The Double Standards Against Superman

[herolee10]

Originally Posted by The Batman

Zod's death is one of the few scenes in the film that was executed well, IMO.

[blumatic]

Originally Posted by Krumm

I'd agree with this mostly in terms of the dark serious tone that was all over this summer's blockbusters -- thanks TDK.

But I think that it's handling of the villains demise (Zod's death, obviously) is something that yet to really be done in comic book film. The emotional impact that it had on the character and subsequent effect it will have on the character's POV (hopefully to come in sequels) is a new experience to me.

That's what I love about MOS. It's different. They went on their own path. It was refreshing. It generated alot of conversation as too Superman is. Quite honestly Superman has had an identity crisis for a couple of decades.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by herolee10

I went and saw "Man of Steel" in theaters 5 times, and each time I went and saw that moment, my heart started racing because I knew what was going to happen each time I viewed the film. And every time the scene played out, there was a huge gasp, followed by eerie silence within the theater room that I was in. If I didn't know it any better, I'd say that a lot of people (the ones that didn't spoil themselves of the ending) felt as though a loud and violent explosion just erupted.

Definitely. I also saw it 5 times at the cinema too, and it never gets any easier. I feel this sense of dread every time it's close, and I flinch at the sound of cracking.

Truth is, I think I really would have found a way to deal with it if it had been dealt with differently.

Because I think that moment in and of itself is so incredibly powerful, Cavill's acting was brilliant and the image of him seek comfort in Lois is one I liked.

They just failed in the build up that came before that specific moment, and the way it was concluded IMO.

And by making that moment so very huge and shocking and having it resonate throughout the audience, it makes everything around it even more jarring and unsettling.

You can't just do something like that with a character and then do nothing with it.

You shouldn't just leave it up to the audience to decide how he feels about it, how the world feels about it ETC and just move on to jokes and parental nostalgia.

I'm sorry, but no. It's just not the way.

I don't know if you remember, but I found out he was going to kill Zod before the movie came out.

And I didn't immediately start slamming the film and calling for vengeace

Which I so could have, as I'd been argueing against it in the 'Should Superman kill' thread for over a year that it should never happen and it'd be a dealbreaker.

But I tried to deal with it. I tried to understand what they were trying to do, and I said that if it was handled in the right way, I could imagine being okay with it.

When it came down to it, I can only go by how I felt.

And I felt so heart broken by how it was handled.

Originally Posted by herolee10

I swear, no matter what anyone else says, Superman is without a doubt the HARDEST character to do on the big screen. There's just no simple way of doing it.haha, especially within today's world.

Yeah, he and Wonder Woman probably. And the latter is only because she's a woman

Originally Posted by herolee10

Honestly, I think the film also caught a lot of people off guard with how brutal it was in general, with how people were killed within the destruction of Metropolis and how powerful the fight was between superman and Zod, etc. I mean, I can't think of any film that saw this large of a body count done so in a such a eerie way for a comic book superhero film.

Though I wonder why no one ever really brings up being disturbed by when CR's Superman literally choked his evil counterpart to death. Honestly, it's that's moment, along with that whole junkyard scene, that really gave me the creeps back when I used to watch it as a kid. It was just so brutal and intimate at the same time. They didn't need super huge special effects to make it brutal; it just felt very real. And yeah, considering that even though it was his evil counterpart, it was still a living sentient being and the fact that Superman killed him by choking him, well I thought that more people would have been bothered by that.

I'm just not so invested I guess. I mean, I've never particularly like the old CR films, and I certainly never spent any time hoping and imagining and debating what they'd be like before I saw them.

I don't like that he killed in the old films. But I don't care

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by blumatic

That's what I love about MOS. It's different. They went on their own path. It was refreshing. It generated alot of conversation as too Superman is. Quite honestly Superman has had an identity crisis for a couple of decades.

Yep

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

Anyone who knows me and knows that I didn't particularly care for the Avengers can clearly see how stupid your post is.

Whatever bee in your bonnet you've got for me, get over it.

The care and time I took to explain my thoughts honestly and openly in the way I just did deserves more than some douche with an ignorant attitude not even bothering to read the content and just attempting to bash me.

Well judging by your complaints like how they just left stuff like world reactions to Superman out and saved it to be a continuous plot device for a sequel and how you pretty much prefer a 30 second media montage ala The Avengers, as well as wishing for a lighter tone and more self-contained with plots resolved to the movie ala every Marvel movie/tv show, it's reasonable you wanted a Marvelized Superman/DCCU and I say no to that and Goyer/Snyder should be allowed to tell it in their own fashion.

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

Now seriously people. Seriously... what scene are you getting this sense that there is a big mess he has to come back from?

The only places that can come from is a) your imagination based on what you consider logical reaction and b) what Snyder/Goyer have said.

But that shouldn't be the case.

The film shouldn't point one way at the end, and then leave us to try and reason between the gaps and try and find a way to make it fit because of what the director and writer have stated might happen next.

If they wanted to show that a sequel was going to be about people not approving of what he did, or the fear it created, or even him deciding killing isn't a thing he ever wants to do again... they should have set some of that up at the end...

What they did was set up the opposite IMO, and now they have to go back on themselves.

Again, they're allowed to tell it their own way. Goyer structured it to have Man of Steel be about the actions while the sequel is about the consequences. Try to keep an open mind.

[Green Goblin]

I enjoyed Micheal Bay's Superman movie...

[Binker]

Originally Posted by Green Goblin

I enjoyed Micheal Bay's Superman movie...

This wasn't Sir Michael Bay's Superman movie! We did get a Bay movie this year though, it was called Star Trek into Darkness.

[LEVITIKUZ]

Again, people don't like to see Superman kill.

Spider-Man and Superman are the 2 heroes that if they were to kill, people would be in shock. They have a sense of innocences to them that people don't want them to become something else.

If Spider-Man were to snap Goblin's neck, how would you feel?

[SilentWarriorZ]

Whats more bugging me is what happened to zods body did the military took it or lex corp , is it experimented on , are they studying it and preparing weapons to fight with strong alien like superman ?

[the last son]

Originally Posted by LEVITIKUZ

Again, people don't like to see Superman kill.

Spider-Man and Superman are the 2 heroes that if they were to kill, people would be in shock. They have a sense of innocences to them that people don't want them to become something else.

If Spider-Man were to snap Goblin's neck, how would you feel?

The only hero I would be shocked about is Batman killing. No one else.

[the last son]

Originally Posted by SilentWarriorZ

Whats more bugging me is what happened to zods body did the military took it or lex corp , is it experimented on , are they studying it and preparing weapons to fight with strong alien like superman ?

I would have thought Superman disposed of it.

[LEVITIKUZ]

Originally Posted by the last son

The only hero I would be shocked about is Batman killing. No one else.

Batman killed Joker in 89.

Batman has killed before. It's not shocking.

Spider-Man I don't think has ever killed in the comics.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by smallville fan

Well judging by your complaints like how they just left stuff like world reactions to Superman out and saved it to be a continuous plot device for a sequel and how you pretty much prefer a 30 second media montage ala The Avengers, as well as wishing for a lighter tone and more self-contained with plots resolved to the movie ala every Marvel movie/tv show, it's reasonable you wanted a Marvelized Superman/DCCU

No, it's not.

For one thing, I never said I wanted a lighter tone. I just said I wanted a lighter Superman.

For another, where did I say I wanted the plot self contained?

I've stated time and time again, I'm all for a more serious 'intelligent' approach. If anything, I wanted MOS to be in the style of TDK trilogy, not Avengers.

And me saying that I think we needed to see more of what the public actually felt towards the alien invasion is not the same as me saying I wanted an Avengers style cheesy montage.

Originally Posted by smallville fan

Again, they're allowed to tell it their own way. Goyer structured it to have Man of Steel be about the actions while the sequel is about the consequences. Try to keep an open mind.

Your response does not address a single thing I said...

I talk about my issues with what I see as a contradiction between the way they framed his actions in this film, and the way they've said they want to go in future films.

Your response is that the film was about actions, not consequences?

That doesn't negate the problem raised.

I'm saying the consequences they may bring up in the sequel will contradict what we were lead to believe about his actions in MOS.

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by LEVITIKUZ

Spider-Man I don't think has ever killed in the comics.

Ummm, well there's



and then there's

http://www.spiderfan.org/faq/killed.html

Humans Spider-Man Has Killed

Amazing Spider-Man Annual #5 Deliberately killed the Finisher by returning a fired missile back to his tank.
Amazing Spider-Man #121 Accidentally killed Gwen Stacy, snapping her neck while she fell towards her death, thrown by Norman Osborn. It was a lose-lose scenario, so Norman gets the credit for the kill.
Marvel Team-Up #12 Accidentally kills Moondark the magician by knocking him through a mystic portal which teleports him to a point high above the Golden Gate bridge, from where he fatally drops to the water below. Spider-Man shrugs it off, saying "Even I can't hang around cryin' over spilt magicians!"
Marvel Team-Up #31 Killed Drom the Backwards Man. Spidey and Iron fist take on Drom, and smash his mirror on him. This causes Drom to rapidly reverse-age into nothing, effectively killing him. In the narration, Spidey regrets doing this.
Spider-Man vs. Wolverine #1 Accidentally killed Charlemagne (Charlie). She committed suicide by attacking Spider-Man during his fight with Wolverine.
Web of Spider-Man #91 Kills Whisper-3, member of the Foreigner's Death Squad. Uses Whisper-3 to block Pulse-2's energy attack. Pulse-2 then aborted the mission and commited suicide. Note that the Death Squad was founded on the assumption that the agents were expendable, and would be replaced, e.g. by Whisper-3 and Pulse-3. Even so, Spidey could have simply dodged the energy blast, and showed no remorse for the death.
Ultimate Marvel Team-Up #1 Spidey plasters webbing all over the face of an bystander who makes an anti-mutant comment. The webbing is clearly sufficient to suffocate them. To be fair, I suspect that this is simply a scripting mistake, or else that Spidey deliberately created not-very-sticky webbing, or some other reason why this one shouldn't really be counted.
Amazing Spider-Man (Vol. 2) #42 Apparently killed Shade while in the Astral Plane, by tossing him against his own energy-storage cocoon, hoping to cause a loophole.
Amazing Spider-Man (Vol. 2) #50 Accidentally killed two members of the Latverian Liberation Front. Diverted a missile shot by one of their partners to the only place it wouldn't cause any casualties, a hole in the ceiling. Unbeknownst to him, the two guys were arriving to join the fray, and decided to use the hole to enter. Lose-lose scenario, not his fault.
Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #3 Peter Parker becomes "The Spider" and eats Morlun.
Spectacular Spider-Man (Vol. 2) #20 Spider-Man apparently kills "The Queen" when he defuses a bomb. She evaporates, as an unexpected side-effect. She is subsequently revealed to have survived, in Spider-Island: Deadly Foes. All things considered, it is perhaps a bit of a stretch to say that he "killed" her.
Sentient Robots Spider-Man Has Killed

Avengers #11 Killed sentient Spider-Man android created by Kang.
Spectacular Spider-Man #68 Killed sentient Mendel Stromm android.
Spectacular Scarlet Spider #2 Spider-Man Ben Reilly killed the Master Programmer, a computer version of Doc Ock's mind.
Sentient Creatures Spider-Man Has Killed

Amazing Spider-Man #104
Killed Gog, an incredibly powerful quasi-human alien creature in the Savage Land. Spider-Man could not overcome the scaly-skinned behemoth, who was strong enough to kill a Tyranosaurus Rex. The web-slinger traps the creature in quicksand, an option which sickens him, but to which he can see no alternative.

Of course, Gog has subsequently reappeared in an issue of Astonishing Tales, and as a member of the Sinister Six in Spider-Man #18-23 (or was that an alternate time-line Gog). Anyhow, perhaps he's not dead. Still, Spidey did deliberately attempt to kill him, and believed that he had done so, so maybe this still counts.

Marvel Graphic Novel (No. 22) Spider-Man: Hooky Assisted Spindrifter in killing Tordenkakerlakk, a magical construct that Spindrifter was fated do destroy. He deliberately put himself at risk so she could do it. The creature was created with the sole purpose of dying so that Spindrifter could mature.
Amazing Spider-Man (Vol. 2) #54 Killed Digger. Knowing that Digger would fall apart if he didn't rest, Spidey relentlessly pursued a fight until his opponent died. Spidey's reasoning was that Digger was already dead in the first place, being a gamma-zombie.
Sentient Beings Spider-Man Has Attempted to Kill

Amazing Spider-Man #122 Tried to kill Norman Osborn over the murder of Gwen Stacy, came to his senses.
Amazing Spider-Man #348 Tried to kill Carnage's symbiote with a sonic burst. It survived.
Peter Parker: Spider-Man #75 Tried to kill Norman Osborn, over the murder of Ben Reilly and his daughter, Norman survived.

[hopefuldreamer]

And let's not forget that a sequel was never a sure thing.

Before the film came out, Snyder kept talking about MOS being it's own film.

People are giving it way too easy of a pass with 'that'll happen in the sequel' when we could have gotten no sequel at all.

[mace1]

PLEASE SEE BOTH OF THESE.THESE ARE WOMEN REVIEWERS WHO KNOWS THIER
COMIC/SUPERHERO STUFF.


Movie Review: Man of Steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0_wzGAus_A



DOES SUPERMAN KILLS?

Defending Man of Steel - AnnaMay



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tJKRj_dwPc

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

And let's not forget that a sequel was never a sure thing.

Before the film came out, Snyder kept talking about MOS being it's own film.

People are giving it way too easy of a pass with 'that'll happen in the sequel' when we could have gotten no sequel at all.

Well they're way further along in this than we thought it was, they shot the first 2 scenes already and out of DC, Marvel, Lucasfilm and along with many others, DC/WB are way ahead and have got the the ball rolling for 2015. They've been planning this for ages to be the sequel. I think he meant that MOS was its own film in the sense that it wants to go in a different direction with Superman. The probable reason to why they're finally going through with it is that there's a decent enough world, background and plot devices finally laid out to work off of.

[blumatic]

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

And let's not forget that a sequel was never a sure thing.

Before the film came out, Snyder kept talking about MOS being it's own film.

People are giving it way too easy of a pass with 'that'll happen in the sequel' when we could have gotten no sequel at all.

A sequel is always in the works until its not. These guys sign multiple film contracts with certain payments that kick in if a movie goes on.

Returns was gonna have a sequel. Green Lantern was gonna have a sequel.

Everybody and their mother knew they were going to have a sequel. We all knew a 3 Batman film would happen.

I don't buy what they were saying that they werent sure of sequel.

[blumatic]

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

I'm saying the consequences they may bring up in the sequel will contradict what we were lead to believe about his actions in MOS.

I'm having difficulty seeing this "contradiction". Can you explain in detail. Im not sure where you're starting from or where you are trying to go.

What consequences do you think will happen in a sequel?

What do you think they were trying to do with Kal-El and his actions?

I know you explain before that the Jenny and Ma Kent were pleased with him. You say the military accept him for what did (which they should because they know war has severe consequences and high rate of casualties but there is a distrust.) But those are not contradictions. Those are his proponents because they saw first that he saved the day.

So if you can answer those 2 questions? I may have an understanding.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by blumatic

A sequel is always in the works until its not. These guys sign multiple film contracts with certain payments that kick in if a movie goes on.

Returns was gonna have a sequel. Green Lantern was gonna have a sequel.

Everybody and their mother knew they were going to have a sequel. We all knew a 3 Batman film would happen.

I don't buy what they were saying that they werent sure of sequel.

But those movies DIDN'T get a sequel... So anything they set up to be explored in a sequel will never come about...

With MOS, I actually think the jarring tone of the ending was a result of them trying to wrap it up nicely if their wasn't a sequel, and make it seem like a true ending just in case.

Originally Posted by blumatic

I'm having difficulty seeing this "contradiction". Can you explain in detail. Im not sure where you're starting from or where you are trying to go.

What consequences do you think will happen in a sequel?

What do you think they were trying to do with Kal-El and his actions?

I know you explain before that the Jenny and Ma Kent were pleased with him. You say the military accept him for what did (which they should because they know war has severe consequences and high rate of casualties but there is a distrust.) But those are not contradictions. Those are his proponents because they saw first that he saved the day.

So if you can answer those 2 questions? I may have an understanding.

I've explained it in detail loads as have multiple other posters since the movie came out, but I'll try again for you.

We as an audience are made to believe there is absolutely no other way but to kill Zod. That Superman's actions were born of an impossible situation. That what he did was heroic and absolutely right thing to do.

And the only responses actually seen in the movie about his actions, where positive ones.

So if they DO go down the route of making Superman regret killing Zod, or making him decide on a no kill rule based on the events of the film, then you are creating this contraction.

Because it can either be one or the other.

Either Superman killing Zod was the right thing to do, therefore there can never be a 'no kill rule' because put in the same situation again he'd do the exact same thing.

Or Superman killing Zod was the wrong thing to do, and somehow he should have found another way, which is why he adopts a no kill rule.

You can't have both.

They contradict each other.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Unfortunately, that's true. Jonathan should have died in the present as a result of Clark dealing with Zod, with Jonathan or Zod (maybe even both) being the foundation of the "no-kill" rule.

[blumatic]

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

But those movies DIDN'T get a sequel... So anything they set up to be explored in a sequel will never come about...

With MOS, I actually think the jarring tone of the ending was a result of them trying to wrap it up nicely if their wasn't a sequel, and make it seem like a true ending just in case.



I've explained it in detail loads as have multiple other posters since the movie came out, but I'll try again for you.

We as an audience are made to believe there is absolutely no other way but to kill Zod. That Superman's actions were born of an impossible situation. That what he did was heroic and absolutely right thing to do.

And the only responses actually seen in the movie about his actions, where positive ones.

So if they DO go down the route of making Superman regret killing Zod, or making him decide on a no kill rule based on the events of the film, then you are creating this contraction.

Because it can either be one or the other.

Either Superman killing Zod was the right thing to do, therefore there can never be a 'no kill rule' because put in the same situation again he'd do the exact same thing.

Or Superman killing Zod was the wrong thing to do, and somehow he should have found another way, which is why he adopts a no kill rule.

You can't have both.

They contradict each other.

Thank you for taking the time to share your point of view. But that thought process only allows for black and white situations when clearly it was grey or gray (whatever).

One of the reasons Mark Waid didnt like MOS is because there was no pure absolute triumph. There agony in his victory. And I can accept not liking that because of preference. And that's cool.

The Zod killing issue is a personal and inner battle that Superman will deal with. He needs to feel uncomfortable with that situation. Sort of a Post-traumatic stress disorder. Lois, Ma Kent, and maybe General Swannick will comfort him because Kal did do the right thing. But Kal is clearly upset by it. It will bother. It should. It did.

If Batman, Spiderman, or Superman or you were put in that situations again. He may have to do it. But maybe he tries something different and it backfires. You say they wrote themselves into a corner, I say they challenge themselves.

Look at what Batman did in begins. He doesnt believe in killing neither but he can not to save someone and allow them to fall to their death. That's very grey. And the "no killing rule" is something somebody has to struggle with. It should not be black and white.

Kal did not fly off into victory. He was left on his knees being comforted.

The other battle the Kal will deal with is the trust that he will need to build with the people of Metropolis and the world. Kal had no official intro to the world.

There are so many obstacles that he has to go through to be The Superman. Thats what I mean by a mountain to climb.

[hopefuldreamer]

Yeah... I'm not sure you understanding my point.

None of what you said addresses the contradiction I'm pointing out...

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Unfortunately, that's true. Jonathan should have died in the present as a result of Clark dealing with Zod, with Jonathan or Zod (maybe even both) being the foundation of the "no-kill" rule.

Yup.

If Snyder honestly felt the no kill rule needed a foundation, a reason behind it that drives him to never kill... He should have made that first kill something regretable.

How can Superman regret killing Zod to save that family?

And why wouldn't he do it again?

[blumatic]

The "no kill rule" thing. Cannot be absolute. It cant. If your job is to save and fight. How can you not kill as a last resort.

What if Superman was fighting for his life against and big super villain (non android, but humanoid).

And if he were to die the earth would be left unprotected. Should Superman sacrifice his life and the lives of the innocent to protect his rule. Its naive.

[blumatic]

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

Yeah... I'm not sure you understanding my point.

None of what you said addresses the contradiction I'm pointing out...



Yup.

If Snyder honestly felt the no kill rule needed a foundation, a reason behind it that drives him to never kill... He should have made that first kill something regretable.

How can Superman regret killing Zod to save that family?

And why wouldn't he do it again?

I understand. You say its either one or the other.

Killing Zod eradicates any case for his have a no kill rule. Thats what you said.

I say. He can have that rule. Or try to live by it as a a result.

But its unreasonable to hold on to that rule no matter what.

And his actions were not celebrated. Especially by Kal himself.

[Binker]

It just seems like the fanboys hate the scene of Superman killing Zod, and are ignoring every.single.piece.of.reason. of why that happened, just so that their point can go through.