The Big Picture: Man of Tomorrow

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

BigTuk:

DVS BSTrD:
Actually I think that the movie proves Superman should be killing, or did you not see Zodd murder half the population of Metropolis? I've never thought it was acceptable for mor innocent people to die in the next issue just because the "hero" didn't wan to get his hands dirty. And even if it wasn't against it's moral code, it would still suck to end the only other member of your species.

You don't understand the point of the No killing thing. See once you make the choice to end a life for 'the greater good' it becomes a very very slippery slope. Since Good is simply the most subjective term in the human language. Superman has always realized this in the same way that Batman realizes that his unwillingness to kill is really one of the few differences between himself and the Joker.

I understand that Batman and Superman are afraid of losing control, but they are still condemning far more people to die because they're holding back. It's not really a slippery slope unless you lose your temper, otherwise it just a matter of math.

Loki_The_Good:
Yeah I think the problem with that, which Bob was pointing out is that's it's been shown superman holds back. A lot. To make sure he doesn't kill anyone. Superman without that restriction could end any movie in about 5 minutes. Super villain shows up kills a couple people superman punches through his chest role credits. That's the problem. It also seriously undermines his character. Look up the movie or comic arc superman versus the elites. Really great animated movie for superman and it touches on a lot of reasons why murder and superman should not go hand in hand. Superman should not kill

And That's why Superman is a really weak character.

Superman breaking down and killing someone outright and breaking his one rule was pretty much the shove down the slippery slope that you had to spend the entire playthrough of Injustice fixing, isn't it? I did not like the scene and I felt like it in some way dirtied the character. Uncle Ben told Spiderman that "With great power comes great responsibility" but Superman embodied that. That is a lot of the fun and draw of the character is that he can do anything without having to cross that line.

In regards to the colossal fight scene at the end; I kept feeling like if it had taken place in the comics, Superman would have found a way to take the fight outside the city/population area to avoid that kind of damage. If I remember correctly, wasn't he trying to stop Doomsday before he got to the city in Death of Superman? That being said, the Superman/Faora fight was pretty much my favorite part of the whole damned movie. She seemed to be the only one in the movie that was enjoying herself.

Special shoutout goes to Superman vs. The Elite for how to bring in Superman's moral code and then having it pay off hugely in the end. (seriously, if you haven't seen this movie, go watch it now). So, it pains me to no end to see them pull this crap on Superman.

DTWolfwood:

Andrew Siribohdi:
Bob, you say that it was wrong for Superman to kill one person and that it will open the door for Superman killing his other enemies.

But the complaints I've heard online is that he killed WAY more people when he had that DBZ fight with Zod at the end of the movie and by not even trying to save them from falling buildings and debris, it made him seem more heartless than just killing Zod.

The collateral damage he causes in the cartoons and comics will have killed people. Can't imagine that wouldn't be the case.

Why not just write it as he felt so bad about killing Zod that subsequently NEVER do it again? Seems like an easy enough out.

This would be the establishment of the "No killing" rule. It's not a out, so much as establishing the code.

maximara:

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

Actually if you go back to the Golden Age Superman killed via inaction a lot. There are several free podcasts that go over those comics and for several years Superman was basically Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe with the Incredible Hulk's power set.

'There is a horrible criminal about to be mowed down by a train should I... oh he's been mowed down already. Well I'm sure he deserved it.' I'm not kidding that was basically the mentality of the 1930s Superman.

Then there were all the times he was tricked into killing someone in the Silver age. Bizzaro was a prime example of that and he got killed again during the Burne Man of Steel series and _that_ time it was more intentional then it was in the Silver Age.

Amen to that! People forget easily, but the reason super heroes are working on movie theaters is: one people want the lifeless CGI spectacle and antagonist do not keep reappering. They end up dying somehow, like The First Batman of Nolanverse or the first two SpiderMan movies. Lets face, a hero who does not end the problem is just an attention whore using destruction and super power as his stage and peform act. What bring us also to the "fake" nerd girl again. Geek culture has always looked for attention, now those demigods are going through the scrutiny of a larger audience who will say: well we celebrated the death (killing) of Osama Bin Laden, why the fuck is in this fictional America The Joker, General Zod or any other alive, if they keep coming back?
In fact Bob Kane killed the Joker. It's not something the hero should be proud of, but you got to do what you got to do.

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

actually Zod is consistently superman's first/only kill in pretty much every medium he shows up in.

YES! FUCKING FINALLY!

I absolutely loathe the whole high horse bullshit in comics of not killing the supervillains. Hell, think of how many people that would not have died if say Batman killed The Joker with a bullet through the eyes. I actually think that heroes that does not kill the supervillain is a villain in themself, they have the power to end pain and suffering caused by these lunatics. But no, it's against their "moral code", making their acts not selfless like a heroes act should be, but selfish.

Therefore I love The Punisher, quick and efficient killing, the goal is to stop the bad man.

Small thing. Thank you for using "Champing at the bit" Correctly. That means a lot to me. More than it should.

DVS BSTrD:

BigTuk:

DVS BSTrD:
Actually I think that the movie proves Superman should be killing, or did you not see Zodd murder half the population of Metropolis? I've never thought it was acceptable for mor innocent people to die in the next issue just because the "hero" didn't wan to get his hands dirty. And even if it wasn't against it's moral code, it would still suck to end the only other member of your species.

You don't understand the point of the No killing thing. See once you make the choice to end a life for 'the greater good' it becomes a very very slippery slope. Since Good is simply the most subjective term in the human language. Superman has always realized this in the same way that Batman realizes that his unwillingness to kill is really one of the few differences between himself and the Joker.

I understand that Batman and Superman are afraid of losing control, but they are still condemning far more people to die because they're holding back. It's not really a slippery slope unless you lose your temper, otherwise it just a matter of math.

Loki_The_Good:
Yeah I think the problem with that, which Bob was pointing out is that's it's been shown superman holds back. A lot. To make sure he doesn't kill anyone. Superman without that restriction could end any movie in about 5 minutes. Super villain shows up kills a couple people superman punches through his chest role credits. That's the problem. It also seriously undermines his character. Look up the movie or comic arc superman versus the elites. Really great animated movie for superman and it touches on a lot of reasons why murder and superman should not go hand in hand. Superman should not kill

And That's why Superman is a really weak character.

It's not that simple with the slippery slope. You say it's math right? What about political leaders engaging in war? Should he wipe out governments? Whose government? Which is right? What if he catches someone but they're not in the act? Not even powered up should he kill them in cold blood so they might not kill later? What if it's the wrong guy? Superman Kills people because they kill people so after how many people that superman kills should he kill himself? Why is it okay for him to kill but not for others? What if they have so lofty goals and aren't just pure murderers? Which reasons is it okay to kill and which isn't? What about other crimes? It's these and a thousand more questions that make the slippery slope more then "oh he might just become a psycho himself". It isn't just simple math it's really complex. I don't have the answers to it but it isn't a simple numbers game either.

Ya see that's the thing about Superman... He's not just a "goody-goody", he's the ULTAMATE "goody-goody"!

-He doesn't take bribes
-He doesn't make deals
-He DOSEN'T kill people!

This was the best summary of why Superman killing Zod breaks the movie:

For me, the worst thing about Superman killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel isn't the neck-snapping itself, but that a few minutes before it happens, during an interminable fight scene through the damn near post-apocalyptic landscape of a ruined Metropolis, Zod tells him something along the lines of "this doesn't end until one of us dies." And he's right. That's what kills me about it. The bad guy tells Superman that he'll only stop if Superman kills him, and Superman proves him right. Superman proves that the bad guy is right. There's no other way. It's just violence and death as the only solution.

Superman proves that the bad guy is right.

There is nothing you can tell me that will make me think that's not a completely insane, monumentally wrongheaded way to end a Superman movie. From a character standpoint, it is the worst possible thing they could do, undermining every bit of rancid dialogue about how Superman's going to Show Us The Way and how It Stands For Hope. It doesn't. It's just dudes punching each other until one of them punches harder, the end.

Actually, Bob, Snyder has gone on the record saying that he wanted the Superman-killing-Zod thing in there specifically to give Superman a reason to have a code against killing. He killed once, he hated it, so never again. I personally think it works. Yeah, I know Superman is supposed to be against killing for more lofty ethical reasons, but that's a privilege he gets simply through lazy writing. Once Zod is exposed to Earth's atmosphere and he gets used to it, he's just as powerful as Superman, plus he has a lifetime of training in combat and absolutely nothing to lose. He has far more leverage in that situation, so it makes sense that he could be able to force Superman into the choice he forces him to make.

This means that Superman down the road will probably fight smarter than he did here. He'll put more focus on getting people to safety, making sure villains can't use them to force him to use lethal force. He now knows the consequences of carelessness. He knows that it's not just about punching bad guys, it's about keeping others out of harm's way.

For me, it's like Spider-Man's Uncle Ben moment. He had to have a moment of irresponsibility and experience the consequences of it in order to make his dedication to it more understandable.

Let's put it this way. There's a slight possibility that this movie could share the same universe as "Arrow". In that TV series, Ollie is willing to kill and does it frequently. Imagine a scenario where Ollie is rolling his eyes at Superman's code against killing. Knowing that Superman has had to take a life and knows what it means gives additional credibility to his stance because he knows what it's like to be forced to make that decision, but he's still ashamed of it. However, if he's never had to kill anybody, it's easy to dismiss his stance as a sign of his privilege. How can he know the desperation of needing to kill if he's always been able to get out of that situation with his limitless power?

MovieBob:
Man of Tomorrow

MovieBob gives us a spoiler laden look into the latest Superman movie Man of Steel.

Watch Video

I would like to see this set up a greater, long-range conflict. See, at first, Superman doesn't kill because "Superman doesn't kill." Then, when he felt like there was no other option, he does it... and he wins!

From here, we could see Superman begin to question the "Superman doesn't kill" that he'd been given. It wasn't a conviction, it was an instruction, and he's seen that instruction "proven false," to his mind. This opens the opportunity for Superman to really screw up -- an extreme rarity, in the comic world -- and actually have to earn the conviction behind the "Superman doesn't kill."

Or maybe we'll find that we've seen just that -- he has a hard time dealing with the fact that he "had" to kill Zod, even wrestling with the question of whether or not he really had to, and he begins to give real shape to his convictions.

See, in the past, Superman was just good because. It's like he was born superhumanly compassionate and morally upright. And modern audiences are just too cynical to really buy that anymore. So, it's not that we're getting a darker Superman overall. I think we're getting a "darker before the dawn" Superman, so that we can actually believe in the brighter "boy scout" Superman.

After seeing Man of Steel on Friday, I posted my review of it the next day and gave it a C+ for its efforts. However, the more I think about it, I feel like I was being rather generous. Part of that could have been due to the sensory overload from the 3rd act's Dragonball Z-ish battle. Perhaps the big reason behind my doubts that I seem to have accepted the notion that DC Comics and Warner Brothers don't fully understand any of these characters. It's rather humorous and tragic that both companies believed Superman was just a different shade of Batman and that kind of ignorance could also apply for the rest of the Justice League down the road. That thought alone does not raise my spirits for their future endeavors.

This can be traced back to previous DC Comic-based movies that have failed miserably. Steel became reason #27 why Shaquille O'Neal can't act. Catwoman was stuck in pre-production hell for so long it became an ill-conceived mess and reason #9 why Halle Berry should have noticed the warning signs rather than count the zeroes on her paycheck. Jonah Hex, perhaps one of the simplest concepts to understand (a scarred anti-hero's life during and after the civil war) got fucked up royally and became a movie about steampunk tech and mysticism (makes me wonder if the people behind it wanted to make a sequel to Wild Wild West). Hell, Bob pretty much covered the majority of flaws in Green Lantern via his review. It's a long list of evidence that tells the story of two companies that completely missed the point on these properties and failed to present them in any positive light.

This is why I tend to favor the Marvel Studio movies these days. The company made plans to bring these characters to the big screen, took a serious financial risk, brought in a certain number of directors who weren't know for being box office winners, embraced the crazier aspects of the heroes and the world around them, and the end results paid off big time. The Marvel Cinematic Universe doesn't wallow in cynicism and hopelessness or takes itself seriously. Their movies have heart and levity that makes these characters more interesting to watch. They make moviegoers want to see more of this universe and all it has to offer. Want further proof that Marvel Studios is on a better track than DC/WB? They're making a movie about a lesser known team in space where two of its main characters are a living tree and a gun-totting raccoon that talks. Meanwhile, DC still struggles to bring Wonder Woman to life after canning Joss Whedon's proposed script (betting a lot of people at WB got shit-canned after the numbers for Avengers came back on opening weekend) and almost aired a TV version of the amazon princess that made her out as a female version of Jack Bauer with mental issues... and pants to be darkened.

While I'm glad Man of Steel made major money over the weekend (I'd wait until the 2nd and 3rd week before breaking out the champagne, boys) but the fact that its not a true rendition of Superman is another major hurdle DC/WB will have to get over. Maybe the two will revise the hero in the sequel and make actual plans to bring the rest of the DCU to the big screen someday... but I'm not gonna hold my breath for that.

DVS BSTrD:

BigTuk:

DVS BSTrD:
Actually I think that the movie proves Superman should be killing, or did you not see Zodd murder half the population of Metropolis? I've never thought it was acceptable for mor innocent people to die in the next issue just because the "hero" didn't wan to get his hands dirty. And even if it wasn't against it's moral code, it would still suck to end the only other member of your species.

You don't understand the point of the No killing thing. See once you make the choice to end a life for 'the greater good' it becomes a very very slippery slope. Since Good is simply the most subjective term in the human language. Superman has always realized this in the same way that Batman realizes that his unwillingness to kill is really one of the few differences between himself and the Joker.

I understand that Batman and Superman are afraid of losing control, but they are still condemning far more people to die because they're holding back. It's not really a slippery slope unless you lose your temper, otherwise it just a matter of math.

Loki_The_Good:
Yeah I think the problem with that, which Bob was pointing out is that's it's been shown superman holds back. A lot. To make sure he doesn't kill anyone. Superman without that restriction could end any movie in about 5 minutes. Super villain shows up kills a couple people superman punches through his chest role credits. That's the problem. It also seriously undermines his character. Look up the movie or comic arc superman versus the elites. Really great animated movie for superman and it touches on a lot of reasons why murder and superman should not go hand in hand. Superman should not kill

And That's why Superman is a really weak character.

Valuing life is Not a weakness and disregarding it is NOT a strength.

Realitycrash:

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

I was equally confused. I always found the 'do not kill' rule to be utterly stupid, but it's now so integrated into the character that removing it seems..Bizarre. I mean, heck, is BATMAN the traditional 'good guy' now of the future Justice League?

Meh. I honestly find it boring if Superman is a "Perfect" Man. People fuck up, if he kill someone, who cares. I am honestly sick and tired of seeing every superhero not kill a single person. Then again, I find it just bad writing to keep someone around when they killed hundreds, possibly thousands of people.

Kill the fucker and move on.

misterprickly:

DVS BSTrD:

BigTuk:

You don't understand the point of the No killing thing. See once you make the choice to end a life for 'the greater good' it becomes a very very slippery slope. Since Good is simply the most subjective term in the human language. Superman has always realized this in the same way that Batman realizes that his unwillingness to kill is really one of the few differences between himself and the Joker.

I understand that Batman and Superman are afraid of losing control, but they are still condemning far more people to die because they're holding back. It's not really a slippery slope unless you lose your temper, otherwise it just a matter of math.

Loki_The_Good:
Yeah I think the problem with that, which Bob was pointing out is that's it's been shown superman holds back. A lot. To make sure he doesn't kill anyone. Superman without that restriction could end any movie in about 5 minutes. Super villain shows up kills a couple people superman punches through his chest role credits. That's the problem. It also seriously undermines his character. Look up the movie or comic arc superman versus the elites. Really great animated movie for superman and it touches on a lot of reasons why murder and superman should not go hand in hand. Superman should not kill

And That's why Superman is a really weak character.

Valuing life is Not a weakness and disregarding it is NOT a strength.

Because that is TOTALLY what I just said and allowing murders to continue killing means you value life ~_~

TwiZtah:
YES! FUCKING FINALLY!

I absolutely loathe the whole high horse bullshit in comics of not killing the supervillains. Hell, think of how many people that would not have died if say Batman killed The Joker with a bullet through the eyes. I actually think that heroes that does not kill the supervillain is a villain in themself, they have the power to end pain and suffering caused by these lunatics. But no, it's against their "moral code", making their acts not selfless like a heroes act should be, but selfish.

Therefore I love The Punisher, quick and efficient killing, the goal is to stop the bad man.

I always thought Batman had a hero complex.People with hero complexes tend to create dangerous situations to save people , so that's why batman let them live and stuck them in Arkham. So they could escape and he can catch them again.

misterprickly:
Ya see that's the thing about Superman... He's not just a "goody-goody", he's the ULTAMATE "goody-goody"!

-He doesn't take bribes
-He doesn't make deals
-He DOSEN'T kill people!

Except that is just terrible writing and makes for a boring character.

"Oh, I am perfect in every single way. I am the personification of GOD. Don't fear me, love me! I do no wrong, ever!"

Not fun. Does not make an interesting character.

Falseprophet:
This was the best summary of why Superman killing Zod breaks the movie:

For me, the worst thing about Superman killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel isn't the neck-snapping itself, but that a few minutes before it happens, during an interminable fight scene through the damn near post-apocalyptic landscape of a ruined Metropolis, Zod tells him something along the lines of "this doesn't end until one of us dies." And he's right. That's what kills me about it. The bad guy tells Superman that he'll only stop if Superman kills him, and Superman proves him right. Superman proves that the bad guy is right. There's no other way. It's just violence and death as the only solution.

Superman proves that the bad guy is right.

There is nothing you can tell me that will make me think that's not a completely insane, monumentally wrongheaded way to end a Superman movie. From a character standpoint, it is the worst possible thing they could do, undermining every bit of rancid dialogue about how Superman's going to Show Us The Way and how It Stands For Hope. It doesn't. It's just dudes punching each other until one of them punches harder, the end.

The whole review is just....glorious.

This guy wins, you all lose. Bow down to the almighty Chris Sims, for he has pwned you n00bs. Hallelujah and amen.

I think even the John Byrne incarnation had Superman kill, so there is precedent in the comics. Batman used to kill, a lot, at the beginning of his comic run. Over time both characters have taken on the stance of separating themselves from those they battle because of their rule of "not killing". I thought killing Zod did a couple things; it made him choose a side, and he chose Earth and humans. And I think for an origin story and character arc, it helped set up the process of him becoming the "boy scout" that we have come to know in the movies and comics. It will most definitely shape his character. If Snyder and company made it a point to explain (however subtly) why Supes wears a damn cape (basic Kryptonian garb), then I am sure they had him kill Zod for a reason. I for one am anxious to see what they do with the inevitable sequels. I've never been a Superman fan, but I really did enjoy this version.

Oh well guess I'll have to watch this next week, movie isnt out here till 28th =(

contla:

TwiZtah:
YES! FUCKING FINALLY!

I absolutely loathe the whole high horse bullshit in comics of not killing the supervillains. Hell, think of how many people that would not have died if say Batman killed The Joker with a bullet through the eyes. I actually think that heroes that does not kill the supervillain is a villain in themself, they have the power to end pain and suffering caused by these lunatics. But no, it's against their "moral code", making their acts not selfless like a heroes act should be, but selfish.

Therefore I love The Punisher, quick and efficient killing, the goal is to stop the bad man.

I always thought Batman had a hero complex.People with hero complexes tend to create dangerous situations to save people , so that's why batman let them live and stuck them in Arkham. So they could escape and he can catch them again.

Yes, and this is a frequent theory. So why do we treat him like a hero? He is just as deranged as any of the supervillains.

Capitano Segnaposto:

misterprickly:
Ya see that's the thing about Superman... He's not just a "goody-goody", he's the ULTAMATE "goody-goody"!

-He doesn't take bribes
-He doesn't make deals
-He DOSEN'T kill people!

Except that is just terrible writing and makes for a boring character.

"Oh, I am perfect in every single way. I am the personification of GOD. Don't fear me, love me! I do no wrong, ever!"

Not fun. Does not make an interesting character.

BZZT. Wrong. Both of you are, actually.

People TREAT him as this infallible Personification of God who is the Ultimate Goodie Goodie that can do no wrong...but he's not. At least he's never said that about himself. In reality though, he's still just like any other person with his own problems and flaws who, despite the expectations put upon him, CAN'T save everyone and be the be-all-end-all SuperHero. But yet due to the people's idealization of him, he's expected to and puts the weight of the world on his shoulders. Even something as simple and relatively small-scale like Papa Kent dying from a heart attack tore him APART. For all the "invincible" superpowers he has, no matter how idealized and head above water he tries to be, he realizes that there's just some things he's powerless against. There's some things he can't fix/some people that he just can't save. But...he still has to uphold this "Perfect Idealized Boyscout" act for the sake of the public at large.

However....in comes the glasses-wearing Clark Kent. Where he IS allowed to be normal and he IS allowed to be flawed and make mistakes and he ISN'T having such an impossibly heavy burden placed upon him by portraying Mr. Perfect. People want to write off Clark Kent so much, but that persona is ESSENTIAL to the overall character of Kal-El because that's where he's allowed to be VULNERABLE for once. If he shows vulnerability as Superman (or worse, he actually FUCKED UP on the job), the people would take that for weakness and THAT would probably make them turn on him. Like I was talking about in the ETTM video section, people will tear you down from the pedestal just as quickly as they put you on it. Probably quicker. And more gleefully. And seeing as how Superman is on the highest pedestal imaginable...

THAT'S what compelling to me about Superman. The double-edged sword of idolization. Characters like this stick around for a long time NOT because of their superpowers and how much stuff they can blow up duking it out against a supervillian and how "kewwwl" they look doing it. It's about the human being behind the superpowers and how it relates/reflects to human nature.

I didn't mind Superman killing Zod. I wish he didn't, but I also understand that in that version, there wasn't any other way. The method of opening the Phantom Zone was used up, there's no Kryptonite, nobody knew about red sun radiation, and no prison in existence could possibly hold Zod. And the scene where Zod forces Superman's hand was a good scene.

Or at least it would have been if it wasn't for the way the movie focused so much on the collateral damage and civilian death during their fight. The two had probably filled a couple graveyards at this point, 4 more doesn't seem to have the same stakes. And this could have been avoided: just take a couple seconds to show Superman blasting debris with his heat vision or scooping up a couple people to get them out of the way. A couple simple shots to establish that despite all the damage, Superman was trying to save as many as he could. The focus on collateral damage was my least favorite part of the movie, taking away from what should have been great scenes.

On a more optimistic note, it practically writes the sequel by itself: Lex Luthor rebuilds Metropolis, and all the civilian death and property damage leads to people rallying behind his anti-Superman sentiments.

raven47172:
I kept laughing when Bob's Boston accent kept slipping in.

I was really hoping when he got a new producer that wasnt Susan that they would crack down on it abit, but nope, just goin the lazy route still.

Mr. Omega:
On a more optimistic note, it practically writes the sequel by itself: Lex Luthor rebuilds Metropolis, and all the civilian death and property damage leads to people rallying behind his anti-Superman sentiments.

For all the "hope and beginning a new" business the movie clumsily tried to keep repeating over and over, the people of Metropolis totally DO have every reason to hate him NOW. Even in the Avengers, NYC wasn't TOTALED like it was in here. They were mostly in just one part of the city; there's literally like a freakin five mile CRATER smack dab in the middle of Metropolis. But yet...he's supposed to be the symbol of idealism and hope for the people because...because...potatoes?

That's really the only way I can forgive this movie if THAT'S where they want to take it. To show that "Hey, all that over the top destruction that he and Zod caused...not a good thing, kiddies. Big deal he boo hoo'd for like 10 seconds over Zod. Motherfucker had a hand in killing a lot more innocents HIMSELF too, so he's just as much a supervillian. Honestly...most of the death and destruction of this movie is directly HIS fault. We woulda been better off without your ass, Superboy."

...but than again, they tried to do that with The Dark Knight Rises and look how that turned out =|.

Yeah this series is fucked.

The problem I see with a lot of the DC material is that there is a tendency to want to try and humanize the various super heroes being created, without realizing that this defeats the purpose of a "super hero" to begin with. Yet it worked for "Smallville" when it was a relatively new idea, and there is no disputing the "Nolanverse" (which got away with it by pretty much having Batman be the only hero in his universe and taking liberties with pretty much everything else which made them great stand alone movies, but criticized as being fairly bad for establishing any kind of continuity based around Batman and the rest of a super-hero themed universe). I think "Superman Returns" failed on a lot of levels for the same reason, even if "Man Of Steel" did better, because they simply humanized Superman too much and didn't really make him "Super" enough.

That said I think they were on the right track with having him fight an enemy worthy of him rather than pulling out Kryptonite, of course by starting with that, in a franchise it's going to make it less "wow" worthy if they toss out enemies who can fight Superman on equal terms flat out, without having to resort to some obscure trick.

As far as the code vs. killing goes, well they could always say that this is why he has it. As far as which villains he kills and which he doesn't, there is always the question of whether he can kill them. Some of the enemies like Bizzaro arguably have an entire dimension full of themselves, Darkseid is pretty much the easiest character there is to justify regenerating himself (and Superman fighting him one on one is a craps shoot, in some stories he has taken him, but typically Superman needs help, which is kind of the point of Darkseid), Brainiac can always have downloaded himself into something else or simply show up from yet another timeline, and so on. Heck even with General Zod justifying bringing him back isn't all that hard to do.

It will be interesting to see where this goes, but honestly as much as I like Superhero movies, I'm not totally psyched up for them to play "follow the leader" with "The Avengers". Especially seeing as "Avengers" seems to be a victim of it's own success, with the studio complaining about the amount of money needed to pay Robert Downy Jr. due to his contract, and the other actors already demanding bigger paydays in response to what he's getting. I kind of suspect the entire Marvelverse might self destruct because it was successful... and that could very well leak down to tainting the properties. It would be nice to see that not happen with DC.

I wasn't really up to speed on the "don't kill" thing, but I think the animated series somewhat did away with that by the time Darkseid showed up - in the episode where, after being brainwashed, Supes has a final battle with him and was fully ready to finish him off when...I'd really rather not give it away, it's weird.

However, I'm still bugged by that part in the movie where he says "Krypton had its chance!" and blows up the ship - the show, onscreen, the pods with unborn Kryptonians being destroyed. Unless I'm mistaken, SM is a baby murderer and no one had brought it up.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Realitycrash:

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

I was equally confused. I always found the 'do not kill' rule to be utterly stupid, but it's now so integrated into the character that removing it seems..Bizarre. I mean, heck, is BATMAN the traditional 'good guy' now of the future Justice League?

Meh. I honestly find it boring if Superman is a "Perfect" Man. People fuck up, if he kill someone, who cares. I am honestly sick and tired of seeing every superhero not kill a single person. Then again, I find it just bad writing to keep someone around when they killed hundreds, possibly thousands of people.

Kill the fucker and move on.

Annnnd this is why you got a bunch of Robert Zimmerman's running around pretending that they're The Punisher...

"But but but he looked SUSPICIOUS and and and who knows what he woulda done if I wouldn't have got him! I WANTED TO BE A HERO FOR MAH NEIGHBORHOOD GUISE!"

You do realize most of the Shoot First, Ask Questions Never type anti-heroes are usually depicted as the DOUCHEBAGS of the story, right? As in the people we DON'T want to emulate?

-----------------------
To relate it to the movie, that's why so many people find that scene so phony/undeserved to begin with. Even before the final showdown with Zod, Superman is COMPLETELY careless about laying waste to Smallville, most of which he causes HIMSELF. It'd be one thing if he was just getting thrown into stuff or he was trying to bait the badguys away from civilains or something, but no. Just like the baddies, he too shows ZERO concern for collateral damage or human casualties to where HE'S chucking folks through buildings left and right just like everyone else. But oh no, SUDDENLY he cares about this one Middle Class White Family With Kids and now decides to make this "hard decision"?

A guy that doesn't bat an eye at the decimation of his hometown/homecity who suddenly has some Woobie moment at the climax? THAT is what you call bad writing, my friend.

I don't read comic books, so I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that Superman has caused collateral damage in his fights before, possibly killing civilians in the process, so why is everybody whining about that happening in Man of Steel? There are plenty of other reasons to find fault in the movie, but I don't think that the Zod fight was one of them. That said I liked the movie overall, it just had some problems, but once again, I don't think the ending was one.

As for killing him at the end, I didn't mind it. I don't fully buy the "never kill" policy. Sure that works fine for comics, and of course I don't think Superman should be a god powered version of the Punisher, going around ripping dudes heads off and throwing them into the sun, but I think he was right to kill Zod in that situation. Zod said himself that we was gonna kill every last human on earth, and the fact he tried to eye lazer civilians during the fight proved he wasn't just taunting supes.

So for me, I'll be fine if Kal just limits his no killing policies strictly to humans and beings weaker than him, and for everyone else killing is fine only as a last resort.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Realitycrash:

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

I was equally confused. I always found the 'do not kill' rule to be utterly stupid, but it's now so integrated into the character that removing it seems..Bizarre. I mean, heck, is BATMAN the traditional 'good guy' now of the future Justice League?

Meh. I honestly find it boring if Superman is a "Perfect" Man. People fuck up, if he kill someone, who cares. I am honestly sick and tired of seeing every superhero not kill a single person. Then again, I find it just bad writing to keep someone around when they killed hundreds, possibly thousands of people.

Kill the fucker and move on.

'Every superhero'? Man, you must be blissfully unaware of the 90's. I envy you.

Leonardo Huizar:
It wouldnt be the 1st time Supes "killed" or outright executed people. In Smallville there were always opportunity to save the enemy of the week which end up killed by their own hubris and mr. faster than a speeding bullet suddenly isnt fast enough.

Letting someone die by there own hand is different from anything he did in the movie,

He also killed 3 evil Kryptonians in the main comics [pre new52] who took over another planet and killed most of its population but he did feel remorse for his actions. I remember reading about the "Other Zod" whose powers mimicked Supes but in a last moments of battle [context: Supes is powerless then regains his powers at the end of the fight] Other Zod flies straight at Supes at super speed [while Other Zod was losing his own] but Supes even with his powers doesn't hesitate to step aside, then 'SPLAT'.

The only time i'm aware of Superman outright killing Kryptonian's was the John Byrne run of Sup's after the first crisis (which, i think you were talking about), the thing i remember was Zod and his cronies where not only depowered but on a desolate planet and Superman needlessly dealt the killing blow (so to speak), but from all the spoilers i've seen (i haven't seen it yet) unlike Byrne there's no follow up. Byrn made Superman breakdown to the point he left earth to go Space Walkabout to reassess his values and made re-oathed to never do something so terrible again.

But to those that seen it, really, why was killing Zod worse than the clear amount of destruction around him, i'd be more upset i didn't poke him through the eyes. Imagine Kal looking at the blood on his hands looking sad enough but seeing the mess around him setting off the tears not the other way around,, which seems to be suggested.

To those that read or Watched Trigun which a similar moment, how does it compare?

Ken_J:

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

actually Zod is consistently superman's first/only kill in pretty much every medium he shows up in.

Huh? what? I don't remember Superman ever killing Zod. Again don't read the comics so...

I agree about the tone of the original and how it brought down the experience as a whole. I didn't see the film as "broody", but just really muted. There's only a few parts where strong emotions are on display. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if the movie kept that restrain the entire way through, but it's punctuated and broken up by action scenes with a scale and energy that hasn't been seen by myself in a while. It's quite dissident in that way.

That being said, if there's one thing I'm looking forward to the sequels, it's that Lois knows Clark is Superman right from the start. This helps eliminate one of the dumbest things about the Superman incarnations where a pair of spectacles is enough to fool people into not believing you're Superman, particularly because Lois has such a close relationship to "both". HOW CAN SHE NEVER PUT IT TOGETHER!? Not having to deal with that in the sequels is an interesting prospect. Doesn't explain everyone else's ineptitude, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here