The Big Picture: Man of Tomorrow

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

we already have "Mopey dreary Bateman"
It's Nolanverse Bateman.
(The internet is still failing to provide me with Jason Bateman dressed as Batman. That makes me sad.)

aba1:
I have found that the big issue with a lot of people and this movie is they keep trying to make it exactly the same as the comics. Yes it is superman but it is its own universe with its own rules and different characters who have developed differently. If you wanted a play by play of how it went down in the comics just read the comics the whole point of a re-imagining is that things are different. Superman and Lois Lane don't need to get together or even like each other why... because it isn't the comics and that is ok just you can't go in with too many preconceived notions.

People going in expecting things exactly the way they wanted the way they remember it "in the good ol' days"? Refusing to accept anything new because it might present something unexpected or different? Oh I can't think of any (XCOM reboot) times (Syndicate reboot) when (Halo 4) people (Saints Row 3) acted (GTA 4) like (Wind Waker) that (Metroid Prime).

I'm not even bugged by the whole idea of Superman doing what he's doing. I never really was that big a fan of the original, and while I'm not keen on him going Judge Dredd on anyone, it's Nolan/Synder's vision, so they can do with it what they will. I just hope the next one adds some levity and maybe drops the Lois-Superman romance angle (like aba1 mentioned) instead of them maybe just interacting in a purely platonic manner or maybe even competitively as Lois and Clark at the paper? I'd far prefer them antagonizing one another in a competition than realizing they are each others' "TRUUUE LUUUV".

I am going to have to disagree with the premise of this video entirely. Killing Zod was exactly what this Superman would have done, and it makes total sense for the Superman movies to come. Consider that this Clark Kent was raised by middle American farmers in the 80s and 90s. This was a Jonathan Kent who said "Maybe" when the choice came between revealing Clark and saving a school bus full of kids. This would not have been a man giving his son an iron clad moral code of "Do Not Kill," but more likely a second amendment advocate who believed firmly in "Stand Your Ground" laws, i.e. if someone attacks you on your property, you have the right to respond with deadly force. Superman did just that; he chose Earth as his home, and defended it with lethal force. In so doing, he killed the first member of his own species he ever really knew. This is why he is anguished after the killing; not because he killed, but because he killed the only other Kryptonian left on the planet, making him truly alone just after finding out who he was in the first place.

As for the question of why not kill everyone going forward, this makes perfect sense as well. Superman didn't have a defined moral code going in to this origin story, but imagine a line like this in the next MoS: "The one time I used my power to end a life, it cost me too much, left me too alone in this universe. I'll never do it again." IMHO, that's a much better reason for a person not to kill than some vague "It's a line I won't cross" nonsense. Superman did kill, and he hated what it did to him, so never again.

Parakeettheprawn:
it's Nolan/Synder's vision

Not entirely

From Digital Spy:
'Man of Steel' spoilers: Christopher Nolan disagreed with ending - Movies News - Digital Spy

'Man of Steel' spoilers: Christopher Nolan disagreed with ending - Movies News - Digital Spy
Christopher Nolan was initially unhappy with Man of Steel's ending, it has been revealed.

The Dark Knight Rises director, who produced Zack Snyder's Superman reboot, disagreed with the decision to have Henry Cavill's Superman kill General Zod (Michael Shannon).

"In the original version of the script, Zod just got zapped into the Phantom Zone," Snyder told Empire. "But [writer] David [S Goyer], Chris and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him.

"The 'Why?' of it for me was that if it was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained.

"I wanted to create a scenario where Superman, either he's going to see [Metropolis's citizens] chopped in half, or he's gotta do what he's gotta do."

Red X:

Parakeettheprawn:
it's Nolan/Synder's vision

Not entirely

From Digital Spy:
'Man of Steel' spoilers: Christopher Nolan disagreed with ending - Movies News - Digital Spy

'Man of Steel' spoilers: Christopher Nolan disagreed with ending - Movies News - Digital Spy
Christopher Nolan was initially unhappy with Man of Steel's ending, it has been revealed.

The Dark Knight Rises director, who produced Zack Snyder's Superman reboot, disagreed with the decision to have Henry Cavill's Superman kill General Zod (Michael Shannon).

"In the original version of the script, Zod just got zapped into the Phantom Zone," Snyder told Empire. "But [writer] David [S Goyer], Chris and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him.

"The 'Why?' of it for me was that if it was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained.

"I wanted to create a scenario where Superman, either he's going to see [Metropolis's citizens] chopped in half, or he's gotta do what he's gotta do."

Hmm, interesting.

But really, as much as it might not be for most people, that explanation makes enough sense to me, TBH. I mean, sure, some things you're averse to from the beginning, but if Superman deals with the fallout of his actions (while still we finally getting some levity), that could allow room for serious character development. If they actually get it right and don't make us endure another Iron Man 2.

Zachary Amaranth:

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

That's Green Lantern you're thinking of. Superman's the best at what he does, though what he does isn't very nice.

That's why he runs around with a skull on his chest and enough technology to take down the US government.

Um... isn't that The Punisher? I'm pretty sure it is.

canadamus_prime:

Zachary Amaranth:

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

That's Green Lantern you're thinking of. Superman's the best at what he does, though what he does isn't very nice.

That's why he runs around with a skull on his chest and enough technology to take down the US government.

Um... isn't that The Punisher? I'm pretty sure it is.

It was, in order:

Wolverine, the Punisher, and Iron Man (though the technology bit wasn't very specific). That's assuming you leave out Green Lantern.

It was a pretty nerdy and convoluted statement, though.

Parakeettheprawn:

Hmm, interesting.

But really, as much as it might not be for most people, that explanation makes enough sense to me, TBH. I mean, sure, some things you're averse to from the beginning, but if Superman deals with the fallout of his actions (while still we finally getting some levity), that could allow room for serious character development. If they actually get it right and don't make us endure another Iron Man 2.

you might be right but i doubt it because like Batman Begins this was meant to be stand alone an Eggs in one basket or a "But the Kitchen sink" type story.
From what has been described apparently the ending has the city rebuilt meaning this must be years in the future but it may end up being a Bourne Supremacy type ending where it was actual footage from the sequel.

Zachary Amaranth:

canadamus_prime:

Zachary Amaranth:

That's Green Lantern you're thinking of. Superman's the best at what he does, though what he does isn't very nice.

That's why he runs around with a skull on his chest and enough technology to take down the US government.

Um... isn't that The Punisher? I'm pretty sure it is.

It was, in order:

Wolverine, the Punisher, and Iron Man (though the technology bit wasn't very specific). That's assuming you leave out Green Lantern.

It was a pretty nerdy and convoluted statement, though.

Ah, well I wasn't too far off. I thought that bit about him being the best there is at what he does sounded like Wolverine, I was thrown off by the 'not very nice' part. Don't recall that part of it.

Superman felt bad about killing Zod? Didn't look like it to me, he's kissing and making jokes with Lois like 30 seconds later. Thought he biggest problem I had in that fight was that neither of them showed any battle damage at any point. Their cloths didn't even get ripped.

Not to mention that the collateral damage of their fights in Small Vile and ESPECIALLY Metropolis had to be massive and Sups didn't seem to give two shits about it. I kept expecting him to draw Zod out of the city to some deserted location DBZ style.

I think this movie would have worked better in two parts. It really needed an extra 10-15 minutes of buildup for Clark, not Kal-El, and his morals. I'd have loved to have seen an additional 10-15 minutes of acclimatization to the role, or even some buildup scenes for the news reporters to talk about BEFORE Zod shows up.

Having said that, I think the next movie will be more of a return to form that we expect, and am excited to see it. Heck, I can even see Supes' views on killing being affected BECAUSE he killed Zod.

PTSD might be a bit much for the Man of Steel, but I can see him being sensitive to the fears of the people he sees and hears around him (more so b/c he works at a news agency).

Also, while Lois didn't have a lot of ROMANTIC chemistry with Superman, I LOVED her character. True, Lois is sort of crowbarred into the story, sure any romance makes no sense (barring the whole "beefcake saved my life" syndrome).

However, I LIKED her, she wasn't the self-centered annoyance that they constantly turned her into in order to keep her from hooking up with Clark.

As bad as GL was, I am hoping they just mull that over and include him in the JLA movie anyway, even if they have to use a different actor. Hell, they could even make the JLA movie deal with Sinestro and the Yellow Lanterns, it could work. I can already think of a hamfisted way to incorporate the Martians into the equation, seeing as how Hollywood loves to connect EVERYTHING.

"Green Lantan"

"Stahted yestahday mahning"

So, MovieBob's from Boston, right?

It's not really that difficult to get around. Just play the "does the hero have the right to play judge jury and executioner" card by Luthor and suddenly the doubt is there. Better still, can we actually talk tacticaly and point out Superman's move here was to fly into the bad guys at super speed for most of the fights. An enemy that can out power Superman isn't viable, but one that out thinks him, that works.

Seriously Bob.....I really look forward to watching your show every week, and I get disappointed when I can't watch Big Picture bc of spoilers.

LIKE THE SHOW THIS COMMENT INCLUDES SPOILERS:

Strange, I understood that when he killed Zod, he cried out not because he had murdered, but because he had failed. Failed in all he was meant to succeed: Bridging the two species.
If my memory can be trusted to extrac a detail from all that information and sensorial overload, I think Superman never learns at any moment that he is carrying the genetic sequences of all his race, thus when he kills Zod, he has killed the last of his entire species with him.
Although I also felt the movie lacking in passion, I actually thought (maybe just within my personal misunderstanding of it) that this moment was tremendously tragic for all of what he was meant to represent and be, at least in this particular setting and interpretation of Superman.

No doubt films are art, we all take such different nurishment, feelings and ideas from it.
;)

SonOfVoorhees:
-Snip-
Even when someone looks at Batman, you think, just kill Joker....how many people has Joker killed, gets locked up yet kills again. A normal person would think "you know what, Joker is always going to kill and escape, better off killing him" Joker can not be changed to be a normal member of the public.
-Snip-

I didn't watch this full episode of TBP (I said I wouldn't if Bob continued to let his accent dip in and out of videos), but with this in particular...

Isn't the whole point of these super heroes not killing their foes, even when said murder would save countless lives, uhh I don't know... The point?

As a rational person sure, killing one evil man to save a million innocents makes sense, but these super beings choose the harder path that is above all of it. They wont push aside their morals for the greater good under any circumstances.

I didn't find Clark to be mopey or dreary at all. He's guarded, which is something entirely different. He's relaxed around his mom and becomes relaxed around Lois. Why? Because he trusts them. I mean, it's not like he's been told his entire life that humanity would be afraid of him if they ever found out who and what he really is. Oh, wait...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

The movie ends with Clark finally comfortable in his own skin. Who he is and where he fits in the world. Did Movie Bob not watch the last five minutes of the movie?

Furthermore, it's a huge leap to think that because Superman killed Zod that he now thinks it's okay to kill. In fact, Superman's reaction says something completely the opposite.

I think one of the other posters got it exactly right in that Movie Bob is looking at Man of Steel through Comic Book Guy eyes.

Red X:

Trishbot:
So... Superman kills. And the movie tries to say that that's okay because the villain put a lot of people's lives at risk...
image

So, who's looking forward to the "Injustice" movie Warner Bros. is apparently trying to make?

And as for Injustice? I won't go into the whole alternate universe thing but remember what happened in Injustice is the opposite to what happened in Kingdom Come and similarly in the JL cartoon.

Stop getting it twisted, it's not that Superman doesn't kill, it's that he shouldn't, he should always find a better way, it won't be a perfect way, just a better one. I'm not even a Superman fan and even i can get that :S

I actually was mocking the movie for having Superman kill. Stupid internet sarcasm being so hard to pull off...

My point was, in Injustice, the act of Superman outright killing a villain is what sets the stage for the entirety of Injustice, where Superman is a DICTATOR with the view that killing is okay if done for the greater good of the people... and how diametrically opposed this morality is to the values he once had, and that others like Batman still stand for.

Even the Justice League did this story, where a Superman that is "okay" with killing a criminal if he decides there's no other choice is what creates the "Justice Lords", and the series very smartly ends that arc with the proper Superman put in the situation of killing Luthor to save lives, only to answer "I'm not the man who killed Luthor. I wish to heaven that I was, but I'm NOT."

The movie gets it wrong. VERY wrong. FUNDAMENTALLY wrong. I'm actually quite sad knowing the Transformers/Michael Bay-loving generation is going to just love this movie because of all the action and maybe even cheer when Superman snaps Zod's neck. That's what the public wants. A spectacle. Violence. Grittiness and brutal death (pulls the Gladiator "are you not entertained?!" card). So much destruction, so much violence, that's what makes him SUPER, right?

Hell no. F*** no. What makes Superman "super" is not his powers. His powers are the most generic powers any hero can have. So many superheroes have flight and super strength and even laser vision. What makes him "super" is his morality, his values, his virtues. Superman is not just any superhero. He's the superhero OTHER superheroes aspire to be. He is the best of us, the "hope" of what a superhero ultimately means, the greatest good that humanity (the Kent family) can bring to temper the godlike power of a would-be tyrant. It's why a storyline like "Red Son", showing a Superman not raised with the morals his parents gave him, would be a terrible thing and a completely different person.

The movie utterly, completely fails to be Superman at its emotional core, at its very soul. Sure, he wears the cape. Sure, he flies and punches things really hard. Sure, he flirts with Lois. Sure, he's an alien raised by folks in Kansas. But when it matters most, his very character, what he stands for, it all falls tragically apart.

I'll just leave off with this, from Alan Moore's acclaimed "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" storyline:
image

The thing that will stop Superman killing is that he will feel guilt over killing Zod and then decide never to kill again.

First, the most important thing about the segment:

That Martian Manhunter crack actually made me laugh aloud. Well played.

Secondly, regarding Superman killing:
-- It isn't really a rule. The rule is that Superman doesn't kill entirely human-appearing enemies on-screen. He has more or less a soldier's attitude toward it overall, he's never really had an objection to killing in the heat of combat if nonlethal options aren't really feasible. Yes, he talks a big game about the sanctity of life, and yes, he won't straight-up murder people that he could capture instead or that present more long-term threats that can be addressed in other ways, but he didn't hold back in the fight with Doomsday, he's for sure given it a go with Darkseid more than once, and he downs mooks by the hundreds every time he explodes the superweapon of the week and it blows up dramatically. Also, many of his fights... well, basically the lack of dead supervillains has more to do with Joker immunity than him holding back, honestly.

-- Superman accepts a lot of collateral damage without qualm. Every time he has a fight in a city and doesn't forcibly relocate it to the moon or an empty field somewhere (he could, usually even at minimal risk to himself) he willingly exchanges hundreds or thousands of civilian lives for expediency. While he's never called out on this explicitly, death tolls from fights have been mentioned.

-- One of the canon explanations for his reluctance to kill in cold blood (as opposed to in-combat) is that he once executed some Kryptonian criminals, and now feels bad about it. Perhaps Man of Steel is taking that plot-line and replacing the random super-mooks with Zod to fit it all in a tighter package.

You know what I learn from this movie? Krytonian's can't control the laser from their eyes with their eyes, they can only shoot straight and need to move their heads.

Zod could've easily just look right and kill those innocent, instead he look straight. That's why I never liked DC, too much plot holes, too much space magic.

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

Didn't Christopher Reeves Superman also kill Zod in Superman 2? He threw him in a chasm in the fortress of solitude when Zod become weak like human. Yeah! Doesn't seem like much of a rule for me.

Although I agree with Moviebob, but it's not that it's mopy, Superman just doesn't seem to be that well developed. Like Moviebob said, in this movie you don't even get the sense it's a rule until he freaks out for killing him in the end.

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

I knoooooooooooooooow!

I'm 100% on board with Bob on this whole thing. The movie itself was an amazing spectacle at times with out of this world effects...but Superman DONT KILL PEOPLE. The whole POINT of the character is that he ALWAYS does the right thing!

If you're gonna change the one important thing the relatively boring character of superman has....there is no point in making this movie at all.

There are 2 good things about it though.

1: We didnt have to suffer through a terrible reason for Zod to be lured aboard his own spaceship and drawn into the phantom zone again.
2: Superman actually did something original.

But those points are moot when you break the character.

God damnit. A lot was riding on this movie, but DC just cant seem to get it right :|

Trishbot:
-supersnip-

I feel ashamed snipping this awesome post, but I just gotta say. Thanks for saying what I'm thinking, only better. I agree wholeheartedly.

Just saw the movie. I'm glad I'm not the only one that was bothered by Superman killing Zod. Movies never get a vocal reaction out of me, but that one shocked me enough to get a "Jesus!" and I teared up a little. The thing is, the effect that scene has on someone who grew up reading comics will be very different from someone who hasn't. Bob touches on this mentioning that there is little in the movie that shows how important the whole not killing is to Superman's character - I brought 20 years of reading comics and an iron-clad idea of Superman's persona with me into that theater.

Bob, the filmmakers deliberately omitted a scene where Superman establishes a "thou shall not kill" rule because he didn't make one. The reason he got upset about killing Zod was because of what it came down to; Choose Earth and finish Zod, or choose Krypton and let Zod live to rebuild it. This was a decision Clark spent the whole movie deliberating about, and Zod made him make a decision he wouldn't have been prepared to make otherwise. In a sense, the events of this film could be a catalyst to his rule on killing. The sequel could easily be about "You might have saved the world but you need to clean up your act..." and then he decides to avoid property damage, save and protect more people in his fights and most of all, decide never to kill again.

80sboy:

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

Didn't Christopher Reeves Superman also kill Zod in Superman 2? He threw him in a chasm in the fortress of solitude when Zod become weak like human. Yeah! Doesn't seem like much of a rule for me.

Although I agree with Moviebob, but it's not that it's mopy, Superman just doesn't seem to be that well developed. Like Moviebob said, in this movie you don't even get the sense it's a rule until he freaks out for killing him in the end.

I don't remember that part, but then I haven't seen Superman 2 in quite some time. I remember the Fortress of Solitude, but I don't remember Superman actually throwing Zod into a chasm.

I would much rather see Clark develop into a better man by struggling over an impossible decision early in his career than automatically be held to a contrived morality that only exists because of the antiquated and obsolete Comics Code.

DoctorImpossible:
I would much rather see Clark develop into a better man by struggling over an impossible decision early in his career than automatically be held to a contrived morality that only exists because of the antiquated and obsolete Comics Code.

Precisely. Better to establish this properly with non-comics fans than to expect them(unrealistically) to just take it for granted.

I totally agree, SuperMan shouldn't kill. But I think it kinda worked here. Yeah, Batman esque SuperMan is kinda a drag. But in that moment of panic, I get why he killed Zod, plus, where the hell would they put the guy? He probably wouldn't spend too long in custody. I'd hope that now SuperMan thinks "Okay, theres got to be a better way to deal with this".

But yeah, Man of Steel, was pretty damn amazing! The city destruction was pure adrenaline fulled carnage! (But having not read any SuperMan comics, I was thinking, Man this reminds me of Image's Invincible (I know that that takes influnce from SuperMan))

I would think that this younger and less experienced Superman would carry the weight of his violence into future iterations. It would flavor an older and more savvy Superman who has disavowed killing.

Did we forget Superman killing another version of Zod? Superman II depicts a far worse death of Zod than Man of Steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0

Well count me as one of the people who doesn't really have a problem with Superman killing Zod. First of all Zod kinda of forced Superman's hand and it was a very heat of the moment kind of thing. Plus Superman does show regret over killing Zod. Now while people are right in that this does create a slippery slope its possible that this will play a part in future Superman movies and is not a sign of the writers just casually dismissing Superman's "thou Shall not Kill" code.

As for the whole collateral damage argument, hasn't this happened countless timeless in the cartoons and comics? This more or less done for a stylized effect. Now yes he probably could have drown Zod out into a desert, but given how Zod wants to make Superman suffer he would have just stayed back and slaughtered innocents to draw Superman back. I suppose there could have been a scene or two where he rescues some people form debris, but it doesn't really bother me.

If anything my only complaint about the whole killing issue is that the movie doesn't really explore or explain why its bad for Superman to kill, why he has this code (as if its something we are suppose to assume or already know).

The way I see it, the reason why it was never mentioned that he had a strict "no killing" rule before in the movie, was because he didn't. I mean, he'd just "been Superman" for a matter of days. Isn't it logical that killing Zod was the defining moment that made him decide never to kill again. Also, I'd like to point out that killing someone with your hands is a lot different to accidentally killing someone out of view as collateral. Remember, Clark is not a rational guy like Bruce Wayne (well, not Nolan's Bruce, but that's another issue..), he's emotionally driven; a virtue ethicist.

This movie's main issue was the complete lack of screen time dedicated to character development (Clark & Lois after meeting each other like two times, with no chemistry at all..). I bet sometime during the production, they said "Hey, our character development is pretty weak, but the action sequences are awesome. Let's half the former and double the latter."

Trishbot:
snip

While I agree with you about Superman, I still feel the situation in the movie is vastly different from the situations presented in Justice League and the Injustice comics.

Zod and Superman were on equal footing in terms of strength and ability. He's not Superman to Zod. There was no strength or speed advantage in that final scene. It wasn't a situation of where the Joker and Lex will probably be in a situation in the future where they'll kill people, and he wasn't passing judgement on Zod for what he'd done. It was a moment where Zod was directly going to kill people, and he was unable to use any other option of restraint or deflection. Superman literally had no other option. And it destroys him. He openly weeps for what he was forced to do. This isn't some macho Die Hard movie where he scowls at the camera while looking cool but remorseful. I don't expect any bros talking about how sweet it was when Supes kills him and immediately starts sobbing.

The movie makes it clear this was a terrible thing Superman had no choice but to do. And I very, very much doubt that Superman will be offing his baddies in the sequel (Which will hopefully feature Brainiac because that was all I could think about when those Kryptonian helper robots where on screen).

I loved this movie, and I think they absolutely nailed the character of Superman. Absolutely pitch perfect.

canadamus_prime:

80sboy:

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

Didn't Christopher Reeves Superman also kill Zod in Superman 2? He threw him in a chasm in the fortress of solitude when Zod become weak like human. Yeah! Doesn't seem like much of a rule for me.

Although I agree with Moviebob, but it's not that it's mopy, Superman just doesn't seem to be that well developed. Like Moviebob said, in this movie you don't even get the sense it's a rule until he freaks out for killing him in the end.

I don't remember that part, but then I haven't seen Superman 2 in quite some time. I remember the Fortress of Solitude, but I don't remember Superman actually throwing Zod into a chasm.

It actually depends on the version of Superman 2 you watch. In the Richard Donner version, they get sent back to the Phantom Zone. If you watch the movie studio edit version, I believe he gets thrown down a pit or something.

Mcoffey:

Trishbot:
snip

While I agree with you about Superman, I still feel the situation in the movie is vastly different from the situations presented in Justice League and the Injustice comics.

Zod and Superman were on equal footing in terms of strength and ability. He's not Superman to Zod. There was no strength or speed advantage in that final scene. It wasn't a situation of where the Joker and Lex will probably be in a situation in the future where they'll kill people, and he wasn't passing judgement on Zod for what he'd done. It was a moment where Zod was directly going to kill people, and he was unable to use any other option of restraint or deflection. Superman literally had no other option. And it destroys him. He openly weeps for what he was forced to do. This isn't some macho Die Hard movie where he scowls at the camera while looking cool but remorseful. I don't expect any bros talking about how sweet it was when Supes kills him and immediately starts sobbing.

The movie makes it clear this was a terrible thing Superman had no choice but to do. And I very, very much doubt that Superman will be offing his baddies in the sequel (Which will hopefully feature Brainiac because that was all I could think about when those Kryptonian helper robots where on screen).

I loved this movie, and I think they absolutely nailed the character of Superman. Absolutely pitch perfect.

I'd disagree on a few things (and it's okay to disagree). Maybe it was the fault of lousy editing, but Superman, yes, shows he didn't WANT to kill Zod and lets out that pained "what have I done?" scream... but it was only a few mere minutes later that he and Lois are cracking jokes and flirting and the repercussions of what he's done seem to have almost instantaneously dissipated. In the comics, the moment he does what he does in the 1980s story, he flees from Lois in disgust because he can't even bear to look her in the eyes because of what he had done. He flat out disappears for two years. Obviously, the movie wanted to wrap things up on a comparatively "happier" note, but the way the scenes played out didn't make me think "wow, this is totally going to linger with him for years to come", not when he seemed to be coping with it just fine shortly thereafter.

And the argument that he was "on equal footing" with Zod to make it okay doesn't convince me either. It wasn't because they were equal in strength; you admit yourself it was because Zod was threatening civilians and Superman saw no alternative (though, seriously, those civilians should've MOVED. Stop standing there, morons!) Any villain can put Superman in that situation, no matter if they're strong or normal. Joker could have Lois hooked up to a bomb with his finger on the trigger, or Luthor could have arranged a deathtrap for Jimmy that only his death would prevent. Their strength doesn't matter, especially when intelligent villains can outsmart Superman to put him in a position of vulnerability. It was a REALLY BIG DEAL when Wonder Woman snapped a powerless human's neck because he had mind controlled Superman to go on a rampage and only his death could stop it... and even though it was "justified", both Batman and Superman were horrified with what she had done, even if her position was understandable.

But, well, if Brainiac is next... Brainiac isn't a person. He is not technically "alive". He's a cold computer program, and by all means Superman can "kill" him all he wants because he's neither alive nor even a physical being (hence why he keeps "dying" in the comics and has so many back-up copies of himself). So I fully expect, if Brianiac shows up, that he'll be "killed" just like Zod.

And, I don't know, that's a huge part of Superman the movies failed to grasp; apart from him barely spending a second to help the THOUSANDS of people no-doubt killed in their fight (seriously, lure him out of the city! Even DBZ characters are THAT smart), the fact that Superman resorts to basically pummeling the villain to death as his only means of victory shows how little they know or understand Superman. He's not a brute. He's smart, cunning, intelligent, resourceful, and he'll always use his fists as a last resort. At least in the two decades of comics I read, he made plans, set traps, outsmarted villains MORE often than he out-muscled them, and he managed to go all that time without ending a single life.

The Superman in the movies is the "punch him to death but feel bad about it" type, neither raised with the moral convictions that Pa Kent should've given him (seriously, go to hell, Pa Kent... you're like a Bizarro version of Uncle Ben's "great power comes great responsibility"), the brains to use his powers in ways that don't cause wanton destruction, or the charm and humor he always brought to those around him. Superman, more than any other hero, was a hero not because of some tragedy in his life, not because he has no choice but to stop the villains, but simply a means to do his civic duty with the abilities he had. He became Superman long before he had a villain to fight. He saved kittens from trees as equally as stopping aliens from conquering the planet. One of my favorite stories was when he just saved a bankrupt local deli by eating there and making people go "wow, Superman eats there? I want to eat there too!" so the old couple that ran the place wouldn't lose their income.

That, to me, is what makes Superman "super". Doing something like that speaks volumes more to him as a hero than snapping Zod's neck, but feeling really bad about it for a few minutes.

Trishbot:

canadamus_prime:

80sboy:

Didn't Christopher Reeves Superman also kill Zod in Superman 2? He threw him in a chasm in the fortress of solitude when Zod become weak like human. Yeah! Doesn't seem like much of a rule for me.

Although I agree with Moviebob, but it's not that it's mopy, Superman just doesn't seem to be that well developed. Like Moviebob said, in this movie you don't even get the sense it's a rule until he freaks out for killing him in the end.

I don't remember that part, but then I haven't seen Superman 2 in quite some time. I remember the Fortress of Solitude, but I don't remember Superman actually throwing Zod into a chasm.

It actually depends on the version of Superman 2 you watch. In the Richard Donner version, they get sent back to the Phantom Zone. If you watch the movie studio edit version, I believe he gets thrown down a pit or something.

Ok, I'm going to have to see that movie again because I'm having difficulty remembering just how he finally dealt with Zod apart from the red sun radiation thing.

 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