All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 2

[GothamBat]

The family being targeted wasn't so much the be-all end-all impetus for the act. It was more of a signifier that he was targeting innocents in general and he would continue to do so if he wasn't stopped for good. And by his own admission when he's in the headlock he would never stop of his own accord.

 

[Boy Scout]

See, that's that "Santa Clause" s*** that people harp on about. Some people aren't content with allowing Superman to be a character in a story. That's why he can't be taken seriously (Superman Returns).

What does "being a character in a story" have to do with Superman killing a person? I think we can both agree that he can (and maybe should) be written to make difficult decisions without betraying his core values.

 

[Patchwork Man]

See, with a little bit of goodwill you can come to a resolution to that conflict that's better than what we got

I'm not the one losing sleep over it.

 

[titansupes]

See, that's that "Santa Clause" s*** that people harp on about. Some people aren't content with allowing Superman to be a character in a story. That's why he can't be taken seriously (Superman Returns).

... He can be Superman and be a character. Just as he was in the 50 years prior to Byrne, and in a great many of the following stories that have switched it back to the correct interpretation.

 

[Boy Scout]

... He can be Superman and be a character. Just as he was in the 50 years prior to Byrne, and in a great many of the following stories that have switched it back to the correct interpretation.

Which is?

 

[Flint Marko]

"Being a character in a story".
Usually characters in a story have a discernible personality and do more than just react to things happening around them while saying the absolute bare minimum required to move the plot forward.

 

[GothamBat]

Let's all remember that the other proposed ending was Superman locking Zod in the Phantom Zone, something that the writers could have done with ease and wouldn't have amounted to a hollow, meaningless murder. This was the ending that Nolan preferred but hell, what does he know.

But the phantom zone is a fate worse than death? Even life sentences aren't eternal. Damning someone to a black hole for eternity is less morally objectionable than ending their life?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

[...] that after saving the family they would just go back to fighting without an end in sight.

until someone mentions Zod's mother by name...

Even at that point, there were so many creative possibilities to end that conflict, someone (the writers) just had to write them down. They didn't. The wanted that kill. Because...it is unimaginable that someone is a priori good and we somehow need to see a superficial start of the No-Killing doctrine to even understand that someone is against it.

 

[Mandon Knight]

But the phantom zone is a fate worse than death? Even life sentences aren't eternal. Damning someone to a black hole for eternity is less morally objectionable than ending their life?

S****horpe has the same effect...

 

[Boy Scout]

But the phantom zone is a fate worse than death? Even life sentences aren't eternal. Damning someone to a black hole for eternity is less morally objectionable than ending their life?

Then Superman sucks twice as hard, because that's exactly what he planned to do to Zod in the first place.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I'm not the one losing sleep over it.

and you shouldn't. it's easy. you just have to try. imagination does the rest

 

[BlueLanternKal]

What does "being a character in a story" have to do with Superman killing a person? I think we can both agree that he can (and maybe should) be written to make difficult decisions without betraying his core values.

But the nitty gritty is that Superman is the exceptional in an unexceptional world. Otherwise he wouldn't be exceptiinal. Meaning less than ideal circumstances where his core values are and should be challenged.

I'm not saying that he should go around heat visioning people into submission here. He's killed 4-5 times in the comics when it was absolutely necessary. The fight with Zod was one of those times. The problem doesn't arise from the act itself, that's on the aftermath. I agree that it wasn't handled with the finesse it deserved.

 

[titansupes]

Which is?

Superman is the real personality (and effectively the same person he is on the farm, but in a snazzier outfit) and Metropolis Kent is the disguise (though he does have real thoughts and feelings etc, he also acts uncoordinated sometimes, often meek, pretends he needs glasses etc).

Basically-- Superman as written by S&S, Bates, Maggin, O'Neill, Morrison, Millar, Waid etc.

 

[Flint Marko]

But the phantom zone is a fate worse than death? Even life sentences aren't eternal. Damning someone to a black hole for eternity is less morally objectionable than ending their life?

It'd be putting Zod right back where he was, so yes.

 

[GothamBat]

It'd be putting Zod right back where he was, so yes.

 

[Rorschach2012]

It's crazy how perfect Matthew Vaughn is for this. Honestly can't imagine a better fit .

 

[Patchwork Man]

Byrne's run has a lot of fun issues that I'd be glad to pick up in an omnibus someday (hurry up, DC) but in the long run, he did a lot of damage to Superman that writers are still tossing and toying with.

Also, anybody that switches his personality to "Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I can do" has fundamentally missed the point of the character.

Nowhere is it written in stone or foam that no character has never not nor can be been revised from the ground up or from within to without.

In spite of all the experiments and changes we've seen applied to Superman by various creators, the character has never not been recognizably Superman.

 

[Patchwork Man]

and you shouldn't. it's easy. you just have to try. imagination does the rest

Trust me, imagination is one area where I'm not lacking.

 

[GothamBat]

It's crazy how perfect Matthew Vaughn is for this. Honestly can't imagine a better fit .

the man can do no wrong. I really hope he writes the script. First class and DOFP were damn amazing story-wise

 

[Boy Scout]

But the nitty gritty is that Superman is the exceptional in an unexceptional world. Otherwise he wouldn't be exceptiinal. Meaning less than ideal circumstances where his core values are and should be challenged.

I'm not saying that he should go around heat visioning people into submission here. He's killed 4-5 times in the comics when it was absolutely necessary. The fight with Zod was one of those times. The problem doesn't arise from the act itself, that's on the aftermath. I agree that it wasn't handled with the finesse it deserved.

Understood.

Superman is the real personality (and effectively the same person he is on the farm, but in a snazzier outfit) and Metropolis Kent is the disguise (though he does have real thoughts and feelings etc, he also acts uncoordinated sometimes, often meek, pretends he needs glasses etc).

Basically-- Superman as written by S&S, Bates, Maggin, O'Neill, Morrison, Millar, Waid etc.

You know, I've grown to appreciate all of the different interpretations of the character's duality over the years. None of them are right or wrong; just different. Personally, I subscribe to the idea that neither personality is "fake." Rather, he emphasizes and exaggerates certain qualities and characteristics to keep his lives separate.

 

[Flint Marko]

Wait, did Vaughn have story input on DOFP? Didn't know that but it makes sense.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

... He can be Superman and be a character. Just as he was in the 50 years prior to Byrne, and in a great many of the following stories that have switched it back to the correct interpretation.

Alright I'll bite. This is where I'm coming from. When Supes was created in '38 the stories he was written in dealt with corruption and politics. He was challenging the status quo and the establishment to improve, but as Clark Kent he was very much a man. Then the comics boom happened and some *****e decided to blame comic books for all of 'Murica's ills. During that time period Superman came to represent the establishment because of the comics code. He was perfect and couldn't do no wrong and the story telling languished. It was less about social justice and more about trolling Lois Lane because those uppity womens had to be put in their place. This was a fictional character that put a huge dent in the real life KKK's recruitment drive. He became a parody. Eventually the kids and fans of the era grew up and so did their sensibilities and gone was the Silver Age. We finally got back to the substance. The Reeve(s) versions were by and large based on that comics dark age (as far as I'm concerned). That's where my distaste comes from.

 

[GothamBat]

But the nitty gritty is that Superman is the exceptional in an unexceptional world. Otherwise he wouldn't be exceptiinal. Meaning less than ideal circumstances where his core values are and should be challenged.

I'm not saying that he should go around heat visioning people into submission here. He's killed 4-5 times in the comics when it was absolutely necessary. The fight with Zod was one of those times. The problem doesn't arise from the act itself, that's on the aftermath. I agree that it wasn't handled with the finesse it deserved.

in b4 he shoots Jimmy and heatvisions his corpse t:

 

[Superchan]

While I hate the idea od superman killing, I would be inclined to accept it if it's executed properly. For example IMO Alan Moore did it properly in What ever happened but John Byrne crapped the bed in superman#22 and the fans were up in arms because of it.

For me the problem with Superman killing zod in MOS was mostly due to execution and intention.
Superman killing zod at that moment wasn't his only option, also just because you hold someone's head still doesn't mean you can stop their pupils from moving so zod could've still fried that family.
And afterwards instead of giving us the scene in the cemetery with Martha where Clark could've discussed what has transpired with zod in the scene before we get a drone falling out of the sky and another explosion and a scene with the general that seemed out of place not to mention that cringe worthy "he's hot" line. Hence the whole thing was problematic IMO, from the setup of the scene, to the execution and finally the resolution and that's all to do with the Snyder/Goyer team and their inept story telling.

Regarding the intention part, Snyder said that superman had to kill to formulate the no kill rule which is baffling because but if every person needed to kill to know that killing is wrong then the world as we know it is f***ed.

Superman symbolizes hope and wish fulfillment but he's also Clark Kent, which means he's fallible and like I said I have no problem with superman struggling with moral decisions and making the occasional mistake as long as it's executed well and Snyder isn't the one who can pull that off IMO.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

... He can be Superman and be a character. Just as he was in the 50 years prior to Byrne, and in a great many of the following stories that have switched it back to the correct interpretation.

it might be a generational thing or a 'which version did I encounter first' thing, though. and that I would fully understand. It's just like that with people who watched Aliens first and prefer it to Alien, because...reasons I guess, while those who watched Alien first often bemoan how the sequel almost retroactivley destroyed the perfect mood and atmosphere the first film had. Or how people who are NuWhovians and, say, those who grew up in the Pertwee or T. Baker era have very different views on how the Doctor should be portrayed.
Again, I can understand that. As a reason. Byrne tried to deconstruct Superman a little bit. If that was one of your first encounters with that character, I can fully understand how one might prefer that version. I just don't think that was Superman.