Saying Superman in Man of Steel was a murderer is as inaccurate as stating you were robbed because you found someone had broken into your house & stole your stuff.
M
Because you were burgled, not robbed?
As in you rob a person, you burgle a home?
I thought I was the only person left who made that distinction.
Saying Superman in Man of Steel was a murderer is as inaccurate as stating you were robbed because you found someone had broken into your house & stole your stuff.
M
Because you were burgled, not robbed?
As in you rob a person, you burgle a home?
I thought I was the only person left who made that distinction.
Robbery involves threaten, aggressive force against you. Knife, gun, fists, etc threatening your life is a robbery. If you weren't home, you had a burglary with items stolen.
I don't know if I completely accept that. In police shootings, the officers have to take time off & have the matter looked into. If an off-duty police officer kills someone to protect others, is he a murderer too?M
No, because he's still a police officer, off-duty or not. He's still subject to the same rules, authority and expectations of his profession. He would have been in bigger trouble if he hadn't done everything in his power to protect innocents.
Plus, if I kill an intruder threatening my family at home, it'll be looked into and I'm not a duly appointed protector of the piece. Am I a murderer?M
That would depend upon the specifics of the situation; was there another viable way you could have incapacitated the intruder? If there was and you didn't employ it, then yes, you would be.
But, okay, so swap out 2 Kryptonians with 2 regular person, but with the same type of scenario with Zod uses a machine gun or flamethrower. You'd label the person in Superman's place a murderer? If I see some armed psycho hurting people I shouldn't act to stop them even if it means killing them because I'll be a murderer?M
But that wouldn't be an equivalent example. To be an honest comparison to the Superman - Zod confrontation, both regular persons would have to be armed with machine guns or flamethrowers.
At any rate, it still isn't a fair comparison because the person we're talking about is Superman. And Superman had a number of things he might have done or tried (which I've pointed out before) and he didn't do any of those things -- principally because the writers wanted to set up a false situation where he would be faced with the no-win scenario of killing his foe or allowing his foe to kill more innocents. It was a badly written scenario; I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.
Saying Superman in Man of Steel was a murderer is as inaccurate as stating you were robbed because you found someone had broken into your house & stole your stuff.M
Actually, I wouldn't call him a murderer. I would, though, say he was guilty of manslaughter, at least.
I don't know if I completely accept that. In police shootings, the officers have to take time off & have the matter looked into. If an off-duty police officer kills someone to protect others, is he a murderer too?M
No, because he's still a police officer, off-duty or not. He's still subject to the same rules, authority and expectations of his profession. He would have been in bigger trouble if he hadn't done everything in his power to protect innocents.
Plus, if I kill an intruder threatening my family at home, it'll be looked into and I'm not a duly appointed protector of the piece. Am I a murderer?M
That would depend upon the specifics of the situation; was there another viable way you could have incapacitated the intruder? If there was and you didn't employ it, then yes, you would be.
But, okay, so swap out 2 Kryptonians with 2 regular person, but with the same type of scenario with Zod uses a machine gun or flamethrower. You'd label the person in Superman's place a murderer? If I see some armed psycho hurting people I shouldn't act to stop them even if it means killing them because I'll be a murderer?M
But that wouldn't be an equivalent example. To be an honest comparison to the Superman - Zod confrontation, both regular persons would have to be armed with machine guns or flamethrowers.
At any rate, it still isn't a fair comparison because the person we're talking about is Superman. And Superman had a number of things he might have done or tried (which I've pointed out before) and he didn't do any of those things -- principally because the writers wanted to set up a false situation where he would be faced with the no-win scenario of killing his foe or allowing his foe to kill more innocents. It was a badly written scenario; I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.
Saying Superman in Man of Steel was a murderer is as inaccurate as stating you were robbed because you found someone had broken into your house & stole your stuff.M
Actually, I wouldn't call him a murderer. I would, though, say he was guilty of manslaughter, at least.
I wouldn't be found guilty of murder because I don't fit the requirements for first or second degree murder. Manslaughter, that could be argued.
Same with Superman. The Facebook post puts murderer there because the writer didn't know the difference or because he knew 'murderer' sounds 'sexy' in a rant bashing a movie he didn't see.
I believe I stated this before, but I don't buy the "because he's Superman" excuse in this movie. He was raised as a farmer (which was vastly under utilized point in the movie) facing off against a highly skilled military opponent. There's no reference to Kent even being in a fight before the invasion. I know there a lot of other ways Superman could've avoided the suicide-by-cop scenario, but THIS version is inexperienced & Zod was too determined.
As much as I know Batman is 10 steps ahead of everyone else, I'd be foolish to think Year One Batman could improvise a win over Superman like a Year Five Batman could.
Off-duty cops responsibilities are always questionable. I spoke with a veteran detective who said if he was off-duty & at a bank when it was being robbed, he'd follow the robbers' instructions. There's too many variables, even if he was armed, to resist & try to stop the crime.
Saying Superman in Man of Steel was a murderer is as inaccurate as stating you were robbed because you found someone had broken into your house & stole your stuff.
M
Because you were burgled, not robbed?
As in you rob a person, you burgle a home?
I thought I was the only person left who made that distinction.
Robbery involves threaten, aggressive force against you. Knife, gun, fists, etc threatening your life is a robbery. If you weren't home, you had a burglary with items stolen.
Personally, I don't care if an opinion comes from someone young or old. Both are valid (if anecdotal).
But I am only interested in the reaction of someone who has actually seen it. It is one thing when you are speculating before release, but now that it is available to be seen, then I'm not interested in reactions that aren't informed by the work.
EDIT- And, yes, I feel that about comics discussion, too. If you haven't read the work, then you can only speak from the works' reputation, marketing, or the synopses of others. Which is not nothing... but it is also not much. It is always most interesting to engage with those who are reacting to the work itself.
Good thing I've read all but the actual issue in my hands (issue pages are even uploaded now.) Can I add opinions such as "this is the best (insert character) has ever been written/drawn" by someone who only came onboard to the title because of a specific writer or artist. If someone read a specific character for years, through different writers & artists THEN makes that comment, I'll give it weight. Someone who's more again other the talent then character has an opinion that doesn't hold too much water for me.
M
I'm not sure I follow. But, in general, whether judging a single comic, or a lot of comics, best to judge the comics based on the comics themselves.
And I take your point that if people want to speak in superlatives, they probably need to do a lot of reading to do so. (Unless they are just comparing to their own reading, at which point you could decide what you like best within the covers of a single anthology)
During Morrison's run on Batman, I heard a lot of people say this was the best Batman has ever been written.
(Not returning to old pastures, I'll use Snyder) If someone like you or Shaner tell me this is the best Batman had ever been written, that opinion holds water to me. You both are longtime Batman fans. If, say someone I know is only reading the title because of Snyder & makes that 'best Batman has ever been written' statement, it does have much value to me. ESPECIALLY if they later drop the title because Snyder is no longer the writer.
Personally, I don't care if an opinion comes from someone young or old. Both are valid (if anecdotal).
But I am only interested in the reaction of someone who has actually seen it. It is one thing when you are speculating before release, but now that it is available to be seen, then I'm not interested in reactions that aren't informed by the work.
EDIT- And, yes, I feel that about comics discussion, too. If you haven't read the work, then you can only speak from the works' reputation, marketing, or the synopses of others. Which is not nothing... but it is also not much. It is always most interesting to engage with those who are reacting to the work itself.
Good thing I've read all but the actual issue in my hands (issue pages are even uploaded now.) Can I add opinions such as "this is the best (insert character) has ever been written/drawn" by someone who only came onboard to the title because of a specific writer or artist. If someone read a specific character for years, through different writers & artists THEN makes that comment, I'll give it weight. Someone who's more again other the talent then character has an opinion that doesn't hold too much water for me.
M
I'm not sure I follow. But, in general, whether judging a single comic, or a lot of comics, best to judge the comics based on the comics themselves.
And I take your point that if people want to speak in superlatives, they probably need to do a lot of reading to do so. (Unless they are just comparing to their own reading, at which point you could decide what you like best within the covers of a single anthology)
During Morrison's run on Batman, I heard a lot of people say this was the best Batman has ever been written.
(Not returning to old pastures, I'll use Snyder) If someone like you or Shaner tell me this is the best Batman had ever been written, that opinion holds water to me. You both are longtime Batman fans. If, say someone I know is only reading the title because of Snyder & makes that 'best Batman has ever been written' statement, it does have much value to me. ESPECIALLY if they later drop the title because Snyder is no longer the writer.
M
Got it. Personally, I try to avoid a superlative like "best" as it suggests you've read it all. I might aim more for "favorite", as that gives you a subjective out.
"Best" is something I am usually suspicious of, unless the scope is narrow (eg 'movies this year') and I have reason to believe the person did the work (eg they see movies for a living). Even then, my tastes may differ from theirs, but at least they've experienced enough work to make comparisons.
Personally, I don't care if an opinion comes from someone young or old. Both are valid (if anecdotal).
But I am only interested in the reaction of someone who has actually seen it. It is one thing when you are speculating before release, but now that it is available to be seen, then I'm not interested in reactions that aren't informed by the work.
EDIT- And, yes, I feel that about comics discussion, too. If you haven't read the work, then you can only speak from the works' reputation, marketing, or the synopses of others. Which is not nothing... but it is also not much. It is always most interesting to engage with those who are reacting to the work itself.
Good thing I've read all but the actual issue in my hands (issue pages are even uploaded now.) Can I add opinions such as "this is the best (insert character) has ever been written/drawn" by someone who only came onboard to the title because of a specific writer or artist. If someone read a specific character for years, through different writers & artists THEN makes that comment, I'll give it weight. Someone who's more again other the talent then character has an opinion that doesn't hold too much water for me.
M
I'm not sure I follow. But, in general, whether judging a single comic, or a lot of comics, best to judge the comics based on the comics themselves.
And I take your point that if people want to speak in superlatives, they probably need to do a lot of reading to do so. (Unless they are just comparing to their own reading, at which point you could decide what you like best within the covers of a single anthology)
During Morrison's run on Batman, I heard a lot of people say this was the best Batman has ever been written.
(Not returning to old pastures, I'll use Snyder) If someone like you or Shaner tell me this is the best Batman had ever been written, that opinion holds water to me. You both are longtime Batman fans. If, say someone I know is only reading the title because of Snyder & makes that 'best Batman has ever been written' statement, it does have much value to me. ESPECIALLY if they later drop the title because Snyder is no longer the writer.
M
Got it. Personally, I try to avoid a superlative like "best" as it suggests you've read it all. I might aim more for "favorite", as that gives you a subjective out.
"Best" is something I am usually suspicious of, unless the scope is narrow (eg 'movies this year') and I have reason to believe the person did the work (eg they see movies for a living). Even then, my tastes may differ from theirs, but at least they've experienced enough work to make comparisons.
Yeah, I try to avoid using universal terms (always, never, etc.) I recall putting up a huge bugaboo when people kept saying "Superman never kills" when there's examples of him doing so.
Personally, I don't care if an opinion comes from someone young or old. Both are valid (if anecdotal).
But I am only interested in the reaction of someone who has actually seen it. It is one thing when you are speculating before release, but now that it is available to be seen, then I'm not interested in reactions that aren't informed by the work.
EDIT- And, yes, I feel that about comics discussion, too. If you haven't read the work, then you can only speak from the works' reputation, marketing, or the synopses of others. Which is not nothing... but it is also not much. It is always most interesting to engage with those who are reacting to the work itself.
Good thing I've read all but the actual issue in my hands (issue pages are even uploaded now.) Can I add opinions such as "this is the best (insert character) has ever been written/drawn" by someone who only came onboard to the title because of a specific writer or artist. If someone read a specific character for years, through different writers & artists THEN makes that comment, I'll give it weight. Someone who's more again other the talent then character has an opinion that doesn't hold too much water for me.
M
I'm not sure I follow. But, in general, whether judging a single comic, or a lot of comics, best to judge the comics based on the comics themselves.
And I take your point that if people want to speak in superlatives, they probably need to do a lot of reading to do so. (Unless they are just comparing to their own reading, at which point you could decide what you like best within the covers of a single anthology)
During Morrison's run on Batman, I heard a lot of people say this was the best Batman has ever been written.
(Not returning to old pastures, I'll use Snyder) If someone like you or Shaner tell me this is the best Batman had ever been written, that opinion holds water to me. You both are longtime Batman fans. If, say someone I know is only reading the title because of Snyder & makes that 'best Batman has ever been written' statement, it does have much value to me. ESPECIALLY if they later drop the title because Snyder is no longer the writer.
M
Got it. Personally, I try to avoid a superlative like "best" as it suggests you've read it all. I might aim more for "favorite", as that gives you a subjective out.
"Best" is something I am usually suspicious of, unless the scope is narrow (eg 'movies this year') and I have reason to believe the person did the work (eg they see movies for a living). Even then, my tastes may differ from theirs, but at least they've experienced enough work to make comparisons.
Yeah, I try to avoid using universal terms (always, never, etc.) I recall putting up a huge bugaboo when people kept saying "Superman never kills" when there's examples of him doing so.
M
Agree, never and always are best avoided, too, unless you can be certain of the facts to go with them.
And this is getting into the weeds a bit to parse it this closely, but, hell, 19 pages into the discussion we are in the weeds anyway!-- I would agree that "never kills" is setting yourself up for failure, as such a universal term needs only one example to the contrary to invalidate it.
But I think someone could stand by the statement that Superman "does not kill", as that is more to do with the code of the character*. The way the character does things in all but a tiny, outlier amount of extreme examples over his long history. Superman doesn't kill. But that doesn't mean that he has never killed.
*Which is the say, the character we know from before, the brand. Which, to be fair, doesn't mean a new movie version of the character will be the same.
Also, if Superman is this 'murderer' then I guess there are thousands of military & law enforcement personnel who should be added to that list.
Not even comparable, given that they are are lawfully appointed agents who are legally authorized to use deadly force when necessary within the scope of their duties. Superman (particularly in this film) has no such legal authority.
I honestly can't believe in the given circumstances of that scene you do not think that was justifiable. If you or I killed anyone in that same set of conditions we would be legally justified. The set of circumstances gave Superman the "legal authority" to use deadly force. Any one police, military or school teacher has the " legal authority" that Superman did at that point. This is a principle of self defense and I'm glad I don't depend on you for my safety.
Also, if Superman is this 'murderer' then I guess there are thousands of military & law enforcement personnel who should be added to that list.
Not even comparable, given that they are are lawfully appointed agents who are legally authorized to use deadly force when necessary within the scope of their duties. Superman (particularly in this film) has no such legal authority.
I honestly can't believe in the given circumstances of that scene you do not think that was justifiable. If you or I killed anyone in that same set of conditions we would be legally justified. The set of circumstances gave Superman the "legal authority" to use deadly force. Any one police, military or school teacher has the " legal authority" that Superman did at that point. This is a principle of self defense and I'm glad I don't depend on you for my safety.
Like I said elsewhere, I never bought the scenario in the first place. Superman -- being Superman, regardless of how 'green' he was -- had a number of options he could have tried, but, very conveniently, didn't. The only reason this scenario even came up is because the writers manipulated it that way and that was the ending they wanted: one where instead of taking the high ground and presenting an ideal for us to live up to, took the expedient course where he wound up being dragged down to our level.
Also, if Superman is this 'murderer' then I guess there are thousands of military & law enforcement personnel who should be added to that list.
Not even comparable, given that they are are lawfully appointed agents who are legally authorized to use deadly force when necessary within the scope of their duties. Superman (particularly in this film) has no such legal authority.
I honestly can't believe in the given circumstances of that scene you do not think that was justifiable. If you or I killed anyone in that same set of conditions we would be legally justified. The set of circumstances gave Superman the "legal authority" to use deadly force. Any one police, military or school teacher has the " legal authority" that Superman did at that point. This is a principle of self defense and I'm glad I don't depend on you for my safety.
Like I said elsewhere, I never bought the scenario in the first place. Superman -- being Superman, regardless of how 'green' he was -- had a number of options he could have tried, but, very conveniently, didn't. The only reason this scenario even came up is because the writers manipulated it that way and that was the ending they wanted: one where instead of taking the high ground and presenting an ideal for us to live up to, took the expedient course where he wound up being dragged down to our level.
Did Byrne do the same thing then? What about Mario Puzo?
Also, if Superman is this 'murderer' then I guess there are thousands of military & law enforcement personnel who should be added to that list.
Not even comparable, given that they are are lawfully appointed agents who are legally authorized to use deadly force when necessary within the scope of their duties. Superman (particularly in this film) has no such legal authority.
I honestly can't believe in the given circumstances of that scene you do not think that was justifiable. If you or I killed anyone in that same set of conditions we would be legally justified. The set of circumstances gave Superman the "legal authority" to use deadly force. Any one police, military or school teacher has the " legal authority" that Superman did at that point. This is a principle of self defense and I'm glad I don't depend on you for my safety.
Like I said elsewhere, I never bought the scenario in the first place. Superman -- being Superman, regardless of how 'green' he was -- had a number of options he could have tried, but, very conveniently, didn't. The only reason this scenario even came up is because the writers manipulated it that way and that was the ending they wanted: one where instead of taking the high ground and presenting an ideal for us to live up to, took the expedient course where he wound up being dragged down to our level.
Did Byrne do the same thing then? What about Mario Puzo?
M
I don't agree that the villains were killed in the Christopher Reeves movie; I think that's an interpretation based on poor editing -- especially as the Director's Cut has Superman turning back time (again) so that the Phantom Zoners never escaped in the first place. Thus, they were still alive at the end. (Even in the Lester version I'd never thought they'd been killed, but simply rendered helpless and unconscious; this discussion thread was the first time I'd ever heard that someone had thought they were killed -- or that anyone would have thought that Superman, of all people, would have killed them or have allowed them to die.)
And while I don't think Byrne should have gone there, he at least did it right, as did the writers who followed him, in presenting it as a traumatic experience that haunted him for years afterwards and led to him developing a vow against taking any life ever again. Man Of Steel doesn't do that, and it should have if that was the intent. It should be addressed during the course of the film, and not left to dangle and hopefully be picked up in a subsequent film; that's sloppy.
Also, if Superman is this 'murderer' then I guess there are thousands of military & law enforcement personnel who should be added to that list.
Not even comparable, given that they are are lawfully appointed agents who are legally authorized to use deadly force when necessary within the scope of their duties. Superman (particularly in this film) has no such legal authority.
I honestly can't believe in the given circumstances of that scene you do not think that was justifiable. If you or I killed anyone in that same set of conditions we would be legally justified. The set of circumstances gave Superman the "legal authority" to use deadly force. Any one police, military or school teacher has the " legal authority" that Superman did at that point. This is a principle of self defense and I'm glad I don't depend on you for my safety.
Like I said elsewhere, I never bought the scenario in the first place. Superman -- being Superman, regardless of how 'green' he was -- had a number of options he could have tried, but, very conveniently, didn't. The only reason this scenario even came up is because the writers manipulated it that way and that was the ending they wanted: one where instead of taking the high ground and presenting an ideal for us to live up to, took the expedient course where he wound up being dragged down to our level.
Did Byrne do the same thing then? What about Mario Puzo?
M
I don't agree that the villains were killed in the Christopher Reeves movie; I think that's an interpretation based on poor editing -- especially as the Director's Cut has Superman turning back time (again) so that the Phantom Zoners never escaped in the first place. Thus, they were still alive at the end. (Even in the Lester version I'd never thought they'd been killed, but simply rendered helpless and unconscious; this discussion thread was the first time I'd ever heard that someone had thought they were killed -- or that anyone would have thought that Superman, of all people, would have killed them or have allowed them to die.)
And while I don't think Byrne should have gone there, he at least did it right, as did the writers who followed him, in presenting it as a traumatic experience that haunted him for years afterwards and led to him developing a vow against taking any life ever again. Man Of Steel doesn't do that, and it should have if that was the intent. It should be addressed during the course of the film, and not left to dangle and hopefully be picked up in a subsequent film; that's sloppy.
He did reverse time, but he still killed...at the very least Zod. The throw into wall alone would've killed him. He could've used another plastic wrap shield to restrain Zod as he apprehended them. There's probably a dozen other ways Superman could've restrained Zod. Killing him with a smirk shouldn't be a pass because he undid it by reversing time.
I'm not convinced the death is a footnote in MOS. We saw him cry out after taking the life (then crying showing he's not taking it lightly.) It could very well be a major point in the sequel. There were dangling plot threads in The Dark Knight that were addressed in The Dark Knight Rises. It was worth the wait to see how things played out.
Where's a dead horse to beat when you need one? :)
Superman killed someone. Not a fake Superman. Not an alternate Superman. The Superman presented to the masses. Your Superman is dead. This Superman is alive. Life goes on.
Plus, totally agree with Shroud up above. I'd rather be someone who is willing to do what is necessary, than pontificate over my inactions. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. I learned that from someone. Haha.
This argument has lasted longer then the movies theatrical run.
And is likely to continue on past the DVD release and inevitable remake. The one thing this movie succeeded at was at getting people to talk about it. Though, I'm not entirely sure this particular discussion was what they had intended.
It's a good thing we're talking about Hollywood and comics then. Because no hero, concept, or idea is truly ever dead in either. I'm sure at some point in my lifetime the Superman of the past 75 years will return...red trunks and all.
I read the Man of Steel novel... so yea. Nothing special about it, but I did take some notes as I thought it had little interesting tidbits and also maybe a few things to add to the larger discussions going on about the movie. Man of Steel Novel Review
The comment machine is saying my notes are too long, so I'll give you a few and if you're interested you can click the link for my blog-type item. Chapter 1: - El ancestral home: the place we see Lara and Jor-El is apparently the ancetral home, been around for hundreds of years. - medical equipment designed or modified by Jor el, because first live birth in forever. - El clothing described as being "blue" despite darker appearance in the movie. To me, in the movie, Jor-El's clothing looks black, like Zod's. And I think a few people have pointed out that its a little weird that Superman's version of the El clothing is blue and red, but not his fathers.
- The city they are in is said to be Kandor, the capital of the planet - clothing Jor-el wears to council is said to be "formal" attire. Also speaks of him wearing a "red" cape
Chapter 2 - city built out of biological constructs, same with the ships - H'Raka is a pet. Book says all animals on Krypton have been domesticated. This pet had been genetically and cybernetically enhanced.
Chapter 7: - Clark as a baby being examined by the doctor, screams in such a way that he shatters every window in the building. And all over Main Street. - the fisherman who yells at Clark is named Byrne. As in homage to the writer of the Man of Steel reboot of Superman.
Chapter 10 - bar where Clark works is named Bearcat - located in Canada, Canadian military people there. - Clark is fired, doesn't simply leave. In the movie it looks like Clark is basically harrassed, as least from what I remember, and then leaves. In the book, his boss fires him instead of losing a long time customer.
Chapter 11 - Lois says "measuring manhoods" instead of "dicks" to the military when she first meets with them. I like that much better. Sounds too harsh in the movie,
Chapter 12 - Clark sees his family "S" symbol on the ships hull - Clark finds a closet full of suits, one of which is blue with his S shield.
Chapter 13 - Lois meets the guy she leeks the story to at the Ace of Clubs, well known bar in the Superman comics located in Suicide Slum
Chapter 14 - mentions shaving, doesn't say how
Chapter 15 - Jonathan Kent hands Clark a little girl, tells them to get to the overpass. "You have to protect her." I don't remember this specifically happening in the movie, but if it did, I've forgotten it. - Considering his fathers instructions slowed him down for one moment too long. Clark hesitates, he wants to go rescue his dad, but waits and then its a moment too late.
Chapter 18 - Lois does get to call him superman uninterrupted.
Chapter 20 - military discusses back up plan if turning over Superman goes wrong. Mention the "unthinkable" with code words. Superman assumes they are talking about Nukes - faora: "I was bred to kill as were my crewmates. The specific areas of our brains governing conscious were altered so that we are genetically incapable of feeling empathy toward our enemies."
Chapter 21 - during mental talk with Zod, the world engine comes down and destroys the area. As the destruction passes over Superman, his clothes change to a black and silver version of the Superman suit. Not in the movie right?! It should have been! - Zod says he is honor bound to raise him because he killed his father, and because Jor-el acted honorably.
Chapter 26: - Superman finds Nam-Ek, lifts him up out of town and then punches him into the rail lines on the "edge of town".
Chapter 27 - Zod notes metropolis will have to be leveled to create a new seat of power, but seems to hope artifacts will be left for future generations to study.
Chapter 28 - "Multistory buildings pancake, compressing innocent men women between the floors. Fragile human flesh was vaporized instantly."There's been some discussion as to how much of the buildings the world engine was crushing were evactuated. Book makes it somewhat clear that at least the first wave of buildings weren't hardly evactuated at all.
Chapter 29 - Superman hates leaving Metropolis, but world engine is bigger threat. - Zod calls Jor el a "holographic simulacra"
Chapter 30 - superman didn't expect defenses on world engine. Thought one good hit would destroy it so he could return to Metropolis.
Chapter 33 - Seeing the devastation in Metropolis, Superman confronts Zod in the scout ship and decides "the kid gloves are off" - black zero destruction: "Stress fractures spread throughout the black zero beginning at the impact site and branching out from there. Prismatic colors, shining through from the zone, cast an eldritch glow over the ships sprawling interior. Dark corridors contracted like shrinking beans. Structural ribs cracked and blood. Catwalks tore away from cell blocks. splintered, venting atmosphere into the void. Faora was the first casualty. She stared aghast as her hand is all before her eyes, unraveling at the quantum level. In a heartbeat she vanished from the universe sucked back into the zone for all eternity" - POV of Jax-Ur shows what's happening. "The ship was designed to go to the Zone under specific circumstances. It was meant to pass through a projector. Not have a phantom drive rip open the continuum right in the middle of the ship. The entire ship collapsed into a singularity." *the point at which matter is infinitely dense, like in the center of a black hole. - I mention this in relation to the World Engine being destroyed and the subsequent bombing of the Black Zero with the phantom zone bomb. There's been talk that everyone on board the ship is actually still alive, just transported back to the Phantom Zone. It was clear to me watching the movie that this was not the case, that they were not safely transported there like the were before, but were instead crushed into oblivion by a black hole, and to me, the book makes this pretty clear
Chapter 34: - area superman and Lois land in is described as an intersection with rubble and vehicles. Doesn't seem as barren as the way it's shown in the movie, but Lois does wonder about how many citizens have been lost - was it explained in the movie that Superman was in danger of being sucked into the Phantom Zone? Book talks about it quiet a bit, even showing Superman looking like he's going to fade away while talking to Lois. Book makes it clear they are using the phantom drive on his ship to basically open the portal, so that anything with phantom zone energies on it will be sucked back into the black hole. That's why the criminals and their ship get sucked in so readily. Book makes it clear that Superman was in danger as well.
Chapter 35: - "I'm going to make them suffer. ... I'm going go take every one of them." - "there's only one way this ends. You die, or I do." - Superman hurt by destruction "City doesn't deserve this". Determining to get away from city. Heads to space... Zod takes them back. Mentioned this again because to me it was pretty clear in the movie he was trying to take the fight elsewhere, but Zod wasn't going to let him.
Chapter 36 - crashing into the train station, Superman can't think of a worse place for them to be. - how to fight and protect? Zod doesn't give him time for a solution - was there a fistfight in the movie? Pretty big one in the station in the book. - final confrontation "Zods life or the lives of innocents"
Greg Cox says thanks to Snyder, Nolan, and Goyer for giving him "such fantastic stuff to work with" and that he can't wait to see the finished movie.
I don't know. I understand people's problem with the superman killing thing, but not really with the violence overall caused by Zod and his minions. We've seen similar amounts or much, much, much worse in other movies, some this year. In Independence Day the aliens totally level major metropolises all around the world. In This Is The End, the whole world ends. In Avengers we don't see as many building crumble, but millions of aliens invade and start killing people and then millions more are blown up by a nuclear weapon. In Wolverine we see Nagasaki get leveled.
Edit: Even in Superman: The Movie we see a nuclear bomb go off. Not many, if any, deaths are depicted on screen... but c'mon.
I don't know. I understand people's problem with the superman killing thing, but not really with the violence overall caused by Zod and his minions. We've seen similar amounts or much, much, much worse in other movies, some this year. In Independence Day the aliens totally level major metropolises all around the world. In This Is The End, the whole world ends. In Avengers we don't see as many building crumble, but millions of aliens invade and start killing people and then millions more are blown up by a nuclear weapon. In Wolverine we see Nagasaki get leveled.
Edit: Even in Superman: The Movie we see a nuclear bomb go off. Not many, if any, deaths are depicted on screen... but c'mon.
I think the difference, at least for me, is that This is the End is an apocalypse movie. it is in the title. Independence Day is a story about an alien invasion that beats all of humanity to the brink of extinction. And Nagasaki is a piece of actual history.
But a Superman movie is where I want someone to actually save people BEFORE those things happen. You know, because he's Superman. Others may want something different than that, and so be it. But that is why, from the beginning of this discussion, I have talked about this movie having a tone problem. It is not that they did any level of destruction we haven't seen before. We have. But it felt out of place in a Superman movie. To me, the fact that a mythic level of destruction happened BEFORE Superman can stop it feels too dark and grim for what I want out of a Superman movie. That amount of destruction is not supposed to happen in a world with a Superman in it.
And, maybe on more of a qualitative, and subjective point, I just wasn't entertained by watching it happen. It didn't make the story better, and it felt emotionally disconnected from anything else that is supposed to matter. If the casualties are mythic, than who gives a damn if Lois gets saved, or that (I think unnamed?) other reporter from the Daily Planet gets saved? For me, going for that mythic scale just made the whole thing feel like an apocalypse movie rather than a superhero one. Like Independence Day, it was a story about a destructive alien invasion of the world, but Superman was one of the invaders, too. The Earth would be better off if had never landed here.
To me, that is not what I expect, or want, a Superman movie to feel like.
Superman in no way, shape or form, represented hope in his struggle with Zod. There is no hope in the final act of the movie. The fight just ends. He kills Zod, and then he's joking around with his new pal General Swanwick.
I think I'm just done with Superman. He brought me into comics, and into everything that I'm into, but I'm done. I'm closing that chapter of my life.
Hope doesn't crash through buildings with a psychopath. Hope doesn't jump over tankers of gasoline and let people in the surrounding area burn alive. Hope is not what we saw in that movie.
Superman in no way, shape or form, represented hope in his struggle with Zod. There is no hope in the final act of the movie. The fight just ends. He kills Zod, and then he's joking around with his new pal General Swanwick.
I think I'm just done with Superman. He brought me into comics, and into everything that I'm into, but I'm done. I'm closing that chapter of my life.
Hope doesn't crash through buildings with a psychopath. Hope doesn't jump over tankers of gasoline and let people in the surrounding area burn alive. Hope is not what we saw in that movie.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I would argue the movie did have hope. People like @WetRats, @chuck_melville, & @David_D all saw hope...for ANOTHER reboot.
Comments
As in you rob a person, you burgle a home?
I thought I was the only person left who made that distinction.
M
At any rate, it still isn't a fair comparison because the person we're talking about is Superman. And Superman had a number of things he might have done or tried (which I've pointed out before) and he didn't do any of those things -- principally because the writers wanted to set up a false situation where he would be faced with the no-win scenario of killing his foe or allowing his foe to kill more innocents. It was a badly written scenario; I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. Actually, I wouldn't call him a murderer. I would, though, say he was guilty of manslaughter, at least.
Same with Superman. The Facebook post puts murderer there because the writer didn't know the difference or because he knew 'murderer' sounds 'sexy' in a rant bashing a movie he didn't see.
I believe I stated this before, but I don't buy the "because he's Superman" excuse in this movie. He was raised as a farmer (which was vastly under utilized point in the movie) facing off against a highly skilled military opponent. There's no reference to Kent even being in a fight before the invasion. I know there a lot of other ways Superman could've avoided the suicide-by-cop scenario, but THIS version is inexperienced & Zod was too determined.
As much as I know Batman is 10 steps ahead of everyone else, I'd be foolish to think Year One Batman could improvise a win over Superman like a Year Five Batman could.
Off-duty cops responsibilities are always questionable. I spoke with a veteran detective who said if he was off-duty & at a bank when it was being robbed, he'd follow the robbers' instructions. There's too many variables, even if he was armed, to resist & try to stop the crime.
M
(Not returning to old pastures, I'll use Snyder) If someone like you or Shaner tell me this is the best Batman had ever been written, that opinion holds water to me. You both are longtime Batman fans. If, say someone I know is only reading the title because of Snyder & makes that 'best Batman has ever been written' statement, it does have much value to me. ESPECIALLY if they later drop the title because Snyder is no longer the writer.
M
"Best" is something I am usually suspicious of, unless the scope is narrow (eg 'movies this year') and I have reason to believe the person did the work (eg they see movies for a living). Even then, my tastes may differ from theirs, but at least they've experienced enough work to make comparisons.
M
And this is getting into the weeds a bit to parse it this closely, but, hell, 19 pages into the discussion we are in the weeds anyway!-- I would agree that "never kills" is setting yourself up for failure, as such a universal term needs only one example to the contrary to invalidate it.
But I think someone could stand by the statement that Superman "does not kill", as that is more to do with the code of the character*. The way the character does things in all but a tiny, outlier amount of extreme examples over his long history. Superman doesn't kill. But that doesn't mean that he has never killed.
*Which is the say, the character we know from before, the brand. Which, to be fair, doesn't mean a new movie version of the character will be the same.
SupermanHomepage.com has the quotes from Computer Graphics World story
M
And while I don't think Byrne should have gone there, he at least did it right, as did the writers who followed him, in presenting it as a traumatic experience that haunted him for years afterwards and led to him developing a vow against taking any life ever again. Man Of Steel doesn't do that, and it should have if that was the intent. It should be addressed during the course of the film, and not left to dangle and hopefully be picked up in a subsequent film; that's sloppy.
I'm not convinced the death is a footnote in MOS. We saw him cry out after taking the life (then crying showing he's not taking it lightly.) It could very well be a major point in the sequel. There were dangling plot threads in The Dark Knight that were addressed in The Dark Knight Rises. It was worth the wait to see how things played out.
M
Superman killed someone. Not a fake Superman. Not an alternate Superman. The Superman presented to the masses. Your Superman is dead. This Superman is alive. Life goes on.
Plus, totally agree with Shroud up above. I'd rather be someone who is willing to do what is necessary, than pontificate over my inactions. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. I learned that from someone. Haha.
M
Man of Steel Novel Review
The comment machine is saying my notes are too long, so I'll give you a few and if you're interested you can click the link for my blog-type item.
Chapter 1:
- El ancestral home: the place we see Lara and Jor-El is apparently the ancetral home, been around for hundreds of years.
- medical equipment designed or modified by Jor el, because first live birth in forever.
- El clothing described as being "blue" despite darker appearance in the movie. To me, in the movie, Jor-El's clothing looks black, like Zod's. And I think a few people have pointed out that its a little weird that Superman's version of the El clothing is blue and red, but not his fathers.
- The city they are in is said to be Kandor, the capital of the planet
- clothing Jor-el wears to council is said to be "formal" attire. Also speaks of him wearing a "red" cape
Chapter 2
- city built out of biological constructs, same with the ships
- H'Raka is a pet. Book says all animals on Krypton have been domesticated. This pet had been genetically and cybernetically enhanced.
Chapter 7:
- Clark as a baby being examined by the doctor, screams in such a way that he shatters every window in the building. And all over Main Street.
- the fisherman who yells at Clark is named Byrne. As in homage to the writer of the Man of Steel reboot of Superman.
Chapter 10
- bar where Clark works is named Bearcat
- located in Canada, Canadian military people there.
- Clark is fired, doesn't simply leave. In the movie it looks like Clark is basically harrassed, as least from what I remember, and then leaves. In the book, his boss fires him instead of losing a long time customer.
Chapter 11
- Lois says "measuring manhoods" instead of "dicks" to the military when she first meets with them. I like that much better. Sounds too harsh in the movie,
Chapter 12
- Clark sees his family "S" symbol on the ships hull
- Clark finds a closet full of suits, one of which is blue with his S shield.
Chapter 13
- Lois meets the guy she leeks the story to at the Ace of Clubs, well known bar in the Superman comics located in Suicide Slum
Chapter 14
- mentions shaving, doesn't say how
Chapter 15
- Jonathan Kent hands Clark a little girl, tells them to get to the overpass. "You have to protect her." I don't remember this specifically happening in the movie, but if it did, I've forgotten it.
- Considering his fathers instructions slowed him down for one moment too long. Clark hesitates, he wants to go rescue his dad, but waits and then its a moment too late.
Chapter 18
- Lois does get to call him superman uninterrupted.
Chapter 20
- military discusses back up plan if turning over Superman goes wrong. Mention the "unthinkable" with code words. Superman assumes they are talking about Nukes
- faora: "I was bred to kill as were my crewmates. The specific areas of our brains governing conscious were altered so that we are genetically incapable of feeling empathy toward our enemies."
Chapter 21
- during mental talk with Zod, the world engine comes down and destroys the area. As the destruction passes over Superman, his clothes change to a black and silver version of the Superman suit. Not in the movie right?! It should have been!
- Zod says he is honor bound to raise him because he killed his father, and because Jor-el acted honorably.
Chapter 26:
- Superman finds Nam-Ek, lifts him up out of town and then punches him into the rail lines on the "edge of town".
Chapter 27
- Zod notes metropolis will have to be leveled to create a new seat of power, but seems to hope artifacts will be left for future generations to study.
Chapter 28
- "Multistory buildings pancake, compressing innocent men women between the floors. Fragile human flesh was vaporized instantly."There's been some discussion as to how much of the buildings the world engine was crushing were evactuated. Book makes it somewhat clear that at least the first wave of buildings weren't hardly evactuated at all.
Chapter 29
- Superman hates leaving Metropolis, but world engine is bigger threat.
- Zod calls Jor el a "holographic simulacra"
Chapter 30
- superman didn't expect defenses on world engine. Thought one good hit would destroy it so he could return to Metropolis.
Chapter 33
- Seeing the devastation in Metropolis, Superman confronts Zod in the scout ship and decides "the kid gloves are off"
- black zero destruction: "Stress fractures spread throughout the black zero beginning at the impact site and branching out from there. Prismatic colors, shining through from the zone, cast an eldritch glow over the ships sprawling interior. Dark corridors contracted like shrinking beans. Structural ribs cracked and blood. Catwalks tore away from cell blocks. splintered, venting atmosphere into the void. Faora was the first casualty. She stared aghast as her hand is all before her eyes, unraveling at the quantum level. In a heartbeat she vanished from the universe sucked back into the zone for all eternity"
- POV of Jax-Ur shows what's happening. "The ship was designed to go to the Zone under specific circumstances. It was meant to pass through a projector. Not have a phantom drive rip open the continuum right in the middle of the ship. The entire ship collapsed into a singularity." *the point at which matter is infinitely dense, like in the center of a black hole.
- I mention this in relation to the World Engine being destroyed and the subsequent bombing of the Black Zero with the phantom zone bomb. There's been talk that everyone on board the ship is actually still alive, just transported back to the Phantom Zone. It was clear to me watching the movie that this was not the case, that they were not safely transported there like the were before, but were instead crushed into oblivion by a black hole, and to me, the book makes this pretty clear
Chapter 34:
- area superman and Lois land in is described as an intersection with rubble and vehicles. Doesn't seem as barren as the way it's shown in the movie, but Lois does wonder about how many citizens have been lost
- was it explained in the movie that Superman was in danger of being sucked into the Phantom Zone? Book talks about it quiet a bit, even showing Superman looking like he's going to fade away while talking to Lois. Book makes it clear they are using the phantom drive on his ship to basically open the portal, so that anything with phantom zone energies on it will be sucked back into the black hole. That's why the criminals and their ship get sucked in so readily. Book makes it clear that Superman was in danger as well.
Chapter 35:
- "I'm going to make them suffer. ... I'm going go take every one of them."
- "there's only one way this ends. You die, or I do."
- Superman hurt by destruction "City doesn't deserve this". Determining to get away from city. Heads to space... Zod takes them back. Mentioned this again because to me it was pretty clear in the movie he was trying to take the fight elsewhere, but Zod wasn't going to let him.
Chapter 36
- crashing into the train station, Superman can't think of a worse place for them to be.
- how to fight and protect? Zod doesn't give him time for a solution
- was there a fistfight in the movie? Pretty big one in the station in the book.
- final confrontation "Zods life or the lives of innocents"
Greg Cox says thanks to Snyder, Nolan, and Goyer for giving him "such fantastic stuff to work with" and that he can't wait to see the finished movie.
M
And now, more yelling.
Edit: Even in Superman: The Movie we see a nuclear bomb go off. Not many, if any, deaths are depicted on screen... but c'mon.
But a Superman movie is where I want someone to actually save people BEFORE those things happen. You know, because he's Superman. Others may want something different than that, and so be it. But that is why, from the beginning of this discussion, I have talked about this movie having a tone problem. It is not that they did any level of destruction we haven't seen before. We have. But it felt out of place in a Superman movie. To me, the fact that a mythic level of destruction happened BEFORE Superman can stop it feels too dark and grim for what I want out of a Superman movie. That amount of destruction is not supposed to happen in a world with a Superman in it.
And, maybe on more of a qualitative, and subjective point, I just wasn't entertained by watching it happen. It didn't make the story better, and it felt emotionally disconnected from anything else that is supposed to matter. If the casualties are mythic, than who gives a damn if Lois gets saved, or that (I think unnamed?) other reporter from the Daily Planet gets saved? For me, going for that mythic scale just made the whole thing feel like an apocalypse movie rather than a superhero one. Like Independence Day, it was a story about a destructive alien invasion of the world, but Superman was one of the invaders, too. The Earth would be better off if had never landed here.
To me, that is not what I expect, or want, a Superman movie to feel like.
I think I'm just done with Superman. He brought me into comics, and into everything that I'm into, but I'm done. I'm closing that chapter of my life.
Hope doesn't crash through buildings with a psychopath. Hope doesn't jump over tankers of gasoline and let people in the surrounding area burn alive. Hope is not what we saw in that movie.
M