The only instances I can think of Superman killing anyone intentionally have already been mentioned: killing the Phantom Zone villains in the pocket universe; killing Mxyzptlk in the Alan Moore story (which was essentially an Elseworld story); and Doomsday.
He didn't just kill the PZ villains; he executed them. And he did so after deliberating over it, realizing that he was the only one who could as a representative of their shared culture and as the only one left alive on that Earth. And he paid for it by questioning himself for the next several months, experiencing a nervous breakdown that had him develop a split identity that assumed the role of Gangbuster for a time, and eventually wound up driving him into a self-imposed exile into space.
Mxyzptlk, a foe he could never defeat through ordinary means because of his magical abilities, threatened to destroy not only all of Superman's friends but the world besides -- so Superman felt forced to kill him with the PZ projector. But immediately afterwards he destroyed his own powers with Gold Kryptonite and walked away into the frozen wastes, into obscurity. Because, in his own words, "Nobody has the right to take a life -- not even Superman."
And the battle with Doomsday (which the movie battle with Zod eerily echoes in some respects) was a battle that got out of hand. (Note how often in that story Superman at least tries to take the battle away from the cities; he fails, but not from lack of trying to protect the bystanders.) The battle reaches its peak where the two combatants cannot defeat each other without serious bodily harm, and ends only when they kill each other. Superman kills Doomsday, but only at the cost of his own life.
In each case, when Superman is forced by circumstances to kill, there is a price to be paid for his action. There are always repercussions. I don't see that in the movie, outside of a moment of grief and regret for having killed Zod. And I'm not convinced that it was his only option. Even during that scene when he was struggling with Zod, trying to keep him from frying the people trapped in the corner, I kept wondering why he didn't clap a hand over Zod's eyes to prevent the beams from striking their target. Sure, it would have torched his hand instead, but that's what Superman would have done. Or why didn't he use his own heat vision to cut the floor away under them so that they'd both drop away from the immediate situation and carry out their battle on another level. Right there at the theater I saw both of those options -- and Superman couldn't!?
This one scene of the whole movie, which winds up defining exactly who the hero really is, is actually the worst written scene in the whole film. And it fails to give us the real Superman.
So it can be implied the trio in II died, but since we didn't see it, the deaths didnt actually happen? I'd argue just because we didn't see Kal-El "sacrifice" doesn't mean he didn't.
Its easy to Monday morning quarterback & say Kal-El could've done something else, but its a decision he made. Why couldn't he use the phantom zone projector on the 3 criminals in the Byrne story? Depower them, then sentence them to the Zone? Same with Doomsday; send him to the Zone.
I highly doubt the next day Clark was over what happened. Again, I didn't agree with it, but in the context of the movie it makes sense. He chose humans over Krypton & severed his last link to his heritage.
Interesting review. A lot I'd like to get into, but won't. A few things I'd like to bring up:
The part about "proper films" seems off. I know those are beloved by many, then again I've been hearing more & more people say they're okay, but not really Superman.
Superman HAS killed before, comics AND in prior movies. Off putting & wrong, yes...but you can't really say "something he's never do."
How many complaint have there been over the years about Superman films revisiting the same themes with Luthor & never really see him battle an equal? We get it, then there are complaints about it. If it was a Brainiac, Bizarro, or Metallo instead of Zod would people be happier?
I would've been as disgusted if they played Williams' brilliant theme as I would've been if Batman Begins played Danny Elfman's theme. New start, new music. Playing that would've undercut the movie, not save it (in some eyes.). To be honest, I found the song "An Ideal of Hope" used in the trailers to be breathtaking & inspiring at the same time.
M
Good points. On my blog I worked my way through all the Superman films in preparation for Man of Steel and I did have problems with the repeated use of Luthor as a villain. I was quite happy to have him battle Zod and the other Phantom Zoners. I just would have liked to see Superman trying to take the fight away from populated areas more. As WetRats has pointed out he could have got them off the Smallville main street somehow.
I missed seeing Superman doing some of the more everyday stuff, blocking bullets, saving lives, catching a falling helicopter before it goes all Black Hawk Down. I also missed the humour. A couple of smiles wouldn't have hurt this movie.
And just to hear the merest nod to John Williams music would have been enough for me. That would have taken me right back to the wonder of those earlier movie theatre experiences. I remember someone on a podcast saying exactly that in their Superman Returns review.
I will admit, the final scene in Smallville felt like the bookend to the Donner/John Williams' universe for me. I was glad for something new.
I do have some issue with the death of Zod, but we've seen it in the Superman films before.
I'll take issue with that, if you're referring to Superman II.
True, the film heavily implies that he killed the Phantom Zone villains, but we never actually see it happen. They slide off the fortress walls into, we assume, the frozen wastes beneath. But the deaths are assumed, not confirmed.
Moreover, that wasn't the original plan. Richard Donner's original ending, added to the Director's Cut, was that Superman repeated his time-travel Earth-spin of the first movie to set time back to before the Phantom Zoners ever escaped their prison. So they weren't killed at all.
Right on both counts, but I'm going to estimate non-geeks probably only saw the theatric version. And, implied or not, they still died. And didn't Superman kill the Nuclear Man?
M
No, we don't know that they died. I sure never assumed so; I always assumed that he gathered them up off-camera and put them into custody, because that's what Superman does. It never really occurred to me until discussions (much later) that this might not have happened. I think it's more like a Rorsach test, in that each viewer defines the image shown differently. Frankly, I prefer mine, because Superman doesn't kill.
As for the Nuclear Man -- I honestly don't remember. I remember a lot of scenes from that film, but not the resolution. (A lot of the film is not worth remembering, honestly.) But my vague recollection was that the character wasn't really alive, like Bizarro. Am I mistaken about that?
Nuclear Man got used to fuel a nuclear plant...which killed him. I know it was a generic Bizarro clone, but if someone ceased the life of a Chuck Melville clone, it'd still be murdered.
I'm going to start putting out there that Kal-El exiles himself following Zod's death, then returns months later to talk with Martha, then get a job at the Planet. All off-camera, of course. LOL.
If you notice at the end, there seems to be drastically less damage in Metropolis when Clark arrives at the Daily Planet. There'd have to be months that'd pass to clear up damage! #hastraction!
I went to the early-bird show this morning (going to the midnight show last night just wasn’t practical for me), and I want to get my thoughts and review in before I read any other posts. Yes, there will likely be SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
I hadn’t realized that Nolan was co-writing the script as well as producing it; somehow, I had managed to miss that detail. Raises my hopes a little.
The 3-D was very, very good, especially for the space and Krypton scenes.
The Krypton sequence was quite good. It was a different look, but a good one and very expertly realized. I was a bit creeped out early on by the Kryptonian mode of visual-technology, the odd liquid metal 3-D sculptures, but after awhile I got used to them. And there were several scenes where this tech was actually used to beautiful effect, creating beautiful visual dioramas. It still seems strange that a highly advanced scientific civilization would want to use such an odd means of visual communication in place of a more elegant light hologram system, but it is genuinely unique, and I was good with it once past the early sequences.
I was pleased to see them use the Kryptonian robot, Kelex.
The limited palette I was afraid of the film using just wasn’t there, thank Rao. It was still kinda subdued and not as colorful as I would have preferred, but at least it didn’t feel stifling or pretentious.
I never had much quarrel with much of the casting, and they all did a fine job. Russell Crowe made a more convincing Jor-El than I would have guessed and they made far more use of him than I thought they would. Fishbourne, as Perry White, got a bit better play than expected as well, and though his scenes were few, was used well. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as the Kents were very good. Amy Adams as Lois Lane was… okay. I had a little bit of trouble with her part; she started out well, but seemed to lose a lot of that feistiness that Lois is so well known for, and they fell just a little too quickly and a little too cleanly into the romance between her and Superman.
I did not like the manner of death for either of Clark’s two dads. I saw how they were being used for the sake of the story structure, but they just didn’t sit well with me. No sir.
No Jimmy Olsen. But we do get Steve Lombard.
Surprisingly (to me) they did actually use the correct villains from the traditional Phantom Zone stories: Zod, Jax-Ur and Faora. I was even surprised to see that they used Dev-Em!!!
It took me a few scenes to recognize Richard Schiff as Emil Hamilton. And Christopher Meloni (who has been Green Lantern at least once in his career) was very good; I enjoyed his scenes very much.
I have never, ever bought into the idea of the Kryptonian symbol for ‘hope’ looking like an English ‘S’. It is one coincidence too many, and it always felt forced. (“Hey! Our word for ‘hope’ looks just like your letter ‘s’! Which also stands for Superman! Which is my name! Wotta coincidence!”) This film doesn’t change my mind about it.
They make a mess of Metropolis. I kept wondering throughout all of the battle why Superman didn’t try to take the battle out into less populated areas. I realize that the sequences would have looked less dramatic and have less tension to them, but I thought he might at least try to make the effort, or at least say something as to how he couldn’t maneuver them away.
Very quick nod to Lexcorp in one scene.
One complaint I did see mention elsewhere was the lack of humor in this film, and I have to agree. It was just a tad dry. It could have used just a touch of humor to lighten it up a bit – not to the extent of campiness, but just enough to relieve the heaviness a little. There was one quick humorous scene, but if you blinked, you missed it: Zod throws Superman into a skyscraper skeleton, right into a sign noting the number of days without an accident (something like 280). When Superman hits it, all of the digits except for the zero fall off.
The one overall success of the film was the special effects, no question. Not just for the over-the-top battle scenes, but for how they did them so seamlessly. There’s a moment where a patch of the floor that Superman is standing on suddenly vanishes and, without effort, he hovers for a moment before zooming forward, and it looks natural – no sudden jerking of wires or telltale aura from superimposition. Everything in the film looks natural, from his flying at supersonic speeds, to holding back a flaming oil derrick, to pummeling Zod through a flying debris field. It is seamless. It is beautiful.
Very nice and unexpected use of Pete Ross in a small but key scene of young Clark’s development.
Henry Cavill is no Christopher Reeve. He lacks Reeve’s sheer presence. However, he is no slouch either. He handles the role very well and very reverently. We see little of Clark the reporter, though, and we don’t really know how he’ll deal with handling a dual role within a single movie, but I guess that’ll be in the next film.
Superman crosses the line by killing Zod. That disturbs me. I see that they're trying to copy the famed killing sequence from the story done by Byrne, but there isn't a sufficient build-up here, or a good aftermath to it. Maybe that'll be the basis for the next film.
To sum up, I have to admit that the film is the blockbuster that everyone hopes it to be. It isn’t perfect, but it comes pretty damn near close, in spite of my earlier apprehensions. See it.
However! One point I will still not concede: the costume is still ugly. Cavill’s performance is good enough to make you look past it most of the time, but when things slow down you just can’t help but see the shine on the pants and glitter on that baroque insignia, and notice how wrong it looks without the traditional red trunks. I still deduct points for this and I will not be swayed from this opinion.
Out of a possible Five Stars, I’ll give it Four. And a quarter.
And, hell, I'll go see it again.
Wait a minute, wait, wait...
I seem to recall, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that because of certain things you saw in the previews that you were basically going into this movie with it having one negative star. Like, it was starting with an uphill climb.
And you're giving it 4.25 stars out of 5? To me, that means that you L-O-V-E-D it.
As for the rest, don't understand the problem with the killing. Been done on screen, been done in comics. Don't understand the problem with the violence, we've seen comics from DC where literally millions die, planets explode.
I suppose I could have seen a part where Clark/Supes goes "I have to get this fight out of the city..." and tries to, but fails. I don't know. Just feels like there is way more dislike of the violence in this movie compared to the city being destroyed in Avengers, constant gun play in Avengers...
I seem to recall, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that because of certain things you saw in the previews that you were basically going into this movie with it having one negative star. Like, it was starting with an uphill climb.
And you're giving it 4.25 stars out of 5? To me, that means that you L-O-V-E-D it.
I usually go into any movie giving it a '0' star rating until I've actually seen it all the way through. And I had a lot of trepidations about this film, not all of which were expelled by the final viewing. The negative star was for the costume, and that negative point remained; I was actually notching it up a few micro points out of kindness for all the enjoyable stuff in the movie. Actually, after mulling over the film some more and arguing over some of the needless killing at the end, I've reconsidered and knocked it down to four out of five. I still liked it a lot better than I thought I would, but it still had problems.
As for the rest, don't understand the problem with the killing. Been done on screen, been done in comics. Don't understand the problem with the violence, we've seen comics from DC where literally millions die, planets explode.
Keep reading the rest of the posts in this topic where those points are discussed more in full.
I suppose I could have seen a part where Clark/Supes goes "I have to get this fight out of the city..." and tries to, but fails. I don't know. Just feels like there is way more dislike of the violence in this movie compared to the city being destroyed in Avengers, constant gun play in Avengers...
It's not the violence in the film that I have difficulty with. It's how the hero dealt with it that's at issue. I don't even have a problem with the city being torn to shreds during the battle; it's that Superman's actions during the battle just seemed very much out of character.
Superman HAS killed before, comics AND in prior movies. Off putting & wrong, yes...but you can't really say "something he's never do."
But in the comics (at least) it has always been under different circumstances. And, more importantly, there have always been repercussions, and he has always had to pay a price for it. We're not getting that in this film.
The only instances I can think of Superman killing anyone intentionally have already been mentioned: killing the Phantom Zone villains in the pocket universe; killing Mxyzptlk in the Alan Moore story (which was essentially an Elseworld story); and Doomsday.
He didn't just kill the PZ villains; he executed them. And he did so after deliberating over it, realizing that he was the only one who could as a representative of their shared culture and as the only one left alive on that Earth. And he paid for it by questioning himself for the next several months, experiencing a nervous breakdown that had him develop a split identity that assumed the role of Gangbuster for a time, and eventually wound up driving him into a self-imposed exile into space.
Mxyzptlk, a foe he could never defeat through ordinary means because of his magical abilities, threatened to destroy not only all of Superman's friends but the world besides -- so Superman felt forced to kill him with the PZ projector. But immediately afterwards he destroyed his own powers with Gold Kryptonite and walked away into the frozen wastes, into obscurity. Because, in his own words, "Nobody has the right to take a life -- not even Superman."
And the battle with Doomsday (which the movie battle with Zod eerily echoes in some respects) was a battle that got out of hand. (Note how often in that story Superman at least tries to take the battle away from the cities; he fails, but not from lack of trying to protect the bystanders.) The battle reaches its peak where the two combatants cannot defeat each other without serious bodily harm, and ends only when they kill each other. Superman kills Doomsday, but only at the cost of his own life.
In each case, when Superman is forced by circumstances to kill, there is a price to be paid for his action. There are always repercussions. I don't see that in the movie, outside of a moment of grief and regret for having killed Zod. And I'm not convinced that it was his only option. Even during that scene when he was struggling with Zod, trying to keep him from frying the people trapped in the corner, I kept wondering why he didn't clap a hand over Zod's eyes to prevent the beams from striking their target. Sure, it would have torched his hand instead, but that's what Superman would have done. Or why didn't he use his own heat vision to cut the floor away under them so that they'd both drop away from the immediate situation and carry out their battle on another level. Right there at the theater I saw both of those options -- and Superman couldn't!?
This one scene of the whole movie, which winds up defining exactly who the hero really is, is actually the worst written scene in the whole film. And it fails to give us the real Superman.
So it can be implied the trio in II died, but since we didn't see it, the deaths didnt actually happen? I'd argue just because we didn't see Kal-El "sacrifice" doesn't mean he didn't.
But it should have been shown if there was. Not doing so is bad writing. And yes, the same is true of the ending to Superman II -- what became of the villains should have been shown, not left to interpretation.
Its easy to Monday morning quarterback & say Kal-El could've done something else, but its a decision he made. Why couldn't he use the phantom zone projector on the 3 criminals in the Byrne story? Depower them, then sentence them to the Zone? Same with Doomsday; send him to the Zone.
The post-Crisis Superman didn't have a Phantom Zone projector, at least not at the time of the Doomsday battle. I can't see where he could have gotten away from the battle to retrieve it if he had; he wasn't possessed of the same super-speed powers that the pre-Crisis Superman had and the battle kept him predisposed.
As I recall, the projector in the pocket universe wasn't available; I believe it had been destroyed early on by the villains to prevent their being sent back. Superman had taken their powers away with Gold K, leaving them powerless, but felt that he couldn't take the chance that they'd somehow regain their abilities, and his own powers weren't close to being on par with theirs. He also took the stance that it was a matter of official justice being rendered, where he was forced to sit in as judge, jury and executioner since nobody else was available. I didn't particularly agree with the choices being made in the storyline, but I could follow the arguments pretty clearly and see what was being done. Byrne was also using this story to establish Superman adopting a code against killing from that point on, as (in the post-Crisis timeline to that point) he didn't actually have such a code.
I highly doubt the next day Clark was over what happened. Again, I didn't agree with it, but in the context of the movie it makes sense. He chose humans over Krypton & severed his last link to his heritage.
I understood that, but it didn't real feel like a big loss to him, however they played it out. And I don't really think it worked all that well in the movie's context, not as a personal sacrifice. Especially since he didn't really have all that strong an emotional connection to Krypton in the first place. It doesn't work as a 'payment' for killing Zod.
As for 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking"... I was seeing these alternative methods to handling Zod right there in the theater while the battle was taking place. Why couldn't Superman?
Nuclear Man got used to fuel a nuclear plant...which killed him. I know it was a generic Bizarro clone, but if someone ceased the life of a Chuck Melville clone, it'd still be murdered.
The original version of Bizarro was that he was created by a defective matter-duplication machine, so he wasn't really a clone. He was a kind of energy-manifestation that mimicked life, but wasn't alive in the biological sense. So it's questionable whether his passing would be considered a Death or simply a 'Cessation'. Later reimaginings brought in clone technology but even these presented him as a non-living duplication: his cellular structure looked human, or at least Kryptonian, but it was inert. (I never could figure that out; if his biology was inert, how did he function at all?) This was last affirmed, to my knowledge, during the Byrne run. Therefore, killing a Bizarro is about the same as killing a defective refrigerator: satisfying, but hardly a moral dilemma.
Of course, this really bad movie aside, Superman never really went all out to kill Bizarro, giving even his questionable life-status more credibility and importance than the average person would.
And that brings up a different question. Given that Superman IV was a very bad movie, and that the deaths of the villains (if it really happened) in Superman II was a badly out-of-character moment for Superman, then why are we using these as justification for his actions in future films? Two wrongs do not make a right. If anything, the producers should be distancing themselves from that kind of mischaracterization, or from altering the character into the kind of person who would kill so quickly at the first sign of desperation. Instead of the filmmakers saying, "Hey, it's okay because he's done it before," they should be saying, "Whoa! We won't be making that mistake again!" I do expect more out of Superman, and it's a disappointment when we don't get it.
Superman HAS killed before, comics AND in prior movies. Off putting & wrong, yes...but you can't really say "something he's never do."
But in the comics (at least) it has always been under different circumstances. And, more importantly, there have always been repercussions, and he has always had to pay a price for it. We're not getting that in this film.
The only instances I can think of Superman killing anyone intentionally have already been mentioned: killing the Phantom Zone villains in the pocket universe; killing Mxyzptlk in the Alan Moore story (which was essentially an Elseworld story); and Doomsday.
He didn't just kill the PZ villains; he executed them. And he did so after deliberating over it, realizing that he was the only one who could as a representative of their shared culture and as the only one left alive on that Earth. And he paid for it by questioning himself for the next several months, experiencing a nervous breakdown that had him develop a split identity that assumed the role of Gangbuster for a time, and eventually wound up driving him into a self-imposed exile into space.
Mxyzptlk, a foe he could never defeat through ordinary means because of his magical abilities, threatened to destroy not only all of Superman's friends but the world besides -- so Superman felt forced to kill him with the PZ projector. But immediately afterwards he destroyed his own powers with Gold Kryptonite and walked away into the frozen wastes, into obscurity. Because, in his own words, "Nobody has the right to take a life -- not even Superman."
And the battle with Doomsday (which the movie battle with Zod eerily echoes in some respects) was a battle that got out of hand. (Note how often in that story Superman at least tries to take the battle away from the cities; he fails, but not from lack of trying to protect the bystanders.) The battle reaches its peak where the two combatants cannot defeat each other without serious bodily harm, and ends only when they kill each other. Superman kills Doomsday, but only at the cost of his own life.
In each case, when Superman is forced by circumstances to kill, there is a price to be paid for his action. There are always repercussions. I don't see that in the movie, outside of a moment of grief and regret for having killed Zod. And I'm not convinced that it was his only option. Even during that scene when he was struggling with Zod, trying to keep him from frying the people trapped in the corner, I kept wondering why he didn't clap a hand over Zod's eyes to prevent the beams from striking their target. Sure, it would have torched his hand instead, but that's what Superman would have done. Or why didn't he use his own heat vision to cut the floor away under them so that they'd both drop away from the immediate situation and carry out their battle on another level. Right there at the theater I saw both of those options -- and Superman couldn't!?
This one scene of the whole movie, which winds up defining exactly who the hero really is, is actually the worst written scene in the whole film. And it fails to give us the real Superman.
So it can be implied the trio in II died, but since we didn't see it, the deaths didnt actually happen? I'd argue just because we didn't see Kal-El "sacrifice" doesn't mean he didn't.
But it should have been shown if there was. Not doing so is bad writing. And yes, the same is true of the ending to Superman II -- what became of the villains should have been shown, not left to interpretation.
Its easy to Monday morning quarterback & say Kal-El could've done something else, but its a decision he made. Why couldn't he use the phantom zone projector on the 3 criminals in the Byrne story? Depower them, then sentence them to the Zone? Same with Doomsday; send him to the Zone.
The post-Crisis Superman didn't have a Phantom Zone projector, at least not at the time of the Doomsday battle. I can't see where he could have gotten away from the battle to retrieve it if he had; he wasn't possessed of the same super-speed powers that the pre-Crisis Superman had and the battle kept him predisposed.
As I recall, the projector in the pocket universe wasn't available; I believe it had been destroyed early on by the villains to prevent their being sent back. Superman had taken their powers away with Gold K, leaving them powerless, but felt that he couldn't take the chance that they'd somehow regain their abilities, and his own powers weren't close to being on par with theirs. He also took the stance that it was a matter of official justice being rendered, where he was forced to sit in as judge, jury and executioner since nobody else was available. I didn't particularly agree with the choices being made in the storyline, but I could follow the arguments pretty clearly and see what was being done. Byrne was also using this story to establish Superman adopting a code against killing from that point on, as (in the post-Crisis timeline to that point) he didn't actually have such a code.
I highly doubt the next day Clark was over what happened. Again, I didn't agree with it, but in the context of the movie it makes sense. He chose humans over Krypton & severed his last link to his heritage.
I understood that, but it didn't real feel like a big loss to him, however they played it out. And I don't really think it worked all that well in the movie's context, not as a personal sacrifice. Especially since he didn't really have all that strong an emotional connection to Krypton in the first place. It doesn't work as a 'payment' for killing Zod.
As for 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking"... I was seeing these alternative methods to handling Zod right there in the theater while the battle was taking place. Why couldn't Superman?
Couldn't it be argued that this was the moment that defined Superman's moral code of not killing, much like in that Byrne story? Its not his first choice, but made it. Now, he won't kill again knowing the weight it cares?
I understand in the comic he justified the act with several factors, but were these 3 criminals the 1st threat Superman fought post-Crisis more powerful then him? Why not kill that threat? Why presume these 3 depowered Kryptonians would regain their superior power and not another villain getting even more powerful?
Did you ever do something you knew was wrong, but rationalized why you did it? Kal-El was raised human, surely he suffers the same shortcomings.
Technically, is the movie's Zod more powerful than Kal-El? Sure it wasn't as "solar charged" as Kal-El, but he was born, raised, & trained to be a warrior. He'd have the military experience Kal-El didn't. The longer Zod remained on Earth, the more powerful he'd become. In a sense, the same scenario as in that Byrne story.
I think its still Monday morning QB-ing when you're not the one in the situation. If my wife calls & tells me an issue that's occurring, I normally can provide her with solutions based on my experiences & knowledge. In actuality, you as a viewer have more Superman experience then MOS Superman in a battle with Zod.
Nuclear Man got used to fuel a nuclear plant...which killed him. I know it was a generic Bizarro clone, but if someone ceased the life of a Chuck Melville clone, it'd still be murdered.
The original version of Bizarro was that he was created by a defective matter-duplication machine, so he wasn't really a clone. He was a kind of energy-manifestation that mimicked life, but wasn't alive in the biological sense. So it's questionable whether his passing would be considered a Death or simply a 'Cessation'. Later reimaginings brought in clone technology but even these presented him as a non-living duplication: his cellular structure looked human, or at least Kryptonian, but it was inert. (I never could figure that out; if his biology was inert, how did he function at all?) This was last affirmed, to my knowledge, during the Byrne run. Therefore, killing a Bizarro is about the same as killing a defective refrigerator: satisfying, but hardly a moral dilemma.
Of course, this really bad movie aside, Superman never really went all out to kill Bizarro, giving even his questionable life-status more credibility and importance than the average person would.
And that brings up a different question. Given that Superman IV was a very bad movie, and that the deaths of the villains (if it really happened) in Superman II was a badly out-of-character moment for Superman, then why are we using these as justification for his actions in future films? Two wrongs do not make a right. If anything, the producers should be distancing themselves from that kind of mischaracterization, or from altering the character into the kind of person who would kill so quickly at the first sign of desperation. Instead of the filmmakers saying, "Hey, it's okay because he's done it before," they should be saying, "Whoa! We won't be making that mistake again!" I do expect more out of Superman, and it's a disappointment when we don't get it.
I'm actually using these as examples that Superman has killed before, so (even though we agree it shouldn't have occurred) seeing him kill Zod in this movie shouldn't be as shocking. Not should people confuse "should not" with "would not" because he already has. Again, I didn't like it anymore then you & I'm not justifying it (though I understand why it happened), but its not the 1st time we've seen it.
"I understood that, but it didn't real feel like a big loss to him, however they played it out. And I don't really think it worked all that well in the movie's context, not as a personal sacrifice. Especially since he didn't really have all that strong an emotional connection to Krypton in the first place. It doesn't work as a 'payment' for killing Zod"
The entire emotional arc of the movie is Kal searching for who he is, and finally finding it! He's elated when he goes home and tells him Mom. That's almost the whole movie.
Also back to Zod. The more I think about it the more it's apparent Zod goes into the last fight looking to die. He literally takes his armor off. He's the proud warrior with no purpose anymore. He prepared and I think in the last moments looking to die.
Couldn't it be argued that this was the moment that defined Superman's moral code of not killing, much like in that Byrne story? Its not his first choice, but made it. Now, he won't kill again knowing the weight it cares?
I could accept that argument, and I thought that might have been the way they were going with it. But they didn't give it to us! Nowhere in all that aftermath did we hear Superman swear against killing ever again. Not even a hint. Maybe they're waiting to make it an issue in the next film, but we shouldn't have to wait until then. It should be a point made in this film, as a part of the whole. They can play into it all they want as a theme later if they want, but it should be established here and now as part of the coda. Superman learns something and adopts an ideal. Pushing it off until later -- if that is their intention at all -- is lazy writing. (Not doing it all is bad writing.)
I understand in the comic he justified the act with several factors, but were these 3 criminals the 1st threat Superman fought post-Crisis more powerful then him?
I think its still Monday morning QB-ing when you're not the one in the situation. If my wife calls & tells me an issue that's occurring, I normally can provide her with solutions based on my experiences & knowledge. In actuality, you as a viewer have more Superman experience then MOS Superman in a battle with Zod.
How much experience does one need in order to clap a hand over the other guy's eyes? Even struggling to hold Zod as he was, it would have only taken a second to shift his grip to do it. It might have only last a second or two before Zod would have broken the grip, but it would have been enough for the bystanders to scamper away to safety, and the grappling would have continued.
"I understood that, but it didn't real feel like a big loss to him, however they played it out. And I don't really think it worked all that well in the movie's context, not as a personal sacrifice. Especially since he didn't really have all that strong an emotional connection to Krypton in the first place. It doesn't work as a 'payment' for killing Zod"
The entire emotional arc of the movie is Kal searching for who he is, and finally finding it! He's elated when he goes home and tells him Mom. That's almost the whole movie.
Yeah, but even at the moment that he destroyed the birthing chamber, I couldn't feel that he had any emotional connection to it. Nor did I feel like he made any sacrifice when he killed Zod.
Also back to Zod. The more I think about it the more it's apparent Zod goes into the last fight looking to die. He literally takes his armor off. He's the proud warrior with no purpose anymore. He prepared and I think in the last moments looking to die.
Oh, I understood that right while it was happening. It was pretty obvious. I just don't see that as having any bearing on Superman's actions. Just because your opponent wants you to kill him is no excuse for doing it, and I'm not convinced by the way it played out that Superman had no other choice.
Couldn't it be argued that this was the moment that defined Superman's moral code of not killing, much like in that Byrne story? Its not his first choice, but made it. Now, he won't kill again knowing the weight it cares?
I could accept that argument, and I thought that might have been the way they were going with it. But they didn't give it to us! Nowhere in all that aftermath did we hear Superman swear against killing ever again. Not even a hint. Maybe they're waiting to make it an issue in the next film, but we shouldn't have to wait until then. It should be a point made in this film, as a part of the whole. They can play into it all they want as a theme later if they want, but it should be established here and now as part of the coda. Superman learns something and adopts an ideal. Pushing it off until later -- if that is their intention at all -- is lazy writing. (Not doing it all is bad writing.)
I understand in the comic he justified the act with several factors, but were these 3 criminals the 1st threat Superman fought post-Crisis more powerful then him?
I think its still Monday morning QB-ing when you're not the one in the situation. If my wife calls & tells me an issue that's occurring, I normally can provide her with solutions based on my experiences & knowledge. In actuality, you as a viewer have more Superman experience then MOS Superman in a battle with Zod.
How much experience does one need in order to clap a hand over the other guy's eyes? Even struggling to hold Zod as he was, it would have only taken a second to shift his grip to do it. It might have only last a second or two before Zod would have broken the grip, but it would have been enough for the bystanders to scamper away to safety, and the grappling would have continued.
Have you ever been in a fight? I have. When your getting someone pummeling you, you are trying to do whatever you can to fight back. Even if you've spent time training, proper form, style, battle plan often get sacrificed just to keep from taking more hits.
Before this day, I don't think Kal-El has ever fought before. Making a quick gesture could have avoid THAT scenario in the movie. It seems easy enough, but I'm betting in the heat of the moment, Kal-El isn't thinking clearly.
"I understood that, but it didn't real feel like a big loss to him, however they played it out. And I don't really think it worked all that well in the movie's context, not as a personal sacrifice. Especially since he didn't really have all that strong an emotional connection to Krypton in the first place. It doesn't work as a 'payment' for killing Zod"
The entire emotional arc of the movie is Kal searching for who he is, and finally finding it! He's elated when he goes home and tells him Mom. That's almost the whole movie.
Yeah, but even at the moment that he destroyed the birthing chamber, I couldn't feel that he had any emotional connection to it. Nor did I feel like he made any sacrifice when he killed Zod.
I agree in that scene, but what about when he crashes into the scout ship piloted by Zod? He's about to use his heat vision to destroy it. Zod reminds him of it being part of his heritage, he hesitates, then uses his heat vision. "Krypton had its time."
Couldn't it be argued that this was the moment that defined Superman's moral code of not killing, much like in that Byrne story? Its not his first choice, but made it. Now, he won't kill again knowing the weight it cares?
I could accept that argument, and I thought that might have been the way they were going with it. But they didn't give it to us! Nowhere in all that aftermath did we hear Superman swear against killing ever again. Not even a hint. Maybe they're waiting to make it an issue in the next film, but we shouldn't have to wait until then. It should be a point made in this film, as a part of the whole. They can play into it all they want as a theme later if they want, but it should be established here and now as part of the coda. Superman learns something and adopts an ideal. Pushing it off until later -- if that is their intention at all -- is lazy writing. (Not doing it all is bad writing.)
I understand in the comic he justified the act with several factors, but were these 3 criminals the 1st threat Superman fought post-Crisis more powerful then him?
I think its still Monday morning QB-ing when you're not the one in the situation. If my wife calls & tells me an issue that's occurring, I normally can provide her with solutions based on my experiences & knowledge. In actuality, you as a viewer have more Superman experience then MOS Superman in a battle with Zod.
How much experience does one need in order to clap a hand over the other guy's eyes? Even struggling to hold Zod as he was, it would have only taken a second to shift his grip to do it. It might have only last a second or two before Zod would have broken the grip, but it would have been enough for the bystanders to scamper away to safety, and the grappling would have continued.
Have you ever been in a fight? I have. When your getting someone pummeling you, you are trying to do whatever you can to fight back. Even if you've spent time training, proper form, style, battle plan often get sacrificed just to keep from taking more hits.
Before this day, I don't think Kal-El has ever fought before. Making a quick gesture could have avoid THAT scenario in the movie. It seems easy enough, but I'm betting in the heat of the moment, Kal-El isn't thinking clearly.
M
Of course, keeping his inexperience and lack of training in mind only reminds me of my biggest problem with the movie: if he has no idea what he's doing, how dare he have that fight in the middle of a crowded city? How would he be able to predict the kind of damage and risk that would come of throwing his opponents around? Or flying THROUGH a skyscraper?
If he is- and I think it is a good point you are making- actually LEARNING how to fight, then shouldn't he have at least tried to take the fight away from the city? So that he would have the equivalent of orange cones around instead of all those people?
It all felt more Fast and the Furious style reckless than Superman-style heroic and self-sacrificing.
Couldn't it be argued that this was the moment that defined Superman's moral code of not killing, much like in that Byrne story? Its not his first choice, but made it. Now, he won't kill again knowing the weight it cares?
I could accept that argument, and I thought that might have been the way they were going with it. But they didn't give it to us! Nowhere in all that aftermath did we hear Superman swear against killing ever again. Not even a hint. Maybe they're waiting to make it an issue in the next film, but we shouldn't have to wait until then. It should be a point made in this film, as a part of the whole. They can play into it all they want as a theme later if they want, but it should be established here and now as part of the coda. Superman learns something and adopts an ideal. Pushing it off until later -- if that is their intention at all -- is lazy writing. (Not doing it all is bad writing.)
I understand in the comic he justified the act with several factors, but were these 3 criminals the 1st threat Superman fought post-Crisis more powerful then him?
I think its still Monday morning QB-ing when you're not the one in the situation. If my wife calls & tells me an issue that's occurring, I normally can provide her with solutions based on my experiences & knowledge. In actuality, you as a viewer have more Superman experience then MOS Superman in a battle with Zod.
How much experience does one need in order to clap a hand over the other guy's eyes? Even struggling to hold Zod as he was, it would have only taken a second to shift his grip to do it. It might have only last a second or two before Zod would have broken the grip, but it would have been enough for the bystanders to scamper away to safety, and the grappling would have continued.
Have you ever been in a fight? I have. When your getting someone pummeling you, you are trying to do whatever you can to fight back. Even if you've spent time training, proper form, style, battle plan often get sacrificed just to keep from taking more hits.
Before this day, I don't think Kal-El has ever fought before. Making a quick gesture could have avoid THAT scenario in the movie. It seems easy enough, but I'm betting in the heat of the moment, Kal-El isn't thinking clearly.
M
Of course, keeping his inexperience and lack of training in mind only reminds me of my biggest problem with the movie: if he has no idea what he's doing, how dare he have that fight in the middle of a crowded city? How would he be able to predict the kind of damage and risk that would come of throwing his opponents around? Or flying THROUGH a skyscraper?
If he is- and I think it is a good point you are making- actually LEARNING how to fight, then shouldn't he have at least tried to take the fight away from the city? So that he would have the equivalent of orange cones around instead of all those people?
It all felt more Fast and the Furious style reckless than Superman-style heroic and self-sacrificing.
I do agree. If there would've been multiple scenes where he was trying to take the fight elsewhere, but kept getting pushed back in, I'd have been okay with it. Even if he would've thrown a few "no, the PEOPLE" and was seen saving a few in the process, I'd have been okay with that too.
Couldn't it be argued that this was the moment that defined Superman's moral code of not killing, much like in that Byrne story? Its not his first choice, but made it. Now, he won't kill again knowing the weight it cares?
I could accept that argument, and I thought that might have been the way they were going with it. But they didn't give it to us! Nowhere in all that aftermath did we hear Superman swear against killing ever again. Not even a hint. Maybe they're waiting to make it an issue in the next film, but we shouldn't have to wait until then. It should be a point made in this film, as a part of the whole. They can play into it all they want as a theme later if they want, but it should be established here and now as part of the coda. Superman learns something and adopts an ideal. Pushing it off until later -- if that is their intention at all -- is lazy writing. (Not doing it all is bad writing.)
I understand in the comic he justified the act with several factors, but were these 3 criminals the 1st threat Superman fought post-Crisis more powerful then him?
I think its still Monday morning QB-ing when you're not the one in the situation. If my wife calls & tells me an issue that's occurring, I normally can provide her with solutions based on my experiences & knowledge. In actuality, you as a viewer have more Superman experience then MOS Superman in a battle with Zod.
How much experience does one need in order to clap a hand over the other guy's eyes? Even struggling to hold Zod as he was, it would have only taken a second to shift his grip to do it. It might have only last a second or two before Zod would have broken the grip, but it would have been enough for the bystanders to scamper away to safety, and the grappling would have continued.
Have you ever been in a fight? I have. When your getting someone pummeling you, you are trying to do whatever you can to fight back. Even if you've spent time training, proper form, style, battle plan often get sacrificed just to keep from taking more hits.
Before this day, I don't think Kal-El has ever fought before. Making a quick gesture could have avoid THAT scenario in the movie. It seems easy enough, but I'm betting in the heat of the moment, Kal-El isn't thinking clearly.
M
Of course, keeping his inexperience and lack of training in mind only reminds me of my biggest problem with the movie: if he has no idea what he's doing, how dare he have that fight in the middle of a crowded city? How would he be able to predict the kind of damage and risk that would come of throwing his opponents around? Or flying THROUGH a skyscraper?
If he is- and I think it is a good point you are making- actually LEARNING how to fight, then shouldn't he have at least tried to take the fight away from the city? So that he would have the equivalent of orange cones around instead of all those people?
It all felt more Fast and the Furious style reckless than Superman-style heroic and self-sacrificing.
I do agree. If there would've been multiple scenes where he was trying to take the fight elsewhere, but kept getting pushed back in, I'd have been okay with it. Even if he would've thrown a few "no, the PEOPLE" and was seen saving a few in the process, I'd have been okay with that too.
M
I agree. And maybe this is an instance where the CG didn't blend with the script/story. But the over the top level of destruction, and lack of any effort I could see to prevent it or distance them from people, just came off as callous and reckless. Nothing in the story established that Superman was being prevented from leading them somewhere else. In fact, the moment it was revealed that HE was the McGuffin, I felt like that set him up for the opportunity to take the fight back to the arctic. And he didn't. Which just makes him look a lot less like Superman to me.
Couldn't it be argued that this was the moment that defined Superman's moral code of not killing, much like in that Byrne story? Its not his first choice, but made it. Now, he won't kill again knowing the weight it cares?
I could accept that argument, and I thought that might have been the way they were going with it. But they didn't give it to us! Nowhere in all that aftermath did we hear Superman swear against killing ever again. Not even a hint. Maybe they're waiting to make it an issue in the next film, but we shouldn't have to wait until then. It should be a point made in this film, as a part of the whole. They can play into it all they want as a theme later if they want, but it should be established here and now as part of the coda. Superman learns something and adopts an ideal. Pushing it off until later -- if that is their intention at all -- is lazy writing. (Not doing it all is bad writing.)
I understand in the comic he justified the act with several factors, but were these 3 criminals the 1st threat Superman fought post-Crisis more powerful then him?
I think its still Monday morning QB-ing when you're not the one in the situation. If my wife calls & tells me an issue that's occurring, I normally can provide her with solutions based on my experiences & knowledge. In actuality, you as a viewer have more Superman experience then MOS Superman in a battle with Zod.
How much experience does one need in order to clap a hand over the other guy's eyes? Even struggling to hold Zod as he was, it would have only taken a second to shift his grip to do it. It might have only last a second or two before Zod would have broken the grip, but it would have been enough for the bystanders to scamper away to safety, and the grappling would have continued.
Have you ever been in a fight? I have. When your getting someone pummeling you, you are trying to do whatever you can to fight back. Even if you've spent time training, proper form, style, battle plan often get sacrificed just to keep from taking more hits.
Before this day, I don't think Kal-El has ever fought before. Making a quick gesture could have avoid THAT scenario in the movie. It seems easy enough, but I'm betting in the heat of the moment, Kal-El isn't thinking clearly.
M
Of course, keeping his inexperience and lack of training in mind only reminds me of my biggest problem with the movie: if he has no idea what he's doing, how dare he have that fight in the middle of a crowded city? How would he be able to predict the kind of damage and risk that would come of throwing his opponents around? Or flying THROUGH a skyscraper?
If he is- and I think it is a good point you are making- actually LEARNING how to fight, then shouldn't he have at least tried to take the fight away from the city? So that he would have the equivalent of orange cones around instead of all those people?
It all felt more Fast and the Furious style reckless than Superman-style heroic and self-sacrificing.
I do agree. If there would've been multiple scenes where he was trying to take the fight elsewhere, but kept getting pushed back in, I'd have been okay with it. Even if he would've thrown a few "no, the PEOPLE" and was seen saving a few in the process, I'd have been okay with that too.
M
I agree. And maybe this is an instance where the CG didn't blend with the script/story. But the over the top level of destruction, and lack of any effort I could see to prevent it or distance them from people, just came off as callous and reckless. Nothing in the story established that Superman was being prevented from leading them somewhere else. In fact, the moment it was revealed that HE was the McGuffin, I felt like that set him up for the opportunity to take the fight back to the arctic. And he didn't. Which just makes him look a lot less like Superman to me.
This looks like a corner where most of us are in agreement.
I wasn't calling you out. Using what you were saying as an example, yes but not personally calling out. And I am aware that my post was one giant block and probably difficult to read that way. Working the 3rd shift at a clinical laboratory and getting my masters in microbiology and consequently having been up for 24 hours straight after seeing the movie, I didn't really care about paragraph structure. But I do appreciate you going all junior high english teacher on me. Although on a comic book forum on a Saturday morning it seems sarcastic remarks about paragraph structure is kind of the lowest common denominator as fas as responses go. Wait, isn't that what you're criticizing DC for doing? Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how antiquated and naive it may be.
Comments
Going back to the 90s is "evolution"?
Also, this is going to be folded into the Man of Steel spoiler discussion. Dissenting opinions are great, but they don't need their own, separate thread. Better to add to the ongoing discussion than duplicate a discussion. And, a belated welcome aboard.
The only instances I can think of Superman killing anyone intentionally have already been mentioned: killing the Phantom Zone villains in the pocket universe; killing Mxyzptlk in the Alan Moore story (which was essentially an Elseworld story); and Doomsday.
He didn't just kill the PZ villains; he executed them. And he did so after deliberating over it, realizing that he was the only one who could as a representative of their shared culture and as the only one left alive on that Earth. And he paid for it by questioning himself for the next several months, experiencing a nervous breakdown that had him develop a split identity that assumed the role of Gangbuster for a time, and eventually wound up driving him into a self-imposed exile into space.
Mxyzptlk, a foe he could never defeat through ordinary means because of his magical abilities, threatened to destroy not only all of Superman's friends but the world besides -- so Superman felt forced to kill him with the PZ projector. But immediately afterwards he destroyed his own powers with Gold Kryptonite and walked away into the frozen wastes, into obscurity. Because, in his own words, "Nobody has the right to take a life -- not even Superman."
And the battle with Doomsday (which the movie battle with Zod eerily echoes in some respects) was a battle that got out of hand. (Note how often in that story Superman at least tries to take the battle away from the cities; he fails, but not from lack of trying to protect the bystanders.) The battle reaches its peak where the two combatants cannot defeat each other without serious bodily harm, and ends only when they kill each other. Superman kills Doomsday, but only at the cost of his own life.
In each case, when Superman is forced by circumstances to kill, there is a price to be paid for his action. There are always repercussions. I don't see that in the movie, outside of a moment of grief and regret for having killed Zod. And I'm not convinced that it was his only option. Even during that scene when he was struggling with Zod, trying to keep him from frying the people trapped in the corner, I kept wondering why he didn't clap a hand over Zod's eyes to prevent the beams from striking their target. Sure, it would have torched his hand instead, but that's what Superman would have done. Or why didn't he use his own heat vision to cut the floor away under them so that they'd both drop away from the immediate situation and carry out their battle on another level. Right there at the theater I saw both of those options -- and Superman couldn't!?
This one scene of the whole movie, which winds up defining exactly who the hero really is, is actually the worst written scene in the whole film. And it fails to give us the real Superman.
In fact, the look of this movie in the trailers, as well as Nolan's involvement, got me hopeful that this would be a Superman I could enjoy as an adult.
And for me, the problem was not that it was dark, but that it was dumb. I just wanted it to be better written, and more grounded in a world that I believed the way that the Nolan Batman trilogy was. I wanted it to be about something, again, the way that the Nolan Batman movies felt like they had thematic weight.
Instead, it just felt like it was a big, loud thing that I felt completely disconnected to. Especially in the latter half. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing, to borrow the quote.
For me, Superman killing Zod was actually not a problem. Rather, it was the false stakes of that moment-- there had been such an abundance of destruction and reckless abandon in thickly populated places. Buildings collapsing. Rubble and aircraft crashing all around. And we are really supposed to imagine that no one got killed in that? Or that Superman somehow knew, with every building he flew through or threw an enemy through that no one was at risk? And therefore this cowering family in the museum would somehow be the only casualties if he didn't stop Zod? I didn't buy it. I can get behind Superman selling a bit of his soul to stop a monster, but that decision should ALREADY have been made. It didn't need the false stakes of the family and the eye beams.
And it would have helped if Superman seemed to give a damn about the damage and risk he himself caused, in Metropolis and Smallville. The most Superman thing to do would have been to get the enemies away from people.
But, of course, then we wouldn't have got all that CG, building-busting mayhem. And I guess that is what people want in a Superman movie? Personally, had it been in a dessert, or space, had it been somewhere that I could actually watch and enjoy the choreography of the fight without all the background destruction, then I would have had much more fun.
But, everything has to be Transformers these days, so this is what we got.
But, to circle around to your original question, I am definitely not a Superman fan, I am usually skeptical about the character, and approach any Superman thing with one leg already out the door. (As a number of listeners to CGS Episode 470 found out and didn't quite appreciate ;) )
- I really liked the opening of the film. I loved how alien and specific Krypton felt. And I enjoyed Crowe as Jor-El (even if I immediately had to try to imagine a fat, cranky, overpaid 1979 Marlon Brando doing all those same scenes, with all that running and jumping and diving in his Zeus robes. By God I'd buy that for another 14 dollars!)
- All those thing a lot of people hated or worried about in the trailers, like the color-bled shots of Clark as a kid, or off lonely wandering David Banner Hulk TV style, I loved that. The whole movie would have elevated for me if there had been more of that. Clark saving the guys on the oil rig? Excellent. It was just about the only rescue in the movie that wasn't saving Lois over and over.
- Shots like that flashback at the end of the Kents watching a young Clark run around with his cape? Beautiful. That actually felt iconic in ways that the grown up Clark in the supersuit so rarely did. In general all the young Clark scenes with the Kents were strong. Lane and Costner were very well-cast, and some of those scenes, like Martha coming to the school, were given room to breathe in a way I appreciated.
- Clark learning how to fly was great. And, as it was happening in a big, open space, I could watch and appreciate the specific physicality of it.
- I love Michael Shannon, he has become one of my favorite actors, onscreen and onstage. It is a bummer that they gave him a pretty one-note character here with terrible dialogue. But I still give them credit for casting him. He was a very unusual and interesting choice. And the payday and exposure from this will probably allow him to do much more interesting things in future.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/06/15/friday-box-office-man-of-steel-grosses-super-56-million/
And I didn't mind Superman killing in that instance. He had little choice at that point.
Its easy to Monday morning quarterback & say Kal-El could've done something else, but its a decision he made. Why couldn't he use the phantom zone projector on the 3 criminals in the Byrne story? Depower them, then sentence them to the Zone? Same with Doomsday; send him to the Zone.
I highly doubt the next day Clark was over what happened. Again, I didn't agree with it, but in the context of the movie it makes sense. He chose humans over Krypton & severed his last link to his heritage.
M
M
I'm going to start putting out there that Kal-El exiles himself following Zod's death, then returns months later to talk with Martha, then get a job at the Planet. All off-camera, of course. LOL.
If you notice at the end, there seems to be drastically less damage in Metropolis when Clark arrives at the Daily Planet. There'd have to be months that'd pass to clear up damage! #hastraction!
M
I seem to recall, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that because of certain things you saw in the previews that you were basically going into this movie with it having one negative star. Like, it was starting with an uphill climb.
And you're giving it 4.25 stars out of 5? To me, that means that you L-O-V-E-D it.
As for the rest, don't understand the problem with the killing. Been done on screen, been done in comics. Don't understand the problem with the violence, we've seen comics from DC where literally millions die, planets explode.
I suppose I could have seen a part where Clark/Supes goes "I have to get this fight out of the city..." and tries to, but fails. I don't know. Just feels like there is way more dislike of the violence in this movie compared to the city being destroyed in Avengers, constant gun play in Avengers...
As I recall, the projector in the pocket universe wasn't available; I believe it had been destroyed early on by the villains to prevent their being sent back. Superman had taken their powers away with Gold K, leaving them powerless, but felt that he couldn't take the chance that they'd somehow regain their abilities, and his own powers weren't close to being on par with theirs. He also took the stance that it was a matter of official justice being rendered, where he was forced to sit in as judge, jury and executioner since nobody else was available. I didn't particularly agree with the choices being made in the storyline, but I could follow the arguments pretty clearly and see what was being done. Byrne was also using this story to establish Superman adopting a code against killing from that point on, as (in the post-Crisis timeline to that point) he didn't actually have such a code. I understood that, but it didn't real feel like a big loss to him, however they played it out. And I don't really think it worked all that well in the movie's context, not as a personal sacrifice. Especially since he didn't really have all that strong an emotional connection to Krypton in the first place. It doesn't work as a 'payment' for killing Zod.
As for 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking"... I was seeing these alternative methods to handling Zod right there in the theater while the battle was taking place. Why couldn't Superman?
Of course, this really bad movie aside, Superman never really went all out to kill Bizarro, giving even his questionable life-status more credibility and importance than the average person would.
And that brings up a different question. Given that Superman IV was a very bad movie, and that the deaths of the villains (if it really happened) in Superman II was a badly out-of-character moment for Superman, then why are we using these as justification for his actions in future films? Two wrongs do not make a right. If anything, the producers should be distancing themselves from that kind of mischaracterization, or from altering the character into the kind of person who would kill so quickly at the first sign of desperation. Instead of the filmmakers saying, "Hey, it's okay because he's done it before," they should be saying, "Whoa! We won't be making that mistake again!" I do expect more out of Superman, and it's a disappointment when we don't get it.
I understand in the comic he justified the act with several factors, but were these 3 criminals the 1st threat Superman fought post-Crisis more powerful then him? Why not kill that threat? Why presume these 3 depowered Kryptonians would regain their superior power and not another villain getting even more powerful?
Did you ever do something you knew was wrong, but rationalized why you did it? Kal-El was raised human, surely he suffers the same shortcomings.
Technically, is the movie's Zod more powerful than Kal-El? Sure it wasn't as "solar charged" as Kal-El, but he was born, raised, & trained to be a warrior. He'd have the military experience Kal-El didn't. The longer Zod remained on Earth, the more powerful he'd become. In a sense, the same scenario as in that Byrne story.
I think its still Monday morning QB-ing when you're not the one in the situation. If my wife calls & tells me an issue that's occurring, I normally can provide her with solutions based on my experiences & knowledge. In actuality, you as a viewer have more Superman experience then MOS Superman in a battle with Zod.
M
M
The entire emotional arc of the movie is Kal searching for who he is, and finally finding it! He's elated when he goes home and tells him Mom. That's almost the whole movie.
Also back to Zod. The more I think about it the more it's apparent Zod goes into the last fight looking to die. He literally takes his armor off. He's the proud warrior with no purpose anymore. He prepared and I think in the last moments looking to die.
Before this day, I don't think Kal-El has ever fought before. Making a quick gesture could have avoid THAT scenario in the movie. It seems easy enough, but I'm betting in the heat of the moment, Kal-El isn't thinking clearly.
M
I agree in that scene, but what about when he crashes into the scout ship piloted by Zod? He's about to use his heat vision to destroy it. Zod reminds him of it being part of his heritage, he hesitates, then uses his heat vision. "Krypton had its time."
M
If he is- and I think it is a good point you are making- actually LEARNING how to fight, then shouldn't he have at least tried to take the fight away from the city? So that he would have the equivalent of orange cones around instead of all those people?
It all felt more Fast and the Furious style reckless than Superman-style heroic and self-sacrificing.
M
@Wetrats
I wasn't calling you out. Using what you were saying as an example, yes but not personally calling out. And I am aware that my post was one giant block and probably difficult to read that way. Working the 3rd shift at a clinical laboratory and getting my masters in microbiology and consequently having been up for 24 hours straight after seeing the movie, I didn't really care about paragraph structure. But I do appreciate you going all junior high english teacher on me. Although on a comic book forum on a Saturday morning it seems sarcastic remarks about paragraph structure is kind of the lowest common denominator as fas as responses go. Wait, isn't that what you're criticizing DC for doing? Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how antiquated and naive it may be.