Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South West, UK
Re: The Double Standards Against Superman
Originally Posted by GremlinZilla89
People keep saying they should have at least had Superman try and save people in the Zod battle.
Urgh, this is annoying. The only part of the film where there are people present is when they have a quick fist fight on the street. All the building Zod smashed Supes into CLEARLY had nobody in them.
I just think it's sad people hang on this topic yet don't hold the cartoons or comics accountable. Hell, I just re-read two Superman comics where the ending has a big brawl in the city with smashed buildings and all. One of them is the popular Superman/Batman Public Enemies where he fights Lex. They smash up some real estate pretty good and not once does Superman stop and assess the damage.
The other comic is considered by many to be one of, if not the best Superman story ever. All-Star Superman. Again, he fights Lex and they tear ***** up real nice. I didn't see Superman say "Hold up Lex, lemme save some random peeps right quick, you know for the readers piece of mind."
Hell, in the last episode of Justice League Unlimited Supes puts the udder smackdown on Darkseid and punches him through numerous buildings. Not once did he see if anybody was hurt.
The double standard people are applying to this film are soooo weak. What really gets me is the outcry for years that fans and casual movie goers alike wanted to see the character TRULY represented on screen. They get it. They FINALLY get it and what do they do? They ***** about it and say it's not Superman....
I just can't help but think "It's a comic book movie....calm down."
Any response to Snyder's 5000 claim now?
Guess it wasn't so 'clear' after all
Originally Posted by ChrisBaleBatman
As far as what he did at the end, for me, Superman's reaction right after doing it....and his refusal to do so up until he felt he needed to...for me, those were enough for me to accept what he had done. It didn't ruin the movie for me, and I liked the theme that it basically delivered.
But, I feel like, ideally, there could have been a different approach to the message that was being conveyed. But, that's just ideological on my part, and would have meant reworking the film and not just changing that one moment.
What I'm saying is that, and just hear me out here, if you look at Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel, they're both stories that have a strong message about how difficult, and morally torturing, it can be to face against an enemy that is relentless, and an extremist who WILL kill millions. It's relevant today, because we live in a world where an idealistic view on war, on extremism, on terrorism is basically laughed at. You're either called a coward, or an idiot if you are of the opinion that we shouldn't kill or fight back with intense force. Someone like Batman, who refuses to kill the Joker...would, by today's standard, probably be considered a coward.
Just think about the joy so many people, myself included, felt when Bin Laden had been killed. There was celebration, and genuine happiness over it. We could say what we want about why, or breakdown all of the emotional aspects of the what and why's. But, here where I live, in the U.S., that moment is essentially all you need to know about how we view the battle between good and evil in an ideological and practical way.
So, I think that Superman, in Man of Steel, is essentially an acceptance of that view. It's embracing what the modern state of how we view the battle between good and evil. That, sometimes you MUST kill to do good.
I brought up Star Trek Into Darkness, because thematically they're pretty much handling the same kind of subject. How do you deal with someone who does such horrible things? Your gut instinct is to seek vengeance, obviously. You want to go, get them, and kill them for the crimes they've committed. But, whereas Man of Steel is accepting the modern view on this, Star Trek (by the end) goes up against it and says it's wrong. It's morally wrong, and that we need to be better than that. We must be better. Now, yeah, it's an idealistic point to make. It's even controversial to, basically say, that a horrible mass murdering terrorist should not be killed for his crimes. That he should be tried, under the court of law, and imprisoned for his crimes...but not killed on a black ops assassination mission.
In today's world, that's an very unpopular message to convey.
So, while I accept and still enjoyed Man of Steel and the message they're conveying. I understand why people feel so strongly about what he did. I appreciate the notion that film could have been on the idealistic side on the argument, like Trek was.
The thing with that word 'realism' that they kept throwing around, is that I hoped it would apply to the world around Superman, to how he grew up (which it did) and to people's reactions to him and stuff.
I didn't think they'd take it so far that they'd go 'You know how Superhero movies usually have a happy ending? Well that's not realistic, so we're not going to do that.'
I don't think that Superman or Batman or any other heroes 'no kill rule' is actually meant to be taken literally. No writer who uses it is saying 'you should never kill, even in a battle'.
It's a story thematic. It's just the presentation of an idea, and it's an idea that gives me the warm fuzzies. It doesn't mean I think anyone who ever kills anyone else in the real world, has done something wrong and should have tried to find another way.
This is fiction. And to me, Superman is a character that represents everything we think is beyond what we are reasonably capable of... both physically and practically.
And you know what? There is nothing wrong with that.
People keep saying that we have him on a pedestal... so what if we do? Is no mythical character ALLOWED to be anything but down on our level? Can we not have one up there?
Originally Posted by Shikamaru
The problem I think people have with Superman killing Zod is not necessarily the fact that he kills him but more the fact that it doesn't feel earned by the film. We did not get into the character's head enough throughout the course of the film. We don't know what his stance on life is, what morals he has, what he believes in, etc. The film thinks that it did just as good of a job of getting into the protagonist's head as Batman Begins and Iron Man did, and therefore thinks it can pull something like that off and have it be accepted. However, that is not the case.
And that is really what a lot of MOS boils down to: Great ideas not executed properly. There are so many things in this film that are poorly received not because of the ideas behind them but because of the poor execution. A lot of the times, people even get the wrong message out of it due to how poor the execution is in certain places. Case and point: Jonathan Kent. Many people assume Pa Kent never wanted Clark to use his powers to help people when in Snyder's mind, what Pa Kent actually believed is that Clark wasn't ready to reveal himself yet and had to be ready for that when the time was right. Otherwise, he would never have a chance of being accepted by our society.
Basically, the execution makes the film feels like this:
BOOM! Cool Krypton stuff and giant birds!
BAM! Cool flashbacks with brief touches on the symbol of hope and humanity!
WOW! Aliens are attacking the planet now!
HOLY ****! Superman and the army beat the **** out of everyone then Supes snaps the ****er's neck like a boss!
And now happy ending with people smiling!
...when Snyder's real intentions was to do something more like this:
Jor-El sends his only son from a hopeless world beyond saving to a hopeless world that still has a fighting chance.
Clark grows up not being sure of what his purpose in life is. Has the following beliefs, the following stances on things such as murder, the following internal conflicts, etc.
The lack of hope and of freedom that has lead to Krypton's eventual demise has now come to Earth. Clark does not know what to do and has to make a decision - a decision based on all the morals/beliefs/lessons we've seen him have + learn throughout the course of the film till now.
Clark decides he can't let Zod turn Earth into Krypton - not just into a physical Krypton but into the same hopeless/freedom-less world that Krypton has become.
Clark commits murder. Based on everything we've seen of his beliefs throughout the film, he reacts in the following way. However, his moral internal struggles have finally come to an end and knows what is right now. Clark looks at the sun, says "never again" to himself, and finally knows what type of person/hero he needs to be.
Clark joins the DP. His origin is complete and has finally become the Superman.
So so agree.
Originally Posted by CyclopsWasRight
People have an idea of what Superman should be rather than what he is.
That idea doesn't come from no where...
People have different ideas
of what Superman is based on the comics they've read and which interpretations they like, but that doesn't make one wrong and the other right.
There is no 'what Superman is.' There is only what he is in one story or another.
Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite
As someone said earlier, Superman should have tried to prevent the scout ship from crashing into the city after he heat-visioned the helm. I would have also liked it if he had tried to prevent that one building from collapsing after Zod heat-visioned it from the inside. The key word being "tried". Whether or not it was possible, Superman should have done something instead of just flying away.
Originally Posted by Binker
But that's the thing: none of this has any merit. Everyone is expecting Superman to be perfect, and do anything, which wouldn't create any conflict. The scout ship crashed in buildings, sure, but buildings next to those that the black zero destroyed. So either no one was there, or they were dead anyways. And preventing the building from collapsing, I don't understand that.
Wow... what a broad sweeping statement that applies to literally no one in this thread.
Superman: Don't be afraid.
Lois: I'm not. Helicopters, danger, go, go, go! Then we'll talk.