Discussion in 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' started by Thread Manager, Sep 6, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]463439[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]462269[/split]
In the original version of the script he just got zapped into the Phantom Zone. David [Goyer] and I had long talks about it, and Chris [Nolan] and I talked long about it, and I really feel like we should kill Zod, and I really feel like Superman should kill him. The why of it was for me - I go - if it's truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained, it's just in his DNA. I felt like we needed him to do something just like him putting on the glasses or going to the Daily Planet, or any of the other things that your sort of seeing for the first time that you realize becomes his sort of his thing. (http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/man-steel-ending-superman-kills-zod#eDqK1B3rFt64ZqvX.99)
The original script to Man of Steel didnt include Superman killing General Zod to save an innocent family from incineration. In that draft, Zod was sent back into the Phantom Zone and that was that. It was Snyder who pushed for Supes to kill the movies big villain, because the heros aversion to killing [was] unexplained. (http://comicsalliance.com/man-of-steel-christopher-nolan-disagreed-ending-zod-killing/)
If there were more adventures for our Superman to go on, youre given this thing where, you dont know 100 percent what hes going to do. When you put in stone the concept that he wont kill, and its totally in stone, it really erases an option in the viewers mind
youll always have in the back of your mind, How far can you push him? If he sees Lois get hurt, or his mother get killed, you just made a really mad Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff, if he wants to be. Thats the thing thats cool about him, in some ways. The idea that he has the frailties of a human emotionally. But you dont want to get that guy mad. (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/06/19/zack-snyder-david-goyer-christopher-nolan-man-of-steel-ending/)
Still can't believe he said that.
That means if the main character does something which he believes to be right, than the audience is supposed to believe that it is right as well, correct?
What happens when you are telling the story about an adolescent?
What happens when you are telling a story about someone out for revenge?
What happens when you are telling a story about shady people(typical tarantinto protagonists)?
What happens when you are giving hitlers side of things?
What happens when you are telling the story of a young superhero finding his way...
Most stories aren't about perfect people, they tend to often be about people doing what they think is best. The audience can often agree or disagree at their own discretion. Ben Affleck's Gone Baby Gone, fun movie, especially the ending.
When did the movie say superman made the right decision? I must have missed that part. I've been firmly on the side that he made the best decision given the circumstance but I had no idea there was a point there near the end(I assume) when the movie specifically said he did. Maybe I should watch it again.
I'd rather you just try your best.
It was a simple question.
Superman doesn't end world hunger even though he can. Superman believes that's the best decision so that means we the audience are supposed to as well right?
Cause I don't.
You are suggesting that anything a protagonist does, as long as he thinks he's in the right we as an audience are supposed to sympathize.
There's a difference between sympathizing with the story lead, and the story telling us something is right or wrong.
This was almost the point of that 3 little pigs story told from the Bad Bad Wolf's perspective.
Apply this to the topic at hand, whether superman feels he did a bad thing in killing a Zod going forward, says little about whether it was right or wrong. What's right and wrong will never change, how he feels and how we sympathize will. Don't see a problem with that. If he decides to do different in the future, that won't mean squat when it comes to the reality of the zod decision. It will just mean he doesn't want to kill anymore.
Not so hard to believe if you watch the animated series, read the books or watch some of the movies.
I knew about the original ending, and I agree that it was anticlimactic. That's why I put the update in earlier to better explain what I was discussing.
The thing is, Superman is capable of doing some terrible stuff physically. I believe that's the point of what you have in bold. It's not about making him into a bad person. If that's the impression that you got from watching the movie, then I don't know what to tell you. It's not a common opinion.
You said you weren't sure where people were getting the idea that Superman needed to kill to learn that killing was wrong. There's your answer.
Sure. But we know that he would never do any of that stuff because of his moral compass. Snyder is basically saying that this is a Superman who is capable of anything when he's mad and that it's not necessarily unlikely that he'll kill again. And if you're okay with that, that's fine.
I never said it was.
I'm not going to go through the point-by-point structure here. There isn't a connection between some people's belief that Superman needs to kill to know that it's wrong and Superman killing Zod to save people. One is a lame justification and another has to do with telling a compelling story.
You're paraphrasing what you believe Snyder's message is. That's not how I read it. I read it as him strictly talking about the physical damage that Superman could do, not that he can't control himself. I don't believe that his moral compass was off in the movie. The way that the story presented the situation, I found it to e a powerful ended but in writing and with the performances.
You need to realize that I was speaking generally.
I never said they were.
Which I acknowledged. But most people seem to agree that Superman killing Zod was the right thing to do.
As soon as he did it and saved the entire planet.
Maybe you should.
Though if you're looking for the film to spell it out for you in an obvious and heavy-handed manner, then I'm afraid you'll be watching it forever.
You're supposed to, yes. But you don't have to.
Typically, the former leads to the latter.
It kind of does.
Maybe, but that comment rubbed me the wrong way. It almost sounds to me like he wants us to think of Superman as a ticking time bomb or something.
Yes there is. The director himself just acknowledged it.
Which isn't any different than what you're doing. If what you think he meant is what he actually meant, then he should've worded it better.
I don't think it was off. Just a little different than usual. To be clear: I think Superman made the right call. I mean...what else was he gonna do? He had no other option. But Superman killing, even if justified, isn't something I'm a fan of.
Who is most people?
He could save the planet every day by killing lex and all the rest of the bad guys with a neck snap.
It will take more than him "saving the world" for a simpleton like myself to take this as "the right thing to do".
My measure goes beyond is the world saved or not.
That and more. Even faster when he employs the help of the League.
Again, the comics.
Conveniently you choose to base your argument on a "typically".
Looks like we have our common terms.
This is the point where I quit due to being ahead.
That's the problem with the majority of detractors. There are many ways to take many things about this film and the character. Choosing the most drastic seems to go to for some of ya'll.
Captain America can kill at anytime if pushed to it. He's hardly a "ticking time bomb"
Who do you think?
You're ignoring this thing called context.
Then what, exactly, is your criteria?
Because, conveniently, that's "typically" how it goes.
I was being sarcastic.
Not really. I'm just reading what was said and interpreting it the best way I can. I'm not sure how many other ways there are to interpret what he said, but I'm definitely open to hearing other people out.
I'm not saying Superman is either. But...
"...you don’t know 100 percent what he’s going to do."
"When you put in stone the concept that he won’t kill, and it’s totally in stone, it really erases an option in the viewer’s mind…"
"If he sees Lois get hurt, or his mother get killed, you just made a really mad Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff, if he wants to be."
Not sure what else he could've meant.
At least we're playing nice.
You guys do realise this isn't a Man of Steel discussion thread right? Either you liked the ending or you didn't, can we please talk about the actual point of the thread please, the Batman/Superman movie.
To your first point, you're suggesting that Goyer and Snyder wrote Superman to kill Zod at the end for the sake of people believing that as the reason in which he avoids killing in the future? I disagree. I feel like there was enough shown within the movie to prove that he did not want to kill. I feel that they did it strictly to enhance and ending that they felt was lacking.
The kill or don't kill thing is personal preference. Some are really against it and it doesn't matter to some.
My ultimate point is that I don't believe this will or really needs to be directly addressed in the future as a reason to justify not killing. Some have gone as far as saying Batman should be involved in a discussion about this in the new movie. I don't like that idea.
Actually the point of the thread is an open discussion on both characters.
They said it themselves. You can confirm it for yourself with a quick Google search.
Eh. I'm over it. What's done is done. I'll never like it but it won't do me any good to keep complaining about it.
Regardless, it is the reason.
Do you mean the interview when Snyder talked about Zod using the "death by cop" verbiage?
I dunno. This is the quote: Snyder and Goyer revealed that the original version of the script had General Zod being sent back into the Phantom Zone. “But David, Chris and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him,” said Snyder. “The ‘Why?’ of it for me was that if was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained…"
EDIT: Here's a longer version: “I guess for me–and in the original version of the script he just got zapped into the Phantom Zone–David and I had long talks about it and Chris and I talked long about it and it was like, ‘I really think we should kill Zod and I really think Superman should kill him,’” Snyder explained. “And the why of it was, for me, that if it’s truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained. It’s just in his DNA. I felt like we needed him to do something, just like him putting on the glasses or going to the Daily Planet or any of the other things that you’re sort of seeing for the first time that you realize will then become his thing. I felt like, if we can find a way of making it impossible for him–like Kobayashi Maru, totally no way out–I felt like that could also make you go, ‘Okay, this is the why of him not killing ever again, right?’ He’s basically obliterated his entire people and his culture and he is responsible for it and he’s just like, ‘How could I kill ever again?’”
My real problem (in terms of adaptation) is an iteration of Superman who willingly kills is not a good iteration of the character, as Grant Morrison said "Batman fights death, Superman fights the impossible" it's central to their characters.
You and ten of your friends? No clue.
I asked when did the movie tell us what superman did was the right thing, you answered it was when the world was saved.
Your simple answer led to my simple assertion.
How do I know when something is right or wrong? I don't, it's almost always up for debate. When it's not a saturday morning cartoon anyways.
Doesn't matter. Cap isn't beyond seeing killing as a viable option, that simple fact doesn't then have people suggesting he's a "ticking time bomb".
Probably meant, that like batman, superman is no longer seen as a 2 dimensional hero.
This EXACT same thing has been said of batman. There are 2 recent occasions where the audience(readers in this case) didn't know if batman was going to kill the joker. That's probably due to the fact that the character isn't being played by adam west. Dimension, it's a good thing.
Death of the Family
The killing joke
DKR(for good measure).
You ignored the context of the situation in order to support your argument.
If Superman hadn't killed Zod, Zod would have gone on to murder everyone on Earth. Killing him prevented that from taking place. It was justifiable homicide. I'm not sure what's debatable about that.
Because he's a soldier. Superman is not.
Not sure what it is about having a "no kill" policy that makes a character two-dimensional, but okay.
I don't even know how to respond to that.
It's from the Empire interview. Here's the rest of the quote. I can see where you're getting the idea that this is meant to be the ultimate catalyst, but I don't take this as a primary reason (if that makes sense). He also cites the original ending being lackluster, puts a lot of story into Clark's parents (all of them) and there's the idea that adds to Zod's character, the "death by cop" quote.