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

[Patchwork Man]

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

Ditto me on that!

 

[GothamBat]

All I really care about is that hand-held style they had for MOS never rearing it's ugly head again. That's my number one priority for MOS2 or any DCEU movie moving forward... or any movie in general. Maybe for like 1 or 2 scenes like in bvs but even that's pushing it.

 

[Ivan Drago]

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

Yeah, similar to how Singer had story input on first class.

 

[BH/HHH]

Yeah Vaugh was set to direct DOFP then he pulled out. Wonder if that's because Singer was breathing down his neck.

Vaughn is perfect for Superman I pray to Zod that it happens.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Superman has killed people before, but the VAST majority of his stories have depicted him as a man with a strict policy against killing. Revisionist history won't change that.



I hate that Superman killed Zod, but I understand why he did it. There were no other alternatives. But the decision to force him to take Zod's life - which was made by Zack Snyder and David Goyer - is one that I don't understand, and there were plenty of alternatives.




Sorry, what? He's just as irrelevant now as he was then.



QFT.

I am not revising any history, I know Superman has a strict no kill rule in the comics, I have read enough of them to know. But let's not act like he has never done questionable things. He killed Zod and his cronies in the comics, he also killed Doomsday, and made questionable choices in other story's like For Tomorrow and Sacrifice.

Then you lack as much imagination as Goyer and Snyder did. Superman has ALWAYS a choice

Wow, what a lovely attitude to discussion you have .

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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.

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.

2 great posts, totally agree with everything in these.

 

[titansupes]

Yeah Vaugh was set to direct DOFP then he pulled out. Wonder if that's because Singer was breathing down his neck.

Vaughn is perfect for Superman I pray to Zod that it happens.

He pulled out because he wanted to do Kingsman. He figured the time for a bright and fun spy movie was coming, and if he didn't do it, someone else would beat him to the punch (and sure enough, Ritchie's TMFU came out a few months later).

From what he's said about his version of DoFP, Singer's is far better anyway.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

They tried a modern take of 'Superman for all' with Superman Returns and it made $400 million WW, basically people don't know what they want with Superman, they demand more 'punching', Snyder gives it to them, then they whinge about 'too much punching' so dammed either way....

While people had a problem with not enough punching in Superman Returns I don't think people had a problem with too much punching on Man of Steel. I think the main problem people had with both movies really was Superman was depicted as a mopey sad sack.

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.

Sort of how like Kara Danvers said "Kara is who I am. Supergirl is what I do" in the episode "Exodus". Which makes sense, because Clark was Clark long before he was Superman, and Kara was Kara long before she became Supergirl.

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. This was the ending that Nolan preferred but hell, what does he know.

Funny thing about this that just goes to further prove my point? Had Superman locked Zod back in the phantom zone, Superman as a character would have been exactly the same, demonstrating just how cheap and meaningless Zod's death was.

Which answers the question that people always ask about what other choice did Superman have but to kill Zod.

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.

Why not just fly Zod away from there and lock him in the Phantom Zone?

 

[titansupes]

While people had a problem with not enough punching in Superman Returns I don't think people had a problem with too much punching on Man of Steel. I think the main problem people had with both movies really was Superman was depicted as a mopey sad sack.

That's definitely a factor, but both movies have even bigger flaws in there foundations, IMO.

Sort of how like Kara Danvers said "Kara is who I am. Supergirl is what I do" in the episode "Exodus". Which makes sense, because Clark was Clark long before he was Superman, and Kara was Kara long before she became Supergirl.

I can't speak to the Supergirl thing, but Clark and Superman are one and the same. He grows up being a good person with good values, always looking out for people etc. It's just that when he gets his powers (particularly the super brain, to put it indelicately) he realises that he can't stay limited to Smallville or even Kansas. There's a whole world out there that needs him (many worlds, in fact). Superman isn't a disguise, it's just who he is.

The disguise comes when he has to convince the world he's NOT that person, that he's meek and sometimes cowardly and has imperfect vision etc.

Swap it around so it's the other way, and he immediately loses a lot of his uniqueness in the superhero pantheon, he becomes more mundane (on the surface and beneath), and he loses the theme S&S deliberately instilled in him.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Where does anyone's ultimate goodness come from? Why does Steve Rogers have the morality that he does? Is it nurture or nature? If you believe it's nature, then you believe that people can't change and some people are born evil. So, if it's understood that generally ALL goodness comes from a combination of nature and nurture with nurture being the deciding factor, then that narrows down Superman's goodness as the result of a combination of his heredity and his upbringing.

Martha (and Jonathan) taught Clark, through his own adoption, to embrace that which is unknown or "other" with love and courage. Jonathan teaches Clark, through his own actions, that protecting life is important, but he also instills in Clark an understanding of how singular decisions can have wide-ranging consequences. He's told Clark stories, like the one Clark recalls on the mountaintop in BvS, about how a choice to save save his farm as a child ended up harming the farm and the horses of another's farm. When Clark doesn't fight back against his school bullies, Jonathan and Clark examine it from a moral lens:

Clark: I wanted to hit that kid. I wanted to hit him bad.
Jonathan: I know you did. I mean......part of me even wanted you to, but then what? Make you feel any better? You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's gonna change the world.​

Again, emphasis is placed on how Clark's moral decisions will be weighed both in the micro and the macro contexts. When Jonathan sacrifices his life in MoS because he felt that if Clark had been exposed to save his one life -- one selfish decision from Clark -- it could doom a world and a son who weren't ready for the burdens of a savior hero, he was giving Clark the time to do exactly what he had just been arguing with Clark in the car before the storm hit:

Clark: I just wanna do something useful with my life.
Jonathan: So farming, feeding people. That's not useful?
Clark: I didn't say that. [...]
Jonathan: We're not your parents. But we've been doing the best we can. And we've been making this up as we go along, so maybe our best isn't good enough anymore.​

This is the point where Clark begins his journey to receive more nurturing from his journey of self-discovery. Growing up, Jonathan had suggested to Clark that he was on Earth for a reason, and that one day he would have to discover what that reason was. That nurturing alone would fill you with a sense of purpose, and it was only enhanced when Clark learned more about humanity and himself from years as a wandering guardian angel culminating in meeting Jor-El who taught him about himself and his purpose:

Jor-El: Your mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious. The element of choice, of chance. What if a child dreamed of becoming something mother than what society had intended for him or her? What if a child aspired to something greater? You were the embodiment of that belief, Kal.[...] You're as much a child of Earth now as you are of Krypton. You can embody the best of both worlds. A dream your mother and I dedicated our lives to preserve. The people of Earth are different from us, it's true. But, ultimately, I believe that's a good thing. They won't necessarily make the same mistakes we did. Not if you guide them, Kal. Not if you give them hope. That's what this symbol means. The symbol of the house of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief in the potential of every person to be a force for good. That's what you can bring them.​

Notice the continued themes of nature versus nurture, which distills down to the idea that character comes from both and this applies to the individual and to society. Clark is the product of his Kryptonian genes and his upbringing on Earth. Believing in the power of choice and in nurture, Jor-El believes and encourages Clark to believe that others (humans) can also be nurtured (taught) to be better.

So, there you go. Clark's goodness comes from the interaction of his nature with his nurture, and that nurture instilled in him the belief in himself has a man with a purpose to create great change and to inspire hope but also a man who has to be prudent in his decision making. He is taught to love and to care for others with an open heart and altruistically in part because he was loved and cared for by the Kents (and accepted by Lois) in this way.

Steve Rogers doesn't cry over his enemies in anguish for no reason at all. In movies, at least.

We're talking about Superman's supposed omnibenevolence. Which is the only reason, that can explain's his loud and brief reaction to Zod's death. Kents don't teach him of value of any life, nor any events in the film. There's no meaningful connection between Zod and Kal-El, that can explain that kind of reaction and so on...

 

[BlueLanternKal]

I can't speak to the Supergirl thing, but Clark and Superman are one and the same. He grows up being a good person with good values, always looking out for people etc. It's just that when he gets his powers (particularly the super brain, to put it indelicately) he realises that he can't stay limited to Smallville or even Kansas. There's a whole world out there that needs him (many worlds, in fact). Superman isn't a disguise, it's just who he is.

The disguise comes when he has to convince the world he's NOT that person, that he's meek and sometimes cowardly and has imperfect vision etc.

Swap it around so it's the other way, and he immediately loses a lot of his uniqueness in the superhero pantheon, he becomes more mundane (on the surface and beneath), and he loses the theme S&S deliberately instilled in him.

They way I look at it (I also find this to be most relatable personally sans the cape and superpowers of course) is that Clark Kent is the man, Superman is his cultural identity. This harkens back to the idea that Superman is an immigrant/refugee that has assimilated and adopted his new home. Superman is Clark Kent's "foreign" contribution to the American tapestry like Pizza from the Italian community, Eisenstein's theories, or Jazz music and the African American community. This IMO is what makes him the most American of Superheroes, even more so than Cap, because what are we if not a nation made up of the children of immigrants going as far back as Scandanavian exploration and British colonization?

 

[Boy Scout]

I am not revising any history, I know Superman has a strict no kill rule in the comics, I have read enough of them to know.

Awesome.

But let's not act like he has never done questionable things.

No one said otherwise. But while we're on the subject, let's not cherry pick examples of the character doing things he normally wouldn't do to justify poor story choices.

 

[Bagide]

but still, if you HAVE written yourself into that corner, again, watching the scene in question, his hand is just a few centimeters away from the laserbeam shooting Zodeyes, the same hand that isn't botherd by this beam, since Kryptonian and stuff. Just. Hold. The. Hand. Over. Zod's. Eyes.
The family would be saved, could run away, and the Zod and Kal could freely brawl again, destroying the rest of the city

We don't know if kryptonians are immune to their own heat vision

 

[titansupes]

They way I look at it (I also find this to be most relatable personally sans the cape and superpowers of course) is that Clark Kent is the man, Superman is his cultural identity. This harkens back to the idea that Superman is an immigrant/refugee that has assimilated and adopted his new home. Superman is Clark Kent's "foreign" contribution to the American tapestry like Pizza from the Italian community, Eisenstein's theories, or Jazz music and the African American community. This IMO is what makes him the most American of Superheroes, even more so than Cap, because what are we if not a nation made up of the children of immigrants going as far back as Scandanavian exploration and British colonization?

That's an interesting approach to it, but it all still works well having Superman be the true person, since Superman's personality-- even with (especially with) the super brain-- is an amalgam of Krypton and human. Heck, it may even work better that way.

No one said otherwise. But while we're on the subject, let's not cherry pick examples of the character doing things he normally wouldn't do to justify poor story choices.

Also worth noting that that story (Supes executing the inter-dimensional Kryptonians) wasn't well received at the time, and Byrne himself has expressed regrets about how he approached his whole run.

We don't know if kryptonians are immune to their own heat vision

That's always been a tricky thing to figure out. Usually artists/cartoons/movies just avoid it. But when they do go for it-- It just hits them like a concussive force, maybe a bit of a smoking scorch mark left over. It even happens in BvS when DD hits Supes with a full blast (minus the scorch mark).

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Awesome.



No one said otherwise. But while we're on the subject, let's not cherry pick examples of the character doing things he normally wouldn't do to justify poor story choices.

I don't see it as cherry picking. Superman killed Zod in the comics because he felt Zod was too dangerous to live and he had no choice.

Superman kills Zod in MOS for the same reason. I don't see how that's cherry picking.

We don't know if kryptonians are immune to their own heat vision

Faora screams out in pain when Superman hits her with his heat vision. And she had armour on.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

That's an interesting approach to it, but it all still works well having Superman be the true person, since Superman's personality-- even with (especially with) the super brain-- is an amalgam of Krypton and human. Heck, it may even work better that way..

Not trying to come off as presumptuous here, but I do think that is a lot closer to the original intent. Both Schuster and Siegel were Jewish immigrants to the US and Canada respectively.

 

[titansupes]

Not trying to come off as presumptuous here, but I do think that is a lot closer to the original intent. Both Schuster and Siegel were Jewish immigrants to the US and Canada respectively.

That's not presumptuous at all, the immigrant thing is absolutely ingrained in the earliest stories, deliberate or not. I'm just saying it works for Superman being the real identity, as they intended.

 

[Boy Scout]

I don't see it as cherry picking. Superman killed Zod in the comics because he felt Zod was too dangerous to live and he had no choice.

Superman kills Zod in MOS for the same reason. I don't see how that's cherry picking.

Superman's stance against killing has existed for decades. Entire stories have been written about it. There are likely countless instances where he was shown to actively avoid doing it, for one reason or another. Citing the (very) few instances where does kill to justify the ending of MOS is cherry picking.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Why?

Just because you are not explicity told why he reacts a certain way does not mean you cannot draw inferences about why he does do.

For instance, It could be as simple as the act of killing causes him pain and creates a state of shock.

Which, frankly, is clearly depicted right there on screen.

If it's no deeper than that,then it's still a valid emotional response to have.

There is not always a clear rhyme or reason to why people feel things.
Emotions are not purely logical in nature.

By this logic you can fill any character with just whatever you feel like. Just because it's possible. Is it possible for Superman to feel that way about Zod's death? Sure. But the movie tells us nothing about why it should happen this way. As many posters repeated in this and other threads - it's bad writing. It leaves you scratching your head at best, instead of feeling for Superman.

I think you don't get my response.

He cries because he is upset. You really don't understand that?

LOL. I think I'll be using this argument from now on. Why does John Connor cry? Because he's upset. Why does Bruce Wayne cry? Because he's upset. Why does Frodo cry? Because he's upset...

Because he doesn't want to have to kill, period. His entire life has been more or less about saving lives, to the point where he hides what he can do because he wants to continue doing so. The movie clearly shows this.

He was saving lives of psycho mass murderers all his life? You seriously don't get his over-reaction isn't justified by anything that happens in the film? That there's no build-up for that?

How is it somehow not established when he basically starts out saying "Why shouldn't I use my powers to save people" as a kid?

And continues to save people?

How is his compassion not a part of the narrative when he spends the entire movie up to this point saving lives instead of taking them?

It has nothing to do with his reaction to Zod's death. And the movie moments later shrugs it off like it never happened.

Except that it does. The moment does not have to directly tie into the rest of the larger themes of the film anymore than he and Lois being in love does.

It's not tied into anything. Directly or indirectly. It's a cheap death, with out of nowhere reaction. Poor writing. And don't get me started on the romance. With kissing among the rubble and people buried alive as a culmination. Ugh...

We weren't talking about how movies work, we were talking about how you felt it was an inaccurate depiction of an emotion.

I made myself clear. I don't think I have anything to add to it. My opinion on this matter isn't unique.

Besides, there is no one way for movies to work.

MoS just doesn't work. Especially when it comes to Superman.

There is no one way for emotions to be portrayed. They can be portrayed in a variety of ways.

I'm not interested in abstract talks for the sake of arguing.

You made a statement that the emotional reaction seemingly came out of nowhere, as if this is somehow a failure to properly portray emotions, when in fact, it is arguably a more realistic and appropriate way of doing so.

No, I didn't make this statement. I said Superman's reaction isn't justified by what happens in the movie. Nor it has any consequences. It's a meaningless and cheap scene.

A movie does not, for instance, have to engage in a call and response structure for a moment to have meaning to those watching it. In fact, a use of sudden emotion may have more impact for some than if the concept was set up or broadcast previously in a movie.

A movie can have a far more subtle approach, but it can't be said about Snyder's MoS. He's ANTI-subtle. And it still didn't work.

Which is all well and good. I'm not interested in why it didn't work for you. I'm interested in your statements that implied that it's somehow not an appropriate way to depict emotions.

I made myself clear and have nothing to add to it.

 

[Urich Leeds]

Superman has killed people before, but the VAST majority of his stories have depicted him as a man with a strict policy against killing. Revisionist history won't change that.



I hate that Superman killed Zod, but I understand why he did it. There were no other alternatives. But the decision to force him to take Zod's life - which was made by Zack Snyder and David Goyer - is one that I don't understand, and there were plenty of alternatives.

Because it challenges the character and the audience to reexamine who Superman is, what he stands for, and what he should stand for. Even if it makes the audience and character uncomfortable.

Putting your character in situations where they'll never be challenged, for the sake of making the story more palatable for people who can't accept seeing these characters in compromising situations, is bad writing.

The ONLY issue with having Superman kill Zod is not having proper build up. But that is a flaw with the movie as a whole. Superman's internal conflict for the duration of the film didn't match up with its conclusion.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

I don't mind the neck snap as I said before. I do however think that some adjustments to Clark's and Martha's dialogue when they reminisce on Johnathan would have made it more palatable to the fans who were turned off by it. Not a full blown guilt trip but maybe a bit of reluctance on his part, Clark wondering if it what he did was the right thing. And then perhaps a montage of all the lives that were saved showing support for Superman as they rebuilt Metropolis. Everything from construction workers to children rocking that \S/. That should have been his bike ride to the Daily Planet.

But that's all hindsight.

 

[Boy Scout]

Because it challenges the character and the audience to reexamine who Superman is, what he stands for, and what he should stand for. Even if it makes the audience and character uncomfortable.

The problem is with the execution, not the idea. Better filmmakers would've made Zod's death more compelling than it was. I don't think Superman should ever be forced to kill (monsters like Doomsday and Parademons being the exceptions), but I recognize the story potential such an action could generate. Done right, a "Superman kills a person" narrative could be one of the most compelling stories ever told about him. But that's not what we got, so...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Superman's stance against killing has existed for decades. Entire stories have been written about it. There are likely countless instances where he was shown to actively avoid doing it, for one reason or another. Citing the (very) few instances where does kill to justify the ending of MOS is cherry picking.

Agree to disagree. I don't think it's cherry picking when it's the same villain and same justification. And I have stated before I know about Superman's stance against killing, you don't have to educate me on it. But in extreme situations he has shown a willingness to kill.

Also, this often seems forgotten in this debate, this was Superman's first ever fight with someone who could equal his own powers and strength. It was an obstacle he had never faced before. I personally don't think he was left with a choice, whether the family had been threatened or not, the longer the fight went on the more it became obvious what needed to be done. Zod even says during the fight it will only end one way, either by him or Superman dying.

I don't mind the neck snap as I said before. I do however think that some adjustments to Clark's and Martha's dialogue when they reminisce on Johnathan would have made it more palatable to the fans who were turned off by it. Not a full blown guilt trip but maybe a bit of reluctance on his part, Clark wondering if it what he did was the right thing. And then perhaps a montage of all the lives that were saved showing support for Superman as they rebuilt Metropolis. Everything from construction workers to children rocking that \S/. That should have been his bike ride to the Daily Planet.

But that's all hindsight.

Yeah I can agree with all that, I didn't like it going straight to a light hearted moment after that. I think another scene of him reflecting on what he had to do would have been better. I was also hoping BvS would address it but it didn't really.

 

[BH/HHH]

Yeah I can agree with all that, I didn't like it going straight to a light hearted moment after that. I think another scene of him reflecting on what he had to do would have been better. I was also hoping BvS would address it but it didn't really.

As someone who was very happy with Man of Steel I do agree that was jarring. I think even a simple slow fade to black would have worked. It would have indicated that some time had passed.

I will say I'd have had Superman helping rebuild, you know like a montage and maybe have it narrated by Lois as if she is writing an article.

 

[Bagide]

Would have been better if Superman had nightmares of killing Zod in BvS.