The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Superman > Man of Steel

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-19-2013, 08:44 PM   #176
Ultimatehero
Life is infinite
 
Ultimatehero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,473
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
But is that a worthy approach to superman?
Couldn't jon and martha have turned out a saint from the beginning as the older films seemed to convey?
They did. Superman always hated the notion of killing. He struggled and it caused him utter despair when he had to do it. That is not a man who wants or feels the need to kill. Just, there is a HUGE difference between not wanting to kill and absolutely hating the notion of killing because one has seen first hand what it can do. This is really hard for me to put into words, but after knowing a friend who's been in a situation where he almost had to kill someone to save someone, and he always had that moral code too -- now he completely loathes the notion of it. It's the same thing, just the act takes it to the extreme.

__________________
"If we are all united, we can take back our lives. While they stand divided, we can fight them and their laws. If we get up off our knees, we can show them that we are people. We can take back this "free" country! - Anti-Flag
Ultimatehero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:48 PM   #177
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,499
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimatehero View Post
They did. Superman always hated the notion of killing. He struggled and it caused him utter despair when he had to do it. That is not a man who wants or feels the need to kill. Just, there is a HUGE difference between not wanting to kill and absolutely hating the notion of killing because one has seen first hand what it can do. This is really hard for me to put into words, but after knowing a friend who's been in a situation where he almost had to kill someone to save someone, and he always had that moral code too -- now he completely loathes the notion of it. It's the same thing, just the act takes it to the extreme.
That film depends on it's audience to draw from personal experience to better appreciate what it's going for. Seems like a difficult but exciting notion filmmakers must face.

I get what zack was saying about approaching the film like no comics existed. The downside to that is you will have some people measure your film by how close or far form the material you make it.

__________________
1992's Universal soldier is my favorite Wolverine vs Sabretooth movie.
Marvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:54 PM   #178
sf2
Side-Kick
 
sf2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,991
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

I am so glad that they dare to think out of the box n go new approach. Its
is so refreshing n exciting.

__________________
ďEverything you can imagine is real.Ē
― Pablo Picasso
sf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:56 PM   #179
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,499
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer View Post
You or I would save children drowning in a bus if we could. That doesn't require a rare outsiders veiw of human mortality, it just requires a bit of compassion.
Out of 100 kids that age, how many do you think would save that bus? Especially if they had a secret to keep or like Pete Ross, a bone to pick. Right off the bat we are getting pivotal characterization. With power comes responsibility, and he didn’t even need his dead uncle to tell him that from beyond the grave. He was simply raised to be good nature'd. Guess that makes him more moral than peter freaking parker him self at half the age....lol
But I suppose that was a throwaway save, if you want.

Quote:
But Superman has more than just the compassion you or I would have. He HAS a rare outsiders view of mortality and the taking of life.
And like I said, he views life in a way we don't even understand because of that.
An outsiders view of mortality? You mean like a god’s view of mortality? That doesn’t seem the best most consistent description of compassion imo. I could easily use that to describe all the characters from twilight to the same end. Moreover you watch movies like clash of the titans and it explains immortals have trouble with compassion.
Stilll,
I get what you are suggesting, and I think it was here in the film. I just don’t think it means all you think it does. And I don’t think it’s all that definitive. Feeling like an outsider and being immortal is one approach to designing a compassion archetype. There are others, that I think are better.

Quote:
Not best he could at all. Could have easily saved that specific family without killing Zod.

Whether he could have stopped Zod in the end without killing him is another thing. But in that one moment, there most definitely was another way of stopping him from killing that family.
No, at no point in the battle had zod fully turned his attention onto the innocent. At this point Superman is dealing with a more skilled enemy that can kill kids with a look and is hell bent on doing so. If you think superman could have saved that family some other way, that’s your prerogative but I think Zod, and by extension the story makes a fair point that it’s him or them. And yes, Superman releases that head lock and he’s pretty much saying goodbye to his one time advantage. I wish him luck getting another before it’s too late.

Quote:
When did I say it was?
You keep mentioning BirthRight. That’s a very specific approach to superman. Figured I should mention there are other approaches.

For example
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Earth One vol1.
Superman kills this guy at the end an I don’t remember two words about him feeling stupid about it afterwards. Pretty sure this novel is celebrated and ongoing, and else worlds just like this movie is. Given who wrote it I’m not surprised.

Quote:
I was just commenting on the fact he has spent his entire life training himself to have self restraint. To never let go completely, because he knows how dangerously powerful he is.

Not using lethal force is something that he is conditioned to do.
I only saw superman use lethal force once in this film, and it happened towards the end. And after he was pushed to do it by a suicidal, homicidal, genocidal, father killer with his finger on the trigger and the world in his sights. Just cause he didn’t make a big speech about it like he did to darkseid before hand doesn’t mean it didn’t happen here. Funny enough that was the first time he said he was going to stop someone before he actually fought them.

Quote:
Because it doesn't once mention it?

He kills, he's sad for a moment, then he's fine in the next scene. Absolutely fine. No hint of giving two hoots about Zod. No mention of it to his mother in the scene after that either.
Curious when’s the last time you saw a super hero break down and cry in a womans arms?
Plz say spiderman for the lolls.
They addressed it in a very strong way, and I would hope that wouldn’t be brushed off as nothing just cause you think there should me more conversation later. This is an inner conflict for the character to struggle with for the time being. He has other big important things he can talk to his mother about, stuff he doesn’t have an personal inner turmoil about, mayhaps finding that destiny he and his family would always talk about at the diner table, maybe talk about saving the world, maybe talk about saving his mom…

I'm just glad you are not suggesting he was crying for some other reason like a few of our board mates.

Quote:
Well that's the point though. Any story in which Superman kills (or is thought to have killed) SHOULD have that moment be at it's core.

It should be a huge character defining moment. It should be something that they discussed in scenes before (like the church scene), and in scenes in after.

At the very LEAST you should dedicate a few lines of freaking dialogue to it.

What they did, was dismiss all of the reasons i've listed cause they didn't WANT to deal with them. They just wanted to do away with it in this film, so that they could do something 'cool'.

All of those things that are incredibly important to me, and have been important to so many Superman stories.

Just couldn't be bothered to touch them.
It could, but it doesn't have to. Not every story is written whilst framed around one big character moment. It's not the author's job to hold our hands and set up everything in an obvious manner....
but if I may:

The School Bus goes down into water full of kids, clark decides to save them even though fate wanted them dead and who is he to interfere? He goes home asks his dad about the value of a small group of human lives vs exposing himself and changing the world. What was he supposed to do, let them live or die? His dad tells him he's going to have to decide what kinda man he wants to be, good or bad....his choice will change the world..etc
He later asks a priest if he should pull a jesus and sacrifice himself for the lives of a planet full of bad men. Priest has no answers but clark says he believes in humanity and perhaps that's what he's fighting for.
Lastly Clark learns a big lesson by his dads self sacrificing death, sometimes the greater good is more important than the life of one man be he your father or your kin as much as it pains you to bear.

Three key moments. Leading up to the big decision. To kill or not to kill for the sake of a group of humans(and the world). Clark letting his father die is paralleled in him taking the life of his last Kryptonian relative. This is bookmarked by the passionate yet powerless scream Clark lets out seeing has has made the same dire choice twice and it was for the greater good. Killing for the greater good or saving lives for the greater good Clark it all comes down to clarks choice. Something he was born to do the minute his parents decided he was going to be all natural. He struggles to make peace with this theme for the entire film. The choice to end life.
whew.
I know I'm satisfied, but that’s my viewing experience, I understand yours is different. There is a whole audience full of people that see what they see. It’s there if you are open to something different.

Now, let's examine some other films that deal with big character defining moments. Namely, Batman(my favorite), let's use the last one just for the sake of it. We all know batman has a firm no kill rule in place, one he never shuts up about though hasn't once mentioned it in this particular film(strange you would think it's so big a theme that it would be mentioned in every film of his). One thing leads to another and he shoots and kills Talia in order to save the city. Where's the thematic lead up, where's the crying and mourning over his inner torment? All I get is a kill and some spectacle, no one mentions the killing and bruce is living the real playboy live in France somewhere. Rack up yet another death for batman to ignore and no one in the audience is any the wiser.
You see, as big a character theme as killing is to batman(his biggest), that film has about 5 other big themes that it want's to explore as well. And despite the character assassination committed by Goye.....sorry, he didn't write that one, Nolan, no one mentions it, definitely not in the reviews anyways. Who knows why either, I mean it's so poorly handled and clearly an after thought.

Doesn't seem right is all.
But we are all entitled to our opinions.

Quote:
Which from the sounds of it is how Goyer felt about the glasses issue too. Just glad he 'got to avoid it this time'.
Not every decision we don't like is goyers...

Quote:
This was just a discussion about why Supes would have a no kill rule if he'd never killed before.

And I think there is plenty in his life and upbringing and understanding of the world that explains it, without needing to have killed in order to feel that way.
Superman doesn't need to kill to have a no kill rule. I can agree with that. But is that the best possible approach or is there a way to convey that characterization stronger and to the general audience full of poeple that doesn't have loyalties or even recognition to "their" superman?

As much as superman may be about inspiration, he's also about relatability. He was just a kid that grew up in the mid west, raised by good parents and decided to be a great leader and hero. If you want to talk about how to tell that story the best you have a few options, you have the path of a 2D character cut out and you have the path of a growing personality and all-too human flaws and then you have everything in between. I'm not saying it's one or the other but with that being said, what I'm seeing in this film is a far more human approach to the issue than the former. And that is what I consider stronger story telling.

...especially when looking at what came before.

__________________
1992's Universal soldier is my favorite Wolverine vs Sabretooth movie.

Last edited by Marvin; 06-19-2013 at 09:02 PM.
Marvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:58 PM   #180
Ultimatehero
Life is infinite
 
Ultimatehero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,473
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
That film depends on it's audience to draw from personal experience to better appreciate what it's going for. Seems like a difficult but exciting notion filmmakers must face.

I get what zack was saying about approaching the film like no comics existed. The downside to that is you will have some people measure your film by how close or far form the material you make it.
I think that's why/how Henry got that scene as perfectly as he did. I think either his brothers or one of his brothers' friends or associates may have had to actually kill someone in the line of duty to save a life possibly. Or at least, given his military (or I think it's military) family background it wouldn't surprise me.

__________________
"If we are all united, we can take back our lives. While they stand divided, we can fight them and their laws. If we get up off our knees, we can show them that we are people. We can take back this "free" country! - Anti-Flag
Ultimatehero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 08:28 AM   #181
hopefuldreamer
Bangarang!
 
hopefuldreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South West, UK
Posts: 11,273
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
An outsiders view of mortality? You mean like a godís view of mortality? That doesnít seem the best most consistent description of compassion imo. I could easily use that to describe all the characters from twilight to the same end. Moreover you watch movies like clash of the titans and it explains immortals have trouble with compassion.
Stilll,
I get what you are suggesting, and I think it was here in the film. I just donít think it means all you think it does. And I donít think itís all that definitive. Feeling like an outsider and being immortal is one approach to designing a compassion archetype. There are others, that I think are better.
I never said that his compassion comes from his outsiders view of mortality.

I said his no kill rule comes from that.

His compassion comes from the Kents upbringing.

Seems your misunderstanding me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
No, at no point in the battle had zod fully turned his attention onto the innocent. At this point Superman is dealing with a more skilled enemy that can kill kids with a look and is hell bent on doing so. If you think superman could have saved that family some other way, thatís your prerogative but I think Zod, and by extension the story makes a fair point that itís him or them. And yes, Superman releases that head lock and heís pretty much saying goodbye to his one time advantage. I wish him luck getting another before itís too late.
Of course he would have he's Superman. That's the point. All it takes is for the writer to give him one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
You keep mentioning BirthRight. Thatís a very specific approach to superman. Figured I should mention there are other approaches.

For example
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Earth One vol1.
Superman kills this guy at the end an I donít remember two words about him feeling stupid about it afterwards. Pretty sure this novel is celebrated and ongoing, and else worlds just like this movie is. Given who wrote it Iím not surprised.
I mentioned it briefly once...

And that's pretty much the worst example you could have come up with. The majority of posters I've come across dislike Earth One and it's characterisation, and were worried MOS would be influenced by it too much.

Which it seems to me it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
I only saw superman use lethal force once in this film, and it happened towards the end. And after he was pushed to do it by a suicidal, homicidal, genocidal, father killer with his finger on the trigger and the world in his sights. Just cause he didnít make a big speech about it like he did to darkseid before hand doesnít mean it didnít happen here. Funny enough that was the first time he said he was going to stop someone before he actually fought them.
I never said he did more than once, so I don't disagree that it was the first time he'd used lethal force.

I just wish he hadn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Curious whenís the last time you saw a super hero break down and cry in a womans arms?
Plz say spiderman for the lolls.
They addressed it in a very strong way, and I would hope that wouldnít be brushed off as nothing just cause you think there should me more conversation later. This is an inner conflict for the character to struggle with for the time being. He has other big important things he can talk to his mother about, stuff he doesnít have an personal inner turmoil about, mayhaps finding that destiny he and his family would always talk about at the diner table, maybe talk about saving the world, maybe talk about saving his momÖ
This isn't just any other Superhero. It's Superman.

And an unspoken emotional moment is a good start. But it's not enough. Because Supes no kill rule, and all the ideologies surrounding it, is a lot more complicated than just a feeling of guilt and sadness after the fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
It could, but it doesn't have to. Not every story is written whilst framed around one big character moment. It's not the author's job to hold our hands and set up everything in an obvious manner....
but if I may:

The School Bus goes down into water full of kids, clark decides to save them even though fate wanted them dead and who is he to interfere? He goes home asks his dad about the value of a small group of human lives vs exposing himself and changing the world. What was he supposed to do, let them live or die? His dad tells him he's going to have to decide what kinda man he wants to be, good or bad....his choice will change the world..etc
He later asks a priest if he should pull a jesus and sacrifice himself for the lives of a planet full of bad men. Priest has no answers but clark says he believes in humanity and perhaps that's what he's fighting for.
Lastly Clark learns a big lesson by his dads self sacrificing death, sometimes the greater good is more important than the life of one man be he your father or your kin as much as it pains you to bear.

Three key moments. Leading up to the big decision. To kill or not to kill for the sake of a group of humans(and the world). Clark letting his father die is paralleled in him taking the life of his last Kryptonian relative. This is bookmarked by the passionate yet powerless scream Clark lets out seeing has has made the same dire choice twice and it was for the greater good. Killing for the greater good or saving lives for the greater good Clark it all comes down to clarks choice. Something he was born to do the minute his parents decided he was going to be all natural. He struggles to make peace with this theme for the entire film. The choice to end life.
whew.
I know I'm satisfied, but thatís my viewing experience, I understand yours is different. There is a whole audience full of people that see what they see. Itís there if you are open to something different.
Yeah, I just don't think those are direct attempts by the writer to explore the rammifications of Supes decision to kill.

I think they are your attempts to FIND points within the story that could possibly relate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Now, let's examine some other films that deal with big character defining moments. Namely, Batman(my favorite), let's use the last one just for the sake of it. We all know batman has a firm no kill rule in place, one he never shuts up about though hasn't once mentioned it in this particular film(strange you would think it's so big a theme that it would be mentioned in every film of his). One thing leads to another and he shoots and kills Talia in order to save the city. Where's the thematic lead up, where's the crying and mourning over his inner torment? All I get is a kill and some spectacle, no one mentions the killing and bruce is living the real playboy live in France somewhere. Rack up yet another death for batman to ignore and no one in the audience is any the wiser.
You see, as big a character theme as killing is to batman(his biggest), that film has about 5 other big themes that it want's to explore as well. And despite the character assassination committed by Goye.....sorry, he didn't write that one, Nolan, no one mentions it, definitely not in the reviews anyways. Who knows why either, I mean it's so poorly handled and clearly an after thought.

Doesn't seem right is all.
But we are all entitled to our opinions.
I don't disagree it was handled in TDK trilogy badly too. But at least the 'no kill rule' was actually acknowledged in the plot, even if they were silly enough not to stick to it and expect people not to notice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Not every decision we don't like is goyers...

Superman doesn't need to kill to have a no kill rule. I can agree with that. But is that the best possible approach or is there a way to convey that characterization stronger and to the general audience full of poeple that doesn't have loyalties or even recognition to "their" superman?

As much as superman may be about inspiration, he's also about relatability. He was just a kid that grew up in the mid west, raised by good parents and decided to be a great leader and hero. If you want to talk about how to tell that story the best you have a few options, you have the path of a 2D character cut out and you have the path of a growing personality and all-too human flaws and then you have everything in between. I'm not saying it's one or the other but with that being said, what I'm seeing in this film is a far more human approach to the issue than the former. And that is what I consider stronger story telling.

...especially when looking at what came before.
You can call it 'stronger story telling'.

Some would call it 'Marvelisation'.

Personally, I just put it down to the writer and director lacking any ambition towards a 'bigger picture' in terms of the messages of the film.

Was just having a really interesting conversation with a work colleague about when Wonder Woman snapped maxwell lord's neck and the Justice League shunned her.

Having Superman do this in the first film of possibly an entire DC universe of film, alters things so drastically.

hopefuldreamer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 10:31 AM   #182
mohoo
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 188
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sf2 View Post
I am so glad that they dare to think out of the box n go new approach. Its
is so refreshing n exciting.
Yes.

I also think it worked perfectly in this film and will allow to add more to the story and the character in the coming films.

mohoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 01:03 PM   #183
godisawesome
Side-Kick
 
godisawesome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,342
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Here's a bit from another board I post on.

As for the Zod killing, I feel I can agree with Nolan's apparent assessment of the situation. Superman shouldn't kill, but a young Kal-El dealing with one of his most powerful but still mortal foes cruelly trying to force a suicide-by-cop while clearly beaten, and Kal-El killing him in the heat of battle while clearly considering the outcome a massive failure on his part is an exception that adds to the character and reality of the story. I don't consider it an example of post-9/11 cynicism; Superman beat Doomsady to death before my little sister was born in '94, and again, Clark knows he failed. Both Snyder and Goyer are treating this as the type of event that will be recalled and analyzed in later films. That's a far more mature and ironclad way of reminding the audience of Superman not killing.

The circumstances are among the hypothetical situations that are used to deconstruct pacifism in the face of an evil that is not only immediately directed at the innocent that you can save, but is also heedless of the blatant stupidity and determination towards destruction at that moment. And the film portrays the killing in a very ambiguous moral light. Instead of allowing us to dream away the possibility that Superman might have killed Zod and his crew like in Sperman II, we now know for damn sure that Superman will find that third option if he can. It's a better treatment than the previous Superman films and both Batman franchises, and it still clearly defends the stance.

Just to point this out, MOS is rejecting a lot of Silver Age tropes and cliches, especially in relation to the movies. MOS is embracing the idea that Superman is fallible and that consequences in the film will be permanent, not something ignored or shoved away by time reversal or amnesia kisses.

And that makes a better story. I'm sorry if you think Superman should be perfect and God-like, but it's an outdated concept that can only be executed by the very best writers, and even then he comes off as inhuman and detached. And I don't care for that type of Superman.

__________________
ďThere are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal."

-C.S. Lewis
godisawesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 01:04 PM   #184
gdw
Side-Kick
 
gdw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nowhere land, making all my Nowhere plans . . .
Posts: 4,710
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Morose View Post
Well, that is precisely the problem: we don't know what Superman's stand is regarding killing. We assume it because we are fans of the character, but it is not in the movie as a theme, so we can know what being forced to kill Zod means to Superman.
Really? I think that's a stretch, especially considering the borderline pacifist upbringing they showed.

Not to mention the fact that, if he WERE ok with killing, then why didn't he do it sooner? Maybe he didn't have the opportunity to?
That's a valid argument. So let's consider if that WERE the case. He would NOT have been BEGGING Zod to not make him do it. He would not have been so clearly struggling with it, and so clearly devastated by it after words.

So, yeah, I think we can be draw pretty damn clear conclusions of his stance on killing even before then.

There have been many criticizing a lack of showing over telling, and yet it seems to be completely ignored when they DID show, rather than spelling it out.

__________________
You will never be forgoten Robert.

Thanks Cconn, for the avvy.

"Originally we wanted Bill Murray to play Batman." - Jon Peters.
gdw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 01:16 PM   #185
gdw
Side-Kick
 
gdw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nowhere land, making all my Nowhere plans . . .
Posts: 4,710
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
To be clear, I don't have a problem with Superman's actions in the movie. I think he made the right choice in that situation. I just have a huge problem with Goyer's and Snyder's reasoning for that scene. I think it's completely asinine.
What exactly do you think their reasoning was? I'm getting the impression you read something very different into their words, and the scene, than I did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Except that it doesn't. It only proves that Superman is willing to kill if lives are in danger. Superman not wanting to kill people goes without saying. This scene didn't say "He will never kill now" it says "He will kill if he needs to".
No it doesn't, it says the exact opposite. That was the entire point of his reaction, and the scene as a whole. It cements it in him. He will now do everything he can to NEVER be in that position again. He will clearly be better prepared next.

Let's not forget that this is Superman year one basically. This literally covers the first punch he ever throws. He's never faced anyone/being that was in any way a real threat like this. He's never been in a position where he had to fight, let alone kill.
He was no where near prepared to face such threat. In the future he will do everything he can to ensure he is never in that position again. THAT is what that scene/moment was about.

__________________
You will never be forgoten Robert.

Thanks Cconn, for the avvy.

"Originally we wanted Bill Murray to play Batman." - Jon Peters.
gdw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 01:59 PM   #186
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,499
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Seems we are hijacking this thread, you will understand if I try and condense my thoughts(alot). And not answer all of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer View Post
I never said that his compassion comes from his outsiders view of mortality.

I said his no kill rule comes from that.
Not certain I misunderstood you but it's the same deal.
Very often in fiction this trope results in what one would call a type of "god complex". This outsider(not one of us) mixed with higher being doesn't seem like a natural stem for higher morality, especially against killing.
What's more, Why would I feel more powerful about non killing when talking about pigeons or asian people simply because I'm not one of them...if anything the concept works against that.

All the xmen our outsiders, this doesn't result in some obvious moral choice against killing humans, if anything it plays large part in magneto's counter rhetoric.

Quote:
Of course he would have he's Superman. That's the point. All it takes is for the writer to give him one.
I'm not fan of writing that doesn't challenge a character, but that's me. That's like asking why didn't batman beat bane, he's batman. I wanna see what happens when you put my favorite character in a situation they have to struggle with. It's fun seeing sherlock have all the answers, but I personally find it even more compelling when he doesn't.

Quote:
I mentioned it briefly once...

And that's pretty much the worst example you could have come up with. The majority of posters I've come across dislike Earth One and it's characterisation, and were worried MOS would be influenced by it too much.

Which it seems to me it was.
Well if these people you came across weren't accepting of this take on this dc publication, it really comes down to picking and choosing what you want. Fair enough. Just as many people could be found that like the earth one books.
Quote:
And an unspoken emotional moment is a good start. But it's not enough. Because Supes no kill rule, and all the ideologies surrounding it, is a lot more complicated than just a feeling of guilt and sadness after the fact.
It's not in place yet, no point discussing why this approach failed in your continuity. However, I see that happening if he had to do it again and actually break his rule

Quote:
Yeah, I just don't think those are direct attempts by the writer to explore the rammifications of Supes decision to kill.

I think they are your attempts to FIND points within the story that could possibly relate.
You said there was no lead up to his struggle to taking a life.
"What would was I supposed to do, let them die?" "Maybe!" - later superman has a family in front of him about to die and he has to struggle with a choice that he then mourns over? If they had played the flash back right before the neck snap, I think this might be more clear to you. However the snobs might think it a little too obvious.
Sorry, that's not me reaching. If I may be blunt, it's people not having the insight to see the thematic resonance and significance of things. It may not be as blunt as a direct conversation about killing, for example "Am I supposed to kill" "No", but it's as direct as a conversation about the value of human life and clarks choices.

Still maybe you're right, I wouldn't say it was a cue to his ramifications, but rather his struggle with the choice. Which I obviously think is fine.

Quote:
I don't disagree it was handled in TDK trilogy badly too. But at least the 'no kill rule' was actually acknowledged in the plot, even if they were silly enough not to stick to it and expect people not to notice.
I'd rather have it earned and in a big way, than just mentioned and then ignored consistently. A contradiction however, is far bigger crime than what I assume you understood is going on here in MoS.
What's more the batman comparison rings even stronger when you consider how much bigger an element the no kill rule is in his books than anyones, including superman. To this day batman has only killed one person directly and I'm pretty sure he wasn't even human. I make this comparison to highlight the selective outrage..

Quote:
Was just having a really interesting conversation with a work colleague about when Wonder Woman snapped maxwell lord's neck and the Justice League shunned her.

Having Superman do this in the first film of possibly an entire DC universe of film, alters things so drastically.
Why would it alter things(again that's how it is in the books, he's killed). If he indeed develops an absolute aversion to killing after this then he will walk into the watch tower and it will be status quo?
And, part of the reason why it was a big deal with wondy is because she has a well known blood lust and it was time to be addressed.

Quote:
You can call it 'stronger story telling'.

Some would call it 'Marvelisation'.

Personally, I just put it down to the writer and director lacking any ambition towards a 'bigger picture' in terms of the messages of the film.
I often wonder if they simply had zod end up in the zone with the rest, if people would have considered that a stronger more ambitious film making decision. It's easy to call it marvelising but it could just as easily be called delivering on the promise of a human story and the human condition. What's the point of having superman mourn his dad, fall in love, feel left out if you aren't telling a human story? That doesn't only happen at Marvel.

The message of a superman film can easily be boiled down to Kal choosing humankind. If that's the case...see below.
Quote:
This isn't just any other Superhero. It's Superman.
I suppose this is where I will have to differ to this exert I read this morning.

"For the biggest offense, of course, we have the death of Zod. Not only is it brutal, but the key tenant that Superman does not kill has made this moment a hot button instantly. In the theater I was holding my breath; the inevitability of it had struck me. No, Superman doesnít kill, and no, most will not take the ďhe didnít have a choiceĒ argument where Kal-El is concerned. Which was precisely why I wanted to see itóto have that moment where Superman fails, and more importantly, where he fails for us. If you ever needed further proof that Clark Kent will chose humanity every time, that was it. That was the moment. And it was awful, which made it gorgeous.

...

The point is that Man of Steel is a true origin story. That perfect protector, the one that so many fans are missing, he doesnít exist yet. Heís learning how to be that man. The idea that someone is simply that inherently good right off the bat isnít going to play for the majority of todayís audience, so we are watching him grow into the part. Itís intriguing to think that the filmís sequel has such potential to soar leaps and bounds beyond its predecessor by virtue of enjoying itself a bit moreóthat is the exact opposite of how most superhero movies are conceptualized, and Man of Steel is more interesting for it. This first film endeavored to prove that not all beginnings are joyful. Becoming who you are meant to be hurts. It is a struggle that everyone collides with, one that forces us to face fears (and foes) that often seem impossible to overcome.

basically Man of Steel is not about being Superman but becoming Superman."

There's more than one way to do something, and unless the reasons for the former are simply that much more compelling than the latter, especially when you consider the times, then it's simply going to leave some people wanting and others satisfied.

I can't tell you want to like or even be ok with. I can however, and will argue against the idea that not only is this not superman, but even if it was, it's a weaker less ambitious direction. If I may cite a line from the film: "They had their chance.." at it, let's where this goes.

__________________
1992's Universal soldier is my favorite Wolverine vs Sabretooth movie.
Marvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 02:28 PM   #187
blumatic
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 566
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
Here's a bit from another board I post on.

As for the Zod killing, I feel I can agree with Nolan's apparent assessment of the situation. Superman shouldn't kill, but a young Kal-El dealing with one of his most powerful but still mortal foes cruelly trying to force a suicide-by-cop while clearly beaten, and Kal-El killing him in the heat of battle while clearly considering the outcome a massive failure on his part is an exception that adds to the character and reality of the story. I don't consider it an example of post-9/11 cynicism; Superman beat Doomsady to death before my little sister was born in '94, and again, Clark knows he failed. Both Snyder and Goyer are treating this as the type of event that will be recalled and analyzed in later films. That's a far more mature and ironclad way of reminding the audience of Superman not killing.

The circumstances are among the hypothetical situations that are used to deconstruct pacifism in the face of an evil that is not only immediately directed at the innocent that you can save, but is also heedless of the blatant stupidity and determination towards destruction at that moment. And the film portrays the killing in a very ambiguous moral light. Instead of allowing us to dream away the possibility that Superman might have killed Zod and his crew like in Sperman II, we now know for damn sure that Superman will find that third option if he can. It's a better treatment than the previous Superman films and both Batman franchises, and it still clearly defends the stance.

Just to point this out, MOS is rejecting a lot of Silver Age tropes and cliches, especially in relation to the movies. MOS is embracing the idea that Superman is fallible and that consequences in the film will be permanent, not something ignored or shoved away by time reversal or amnesia kisses.

And that makes a better story. I'm sorry if you think Superman should be perfect and God-like, but it's an outdated concept that can only be executed by the very best writers, and even then he comes off as inhuman and detached. And I don't care for that type of Superman.

I agree. You know I love my father. God rest his soul. And he was Superman too me. To this day I find it hard to live up to what he did for his family and to his community. To me it seems he did everything right. It seems that he always knew the answer. I always said to myself, how can I ever get to be like him. But you know what really made me love my father. It was those conversations we had when he would talk about in his younger days of how much of a knucklehead he was. The awful and yet funny mistakes he made. The regrets he has. Those talks resonated with me. I identified with my father because I go through those same difficulties.

That's why I like this Superman. He struggles. He was lost. He understands loneliness, grief, suffering, tough choices. That's what make him human. When he finally becomes the Superman that he should be we can see that he had real life lessons to go by. And not that "It just the right thing to do"

I love the Donner Superman but, Im not interested in seeing that version. Ive seen it. I want something new and different. I think Snyder and Co. did that.

blumatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 09:20 PM   #188
TheFlamingCoco
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,878
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
That's pure speculation that is not anywhere evident in the film. It's clear till the very end that he does not want to kill Zod, but is forced to. To somehow say "That's why he doesn't kill" is not only ridiculous, but also proves the opposite. It shows that were Superman in this situation again, he would do the same thing. If that's what Snyder wants, fine, but it's the complete opposite of his reasoning.
Here's the way of thinking about it. I like Walter scott's Robin Hood book. Unlike most versions, he goes OUT of his way to avoid killing because of his guilt for killing a soldier out of anger. His emotional "resolution" for this inner conflict came from killing Guy of Gisbourne. Superman shouldn't kill anyone else from now on-UNTIL Doomsday comes around. Doomsday is Superman's Gisbourne.

TheFlamingCoco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 10:37 PM   #189
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,813
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

To say they ignored Batman's no killing rule in TDK Trilogy is simply not true. Jonah Nolan himself said that they intentionally wanted to put him in challenging situations that put his rule to the test, because the very notion of waging a one man war against crime and attempting to do so without taking life is kind of absurd.

What we have here in MOS is similar. They thought it was too convenient for Superman to have a no killing rule right off the bat, so they gave him a reason to not want to do it again. With Batman, he has a reason not to kill (his parents were murdered, he hates guns etc.) but they wanted to put him in challenging situations that test that because it's naive of Bruce to think he's going to do his crusade without some casualties occurring.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 01:36 AM   #190
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises View Post
To say they ignored Batman's no killing rule in TDK Trilogy is simply not true. Jonah Nolan himself said that they intentionally wanted to put him in challenging situations that put his rule to the test, because the very notion of waging a one man war against crime and attempting to do so without taking life is kind of absurd.

What we have here in MOS is similar. They thought it was too convenient for Superman to have a no killing rule right off the bat, so they gave him a reason to not want to do it again. With Batman, he has a reason not to kill (his parents were murdered, he hates guns etc.) but they wanted to put him in challenging situations that test that because it's naive of Bruce to think he's going to do his crusade without some casualties occurring.
Actually in BB, Batman's reason behind the non killing rule is that Rachel told him revenge was bad. He hated guns and had his parents killed and yet he went with a gun to kill Joe Chill, did he not?

I think the only problem with Batman killing in TDK is that it wasn't addressed. I mean, nobody refer to that with a simple "I had to do it." At least in MOS we get that he regrets having done it.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 09:03 AM   #191
Mysteryman
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,375
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Morose View Post
No problem there. But I thought it would have been better if, in any movie Superman is forced to kill, Superman has this non-killing policy in advance so we know the conflict inside him. I thought it was absurd to say Superman needed to kill first to learn that he doesn't want to kill. Anyone feels like they had to kill in order to decide not doing it again?

I don't think killing could fit in any category under the name "one thing done one way" or "a different way to do" something.
Movies deal in visuals .
As a result of that scene, when the GA asks themselves Why Superman doesnt kill Luthor in the sequel, Their minds will focus on the image of Superman Killing Zod and the immeadiate aftermath.


Last edited by Mysteryman; 06-21-2013 at 09:09 AM.
Mysteryman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 09:36 AM   #192
sf2
Side-Kick
 
sf2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,991
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysteryman View Post
Movies deal in visuals .
As a result of that scene, when the GA asks themselves Why Superman doesnt kill Luthor in the sequel, Their minds will focus on the image of Superman Killing Zod and the immeadiate aftermath.
Can the memory hold 2 years long?

__________________
ďEverything you can imagine is real.Ē
― Pablo Picasso
sf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 10:02 AM   #193
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,499
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysteryman View Post
Movies deal in visuals .
As a result of that scene, when the GA asks themselves Why Superman doesnt kill Luthor in the sequel, Their minds will focus on the image of Superman Killing Zod and the immeadiate aftermath.
When that happens, I'm probably going to laugh. A laugh of pain and joy and vindication.

__________________
1992's Universal soldier is my favorite Wolverine vs Sabretooth movie.
Marvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 10:19 AM   #194
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,813
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Morose View Post
Actually in BB, Batman's reason behind the non killing rule is that Rachel told him revenge was bad. He hated guns and had his parents killed and yet he went with a gun to kill Joe Chill, did he not?

I think the only problem with Batman killing in TDK is that it wasn't addressed. I mean, nobody refer to that with a simple "I had to do it." At least in MOS we get that he regrets having done it.
True, I skipped that part but it's still the same idea. We see him staring at the gun, quick flashback to Joe Chill pointing the gun at his parents, then he angrily tosses it in the river. Same effect in the end. Rachel just slapped some sense into him.

I think the regret in MOS comes from more of a place of him wiping out the last of his race. Obviously Batman didn't want to kill Harvey, he just was forced into a position where he had to act in order to save the boy's life. I think the irony there is self-evident, in that just minutes ago he was able to save The Joker's life but here with Harvey he couldn't. The other thing is Bruce says in BB that he won't become an executioner. I'd hardly call what happened to Harvey an "execution".

For the record, I think the whole killing thing was handled fine in both movies. Although I understand the concern of some people that this Superman may be less appropriate for children.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 11:12 AM   #195
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,846
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysteryman View Post
Movies deal in visuals .
As a result of that scene, when the GA asks themselves Why Superman doesnt kill Luthor in the sequel, Their minds will focus on the image of Superman Killing Zod and the immeadiate aftermath.
That's true. I was basically hoping that could have been applied to Zod too. So that when Zod tells Superman either one of them will die in order to finish the confrontation, we could know (we = all of GA) that this was going to be complicated either way. That was basically a no-way out situation.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises View Post
True, I skipped that part but it's still the same idea. We see him staring at the gun, quick flashback to Joe Chill pointing the gun at his parents, then he angrily tosses it in the river. Same effect in the end. Rachel just slapped some sense into him.

I think the regret in MOS comes from more of a place of him wiping out the last of his race. Obviously Batman didn't want to kill Harvey, he just was forced into a position where he had to act in order to save the boy's life. I think the irony there is self-evident, in that just minutes ago he was able to save The Joker's life but here with Harvey he couldn't. The other thing is Bruce says in BB that he won't become an executioner. I'd hardly call what happened to Harvey an "execution".

For the record, I think the whole killing thing was handled fine in both movies. Although I understand the concern of some people that this Superman may be less appropriate for children.
It's true, Batman acted to save Gordon's child. But nothing wrong would have happened if they had put some emphasis in mirroring both falls - Joker and Harvey - or a brief mentioning. But well.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 02:17 PM   #196
hopefuldreamer
Bangarang!
 
hopefuldreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South West, UK
Posts: 11,273
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Seems we are hijacking this thread, you will understand if I try and condense my thoughts(alot). And not answer all of them.
That was you condensing your thoughts?

Honestly it's been an interesting debate, but we're just seeing this from two sides of the coin.

Our discussion began after a poster asked what reasons Superman would have for his 'no kill rule' if he had never killed before.

That was why I posted those responses. They are my interpretations of the many explanations given over the years in different comics.

Whether you think those are present in the film in some ways, or you think they wouldn't work in a modern film is up to you.

But for me personally, it's when things like that are explored that a Superman story becomes truly great to me.

And that's why MOS will always just be okay to me.

__________________
I think back to my father. As a farmer, he had a natural understanding for the Earth. I remember him telling me this world is capable of providing for all its creatures. Even now, with so many more people, there exists enough food for everyone.

"The problem," Pa used to say, "is people. As far back as we go, we've always had problems with sharing. Seems everyone's too busy holding on to what they've got to care how their neighbors are doing."


*\S/T*
hopefuldreamer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 03:36 PM   #197
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,499
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer View Post
That was you condensing your thoughts?

And that's why MOS will always just be okay to me.
Fair enough, you made some good points and to be honest had I not seen the movie I probably would have agree with everything you said. I was just convinced otherwise by my experience.

Is it better for him to have a non kill stance because of his upbringing or because of his experiences. I suppose time will tell.

__________________
1992's Universal soldier is my favorite Wolverine vs Sabretooth movie.
Marvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 04:35 PM   #198
gdw
Side-Kick
 
gdw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nowhere land, making all my Nowhere plans . . .
Posts: 4,710
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer Morose View Post
Actually in BB, Batman's reason behind the non killing rule is that Rachel told him revenge was bad. He hated guns and had his parents killed and yet he went with a gun to kill Joe Chill, did he not?

I think the only problem with Batman killing in TDK is that it wasn't addressed. I mean, nobody refer to that with a simple "I had to do it." At least in MOS we get that he regrets having done it.
Yes. Batman would NEVER consider using a gun. Yet, that scene became a turning point for him in Begins. That's exactly the way they were using how Superman handled Zod in Man of Steel.

Yes, Bruce did not end up using the gun, because he didn't have a chance mind you, not because he found a better way first, but the idea of Bruce even considering using a gun is just as out of character as Superman considering death as a means to an end.

Yet, both moments worked, and served as character defining moments in their respective films.

__________________
You will never be forgoten Robert.

Thanks Cconn, for the avvy.

"Originally we wanted Bill Murray to play Batman." - Jon Peters.
gdw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 06:27 PM   #199
SentinelMind
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North FL
Posts: 4,078
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

The text of the pod makes Zack Snyder look like he's rambling nonsense...I didn't understand what he was saying. Goyer made bit more sense, but not as convincing anymore now that I think about it....the pressure to make sure Superman kills General Zod doesn't play very convincingly...all that death and destruction and not much reflection..is troubling.

SentinelMind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 11:18 PM   #200
OoAnd1
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 251
Default Re: Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PunyGod View Post
Exactly. I didn't have to kill someone to learn that murder is wrong so why does Superman?

But it's really a pointless debate because we are putting more thought into this than the filmmakers did.
You guys are mixing things up. Superman and you and I know murder is wrong.

However, killing someone in self defense is morally debatable. I think it's not wrong. You may still think it's wrong. Unless you've been put into that situation, it's difficult to know what you'd do and how you'd feel about it then and after.

So, IF the writers decide to explore how Superman felt after killing Zod and he ends up deciding never to kill again under any circumstances, that's natural.

So yes, he can learn/accept that killing someone for whatever reason is wrong. He's Superman, not Jesus.

OoAnd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.