BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[The Guard]

the criticism was "Zod's death scene was tacked on and didn't have anything to do with the themes or plot of the film and was ultimately pretty pointless and cheap drama for the sake of it."

I'm sort of curious why, in this particular film, the death of the main villain after a final battle or fight is considered "tacked on", but in, oh, say, every other action movie ever made, the death of the villain is more or less accepted.

 

[Tempest]

I'm sort of curious why, in this particular film, the death of the main villain after a final battle or fight is considered "tacked on", but in, oh, say, every other action movie ever made, the death of the villain is more or less accepted.

Because Goyer and Snyder changed the script. So it equals "tacked on" to everyone who hated that part, despite the fact that the reworked script gave it a logical flow.

People can't get over Superman killing someone, which is one of the silliest things I've ever seen, since it's not new territory for him as a character.

Somehow though, anything done previously doesn't count, especially if you don't like it.

It's called fanon. They change the canon in their heads to keep things a certain way. Just ask fans of any super villain. They can give you detailed reasons why the bad guy is really just a misunderstood being, rather than a mass-murdering *******.

To some people, Superman was a great shining example of all goodness, who would never deign to even swat a mosquito. To me, he's the guy who strives to find a way around having to kill -- but who will kill when he's forced to.

Somewhere in there is the truth. ;-)

 

[Mjölnir]

Something about the prelude in the fellowship doesn't quite scream Sidious in ESB to me. I mean is his name even mentioned in that movie? I went through half that series thinking Vader was the main villain.

Gandalf and his elder seemed pretty even till the gandalf was disarmed. I supposed that speaks to the cunning of the bad guy. Funny that.

Unassuming hero puts on a simple enough looking ring, Villain turns his head at the screen snarls and pursues hero. Audience now understand that villain can't be hidden from. Not sure about you but the threat of Sauron went up a few notches every time the ring's "beacon went off". Kinda implies a certain level tracking that goes beyond the basic bloodhound chasing the prison gang in the woods. But that's me.

The prologue in that movie just shows what happened thousands of years ago. That Sauron did something then does not make him an active player in the story told in the movies.

As for Sidious, he's mentioned already in A New Hope (although no one but perhaps Vader would use is Sith name) and we get to see him in a communication with Vader in Empire Strikes Back.

Saruman beat him in a magic duel. He didn't disarm him by cunning, he did it straight up with magic. Saruman doesn't have to smack Gandalf as easily as Jor smacks Zod in order to be the more powerful wizard. Saruman also beats Gandalf's magic from afar when the fellowship is at Caradhras.

Sauron notices Frodo but doesn't do anything, because in the movie he hasn't even taken physical form and doesn't seem able to do much. That's why the Nazgul are the ones searching, and why the Witch King is leading the army.

Simply put, the threat lies in the fact that Zod is capable of touching down on earth, saying a word and having the entire populace erased with a commend. He need only be sure he can still extract the codex. I think the audience sees that as a "threatening villain" capable of generating a threatening presence. Killing his friend and having his lieutenant speak on how little they value human life doesn't hurt. As for how much "cool stuff" they wanted us to focus on while it happened and how little doom and gloom was featured afterwards....that doesn't change the fact that Zod happened to metropolis. Pretty threatening imo. As much of a joke as he may be to some, he seemingly killed more innocents than most of these other crazy cbm villains.

Zod has that threat to Earth because he has technology that's far more advanced than anything here, but Earth isn't the protagonist. That's the superpowered Kryptonian. The arc that leads to Jor-El vs Zod is imo very much lacking in building up Zod himself. He doesn't get to stand out as neither a great leader nor a great soldier. He has to cheap shot a scientist to win, and the whole "I killed your father" isn't quite as strong in itself when Jor-El had already decided to stay and die on Krypton. That makes the "how" more important.

 

[Mjölnir]

Mjölnir,

Excellent posts.

I think if Zod had succeeded in his coup, if he had convinced Jor-El to support his cause, if we had seen him rally his troops by giving good speeches, and by inspiring some of them on an individual basis, in other words by seeing him as a leader, he could have been a threat in a completely different way than having the means to "destroy the world"... he might have plausibly been able to convince Clark to abandon Earth and join Zod to new Krypton.

You bring up a good point. That's another way that could have been used to show the competence of Zod. The fact that he gets beaten by other parts of the military, even though he's the military leader, probably undermines him (and the rigid society) more than getting beaten up easily.

 

[Tempest]

^ Zod: Will you kill me?
Clark: No, that's not what I want to do.
Zod: Then I'll kill this family!
Clark: Okay *snap*

I prefer the movie version

But you have a point; a more blunt script might have erased some of the massive amounts of confusion people have about this film.

Kisses for everyone. I only pick on you because I love you.

 

[The Question]

^ Zod: Will you kill me?
Clark: No, that's not what I want to do.
Zod: Then I'll kill this family!
Clark: Okay *snap*

I prefer the movie version

Well, of course it doesn't work when you intentionally write it badly to prove your point.

 

[The Question]

I'm sort of curious why, in this particular film, the death of the main villain after a final battle or fight is considered "tacked on", but in, oh, say, every other action movie ever made, the death of the villain is more or less accepted.

1: The death was literally tacked on. In the original version they had Zod get sucked back into the Phantom Zone with everyone else, but then they rewrote it late in the game to have him not get sucked in and have an additional fight scene with Zod dying at the end.

2: The film already built up to a climax with the Phantom Zone criminals getting sucked into the Phantom Zone. Then, after the natural climax of the film, we had yet another fight scene ending in the death of the main villain that wasn't demanded by the plot and didn't further any themes. How is that not tacked on? In "every other action movie ever made" the death of the main villain usually comes in the climax of the story, that's the difference.

Because Goyer and Snyder changed the script. So it equals "tacked on" to everyone who hated that part, despite the fact that the reworked script gave it a logical flow.

People can't get over Superman killing someone, which is one of the silliest things I've ever seen, since it's not new territory for him as a character.

Somehow though, anything done previously doesn't count, especially if you don't like it.

It's called fanon. They change the canon in their heads to keep things a certain way. Just ask fans of any super villain. They can give you detailed reasons why the bad guy is really just a misunderstood being, rather than a mass-murdering *******.

To some people, Superman was a great shining example of all goodness, who would never deign to even swat a mosquito. To me, he's the guy who strives to find a way around having to kill -- but who will kill when he's forced to.

Somewhere in there is the truth. ;-)

I don't understand your argument. Why does the fact that it's been done before make it okay to do? Like, say that I never want to see Superman kill anybody because that's just not what Superman does. In my mind, he's better than that. You counter with "but he's done it before in other continuities." To which I reply "sure, but I didn't like it when they did it then either." How is that not a valid criticism?

 

[JDklip]

I too was disappointed in MOS. I mean, I liked it - and like every Zack Snyder movie, I feel like it's one of those films I'll enjoy more with multiple future viewings. But it's not the tightly wound, sweeping, epic story that the trailers promised.

What I realize from reading so many of these posts is that we Superman fans have been dealt with so many mediocre stories over so long that some of us are vehemently defending the best of them just because they're all we've got.

I just refuse to give in to that mentality. There are AMAZING Superman stories outside of Superman The Movie. Robust and emotional stories that relate Superman to the everyman and make you think. All-Star, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, For the Man Who Has Everything (both comic & cartoon), Hereafter (cartoon), Superman #75. I don't know, there's greatness in this character. And I feel like we shouldn't lower our standards and beg for scraps just because what we got isn't as bad as what we could have gotten.

 

[DA_Champion]

I too was disappointed in MOS. I mean, I liked it - and like every Zack Snyder movie, I feel like it's one of those films I'll enjoy more with multiple future viewings. But it's not the tightly wound, sweeping, epic story that the trailers promised.

What I realize from reading so many of these posts is that we Superman fans have been dealt with so many mediocre stories over so long that some of us are vehemently defending the best of them just because they're all we've got.

I just refuse to give in to that mentality. There are AMAZING Superman stories outside of Superman The Movie. Robust and emotional stories that relate Superman to the everyman and make you think. All-Star, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, For the Man Who Has Everything (both comic & cartoon), Hereafter (cartoon), Superman #75. I don't know, there's greatness in this character. And I feel like we shouldn't lower our standards and beg for scraps just because what we got isn't as bad as what we could have gotten.

That's a good point. I don't know that people would like Man of Steel as much if not for Superman III, Superman IV, Superman Returns, Smallville, and never mind some of the terrible comic book movies from the rest of the industry.

 

[Marvin]

Zod has that threat to Earth because he has technology that's far more advanced than anything here, but Earth isn't the protagonist. That's the superpowered Kryptonian. The arc that leads to Jor-El vs Zod is imo very much lacking in building up Zod himself. He doesn't get to stand out as neither a great leader nor a great soldier. He has to cheap shot a scientist to win, and the whole "I killed your father" isn't quite as strong in itself when Jor-El had already decided to stay and die on Krypton. That makes the "how" more important.

That's nice that Zod has strong advanced tech. He also has powers and and numbers on his side. Ergo why he's a threatening villain. It matters little if the earth is the protagonist or not, he aims to kill innocents and our hero's protagonism is threatened by that particular goal....threatening villain.
At the end of the day Zod killed superman's father. Whether he did it by poison apple or knife in the back he did it. At the very least it speaks to his chracter, he's not a nice guy. He is ruthless..etc.
If you think this somehow makes him less threatening....

Sorry but you lost me when you compared this sith lord in the shadows with no name(not even sure he was in the trailers) in episode 5, to the villain whose name and image was spammed across the entire three rings movies. You also missed my intent with the ring beacon aspect. It builds villain intel and presents a more threatening awareness on the antagonist side.

The two wizards were evenly matched and then one wizard wrestled away the other wizards staff and things changed. If I was on the other side of this argument I'd be saying why didn't Saruman own gandalf easily and and while they were both armed...he would have been "more" effective that way.

 

[Marvin]

I don't understand your argument. Why does the fact that it's been done before make it okay to do? Like, say that I never want to see Superman kill anybody because that's just not what Superman does. In my mind, he's better than that. You counter with "but he's done it before in other continuities." To which I reply "sure, but I didn't like it when they did it then either." How is that not a valid criticism?

It's not a valid criticism because you are asserting your own truth. I wasn't aware that superman didn't kill. I also wasn't aware that of how he became that way.
As for your whether or not you didn't like it, that's you. Me not liking red apples vs red apples being bad and all that.

 

[DA_Champion]

It's not a valid criticism because you are asserting your own truth. I wasn't aware that superman didn't kill. I also wasn't aware that of how he became that way.
As for your whether or not you didn't like it, that's you. Me not liking red apples vs red apples being bad and all that.

You don't think this criticism is valid, but the fact is a huge number of fans and moviegoers were shocked by the ending, it created a tremendous internet controversy, and that Goyer and Snyder were obviously counting on it being shocking.

The proof is that they want it to be a major story point, even though it was not a major point in MoS in and of itself. They didn't restructure the first two hours of the movie in the slightest to heighten the impact of that scene. They just knew that it would be shocking because of fan perceptions of the character that are external to the film.

Snyder has explicitly stated that he wants it to be a major story point. As such, it's silly that he did restructure the first 2 hours of the plot at all to build up to it. However, the entire script reveals that Goyer and Snyder don't realise that one needs to build up to major plot points, so ...

 

[The Question]

It's not a valid criticism because you are asserting your own truth. I wasn't aware that superman didn't kill. I also wasn't aware that of how he became that way.
As for your whether or not you didn't like it, that's you. Me not liking red apples vs red apples being bad and all that.

I disagree with your premise. If a person doesn't like a character being portrayed a certain way, and has reasons as to why they feel that portrayal is a less effective way of portraying that character than others, how is their criticism not valid? I mean, granted, some people just say "Superman doesn't kill" and leave it at that, but I feel like the natural response there is to ask for their reasoning, not to say that their criticism isn't valid.

Is "they did something that they've never done before in the source material" the only kind of valid criticism?

Also, to speak specifically to this:

I wasn't aware that superman didn't kill. I also wasn't aware that of how he became that way.

Like I said, the criticism is less about precedence from the source material and more about not thinking a certain way of portraying the character fits what the character is all about. Sure, there have been Superman stories where he's killed people. That doesn't mean that it was the right story decision or that it was executed properly in those stories either.

 

[Marvin]

Question, if this is your premise

Like, say that I never want to see Superman kill anybody because that's just not what Superman does..

And I assume it is cause I'm quoting you, then quite simply, you are wrong and what your criticism is based on is "invalid". He does kill, he has(recently) killed and there is reason to believe he will again. If your premise is something else than I suppose that's another discussion.

 

[DA_Champion]

Question, if this is your premise


And I assume it is cause I'm quoting you, then quite simply, you are wrong and what your criticism is based on is "invalid". He does kill, he has(recently) killed and there is reason to believe he will again. If your premise is something else than I suppose that's another discussion.

In the minds of a lot of fans, Superman doesn't kill, as is clear from the internet outrage, and it's clear that Goyer and Snyder knew this was the public perception and were planning on mining this.

Therefore, it was a big deal for Superman to kill Zod, not because the story made it a big deal (it did not), but because millions of fans were thinking "WTF is this?"

Mark Waid, who is more familiar with the character than possibly anybody else alive, goes over the issue here in his blog:
http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/
and here in this follow-up interview with "voices from krypton":
http://voicesfromkrypton.net/man-of-steel-exclusive-talking-superman-with-mark-waid/

Now, Mark Waid has written what many consider the definitive Superman origin story, and he's been a writer and fan of the character for decades. You can go read his blog and decide that he's wrong, and make a user name to sign up on his blog so that you can post and re-educate this misguided and less intelligent person on why he's wrong... or you can read what he has to say, and when he says something different from what you think, pause and ponder why this individual who is more knowledgeable than you, more creative than you, takes a different view.

ETA: I purchased Mark Waid's Birthright at a comic book store this afternoon.

 

[spider-neil]

I had no problem whatsoever with Superman killing Zod. None.
What really rubbed me the wrong way is Superman's seeming nonchalance, apathy towards the destruction and loss of life. They could have had ONE SCENE where he does an x-ray of a building and then directs the fight towards that building.

There is a scene where Zod sends a tanker towards Superman, Superman flies between the gap and the tanker blows up behind him and Superman doesn't even so much as take a backward glance at what the tanker destroyed. That seriously annoyed me.

 

[BlueLantern]

I wonder how many people, defenders and attackers, are actually doing this because they love the character and not just still arguing to be 'right' or have the last word. And before anyone gets on the 'who are you to question my love?!?!' bandwagon, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that this is going on a bit too much and getting away from the actual point of discussing the movie. It's becoming a slanging match, which is defeating the point of such debate and forum discussion.

 

[D.P.]

I wonder how many people, defenders and attackers, are actually doing this because they love the character and not just still arguing to be 'right' or have the last word. And before anyone gets on the 'who are you to question my love?!?!' bandwagon, I'm not. I'm just pointing out that this is going on a bit too much and getting away from the actual point of discussing the movie. It's becoming a slanging match, which is defeating the point of such debate and forum discussion.

Well, be the change you want to see. It takes two to tango.

Step up and stop going back and forth. Just drop it.

 

[BlueLantern]

What do you think I've done? I'm not getting involved in this silly debate of theirs anymore. It's becoming more about brownie points and less about the film.

 

[The Question]

Question, if this is your premise


And I assume it is cause I'm quoting you, then quite simply, you are wrong and what your criticism is based on is "invalid". He does kill, he has(recently) killed and there is reason to believe he will again. If your premise is something else than I suppose that's another discussion.

Well, first of all I was giving an example.

Second, when giving an example, that's not what I mean. When I said "because that's not what Superman does" I didn't mean to say "Superman killing has no precedence in the mythos." I meant to say "killing is extremely out of character for Superman."

 

[Mjölnir]

That's nice that Zod has strong advanced tech. He also has powers and and numbers on his side. Ergo why he's a threatening villain. It matters little if the earth is the protagonist or not, he aims to kill innocents and our hero's protagonism is threatened by that particular goal....threatening villain.
At the end of the day Zod killed superman's father. Whether he did it by poison apple or knife in the back he did it. At the very least it speaks to his chracter, he's not a nice guy. He is ruthless..etc.
If you think this somehow makes him less threatening....

Sorry but you lost me when you compared this sith lord in the shadows with no name(not even sure he was in the trailers) in episode 5, to the villain whose name and image was spammed across the entire three rings movies. You also missed my intent with the ring beacon aspect. It builds villain intel and presents a more threatening awareness on the antagonist side.

The two wizards were evenly matched and then one wizard wrestled away the other wizards staff and things changed. If I was on the other side of this argument I'd be saying why didn't Saruman own gandalf easily and and while they were both armed...he would have been "more" effective that way.

Judging by what you're saying you don't care about character arcs, given that you just brush off those things, so I don't know why we're discussing this.

We were arguing about whether Sauron was the active villain (not the main threat, the active villain). Either you forgot that or you're trying to change the subject.

Now you made another straw man, and you clearly haven't understood much of what I've been saying. Saruman's win is fine because he wins straight up, confirming that he's the most powerful (they show what they've told, so they are consistent, which is fundamental). If he had been like Zod then Gandalf would have just thrashed him. Implying that Gandalf, a fellow wizard of the order, is to magic as a scientist is to combat suggests that you missed a bit when you watched that movie.

 

[Marvin]

Judging by what you're saying you don't care about character arcs, given that you just brush off those things, so I don't know why we're discussing this.

We were arguing about whether Sauron was the active villain (not the main threat, the active villain). Either you forgot that or you're trying to change the subject.

Now you made another straw man, and you clearly haven't understood much of what I've been saying. Saruman's win is fine because he wins straight up, confirming that he's the most powerful (they show what they've told, so they are consistent, which is fundamental). If he had been like Zod then Gandalf would have just thrashed him. Implying that Gandalf, a fellow wizard of the order, is to magic as a scientist is to combat suggests that you missed a bit when you watched that movie.

I was making the point about the elements that make Zod a "threatening villain". Things such as his doomsday powers and weapons and capacity for destruction..etc. If you want to talk about earth not being the protagonist that's fine, I'm talking about how threatening a villain is. If a villain could destroy the planet by blinking his eyes and he was mad at wolverine, I'd be saying the same thing, "Threatening villain".
It matters little if earth is the protagonist or not.
I care plenty about character arcs, not sure when we moved on to that subject..

I was talking about Sauron being a threatening villain comparable to Zod(given all his failures) at the outset. Then you said Sauron wasn't the main villain in lotr and we started talking about how to interpret characterization for a while, then you said Sauron was comparable to the Emperor in esb. I said nope, and moved on.
That's all.

My point about the wizard vs wizard battle was that the winner won by stealing the other wizards staff and only then gaining the much needed upper hand. Walking away from that fight it's not clear that Saruman is the more powerful wizard, but rather the wizard crafty enough to steal the other wizards staff first?
This isn't all that far removed from the Queen Bavmorda vs Fin Resell situation. No clear supremacy, only circumstance and quickness to the punch.
At the end of the day, Zod beat Jor El, he did it by way of circumstance and underhanded action. If you are arguing that in order for Zod to be seen as an effectively threatening villain, he needs to win his fights with clear dominance. Same could be said about Saruman.

 

[Marvin]

I wonder how many people, defenders and attackers, are actually doing this because they love the character and not just still arguing to be 'right' or have the last word.

None of the above(I’m curious why it’s an either or with you and why no middle ground).
I just happen to disagree with the opinions of a few people on something. If these same people showed up and said tomatoes suck and this is why, and I disagreed with them in a thread on the matter, you’d no doubt see the same action from me. Especially when tangents such as whether they be a fruit or vegetable popped up.
This is a subjective matter so your entitled to your opinion, it’s when people start asserting the relative failures to something that you will encounter this sort of opposition. "superman doesn't kill, superman doesn't care enough..."

 

[Marvin]

Question,
I see what you meant now.

However, it actually has been in most of the long standing continuities(across media). Not only has it been a part of some of his biggest stories, but it’s been referred to as a defining point in later issues in said continuities, lending to characterization. I mean if the character or his contemporaries are mentioning, “The time he killed” Zod... Or the many times his dying act has been referenced or referred to… I don’t see how this isn’t a part of who he is. Him being forced to kill is a large part of the mythos, him enjoying killing...not so much in his character.

I do believe however that the true precedence never addressed is why he is as such.

Moreover as much as mythos infuses whom you know to be the character, there is little to infuse who he was on day one and when faced with similar circumstance. How superman would deal with doomsday "today" isn't the same as how superman the character would deal with him on dday...or day one for that matter. I'm calling into question whom it is you are in fact referring to when you assert what is in or out of character. A seasoned Luke Skywalker the peaceful warrior or the guy who was was told of his destiny a week prior and has a light saber...

 

[Marvin]

Therefore, it was a big deal for Superman to kill Zod, not because the story made it a big deal (it did not), but because millions of fans were thinking "WTF is this?"

I tend to agree. Fans will be fans after all, fortunately we're here to get to the root of the matter.

You go on to make one hell of an appeal to authority. Mark Waid in this case. The man has his opinions, others, his peers even, have theirs. I assume I need not appeal to the authority of Goyer/Nolan/Snyder whom are also "more knowledgeable than myself" on these matters or more to the point, Lee/Johns/Didio(creative officers on the source material) whom all of them have endorsed this film enthusiastically. I won't, seeing as how little good such an appeal will add to the conversation given how fickle all these people have proven to be and or their standing ties with time warner(Waid included).
Appealing to authority is a can of worms and because of that it's a fallacy that is avoided when possible.

Then there is the matter of Waid's much celebrated Kingdom come story arc. He should dedicate a few pages of his own blog to that book.


“..re-educate this misguided and less intelligent person..”
what's up with that?
Either you are taking this far to personally, or you can attempt to point out where I ever said anything of the sort to anyone. Or you are simply trying to paint a defaming picture of your opposition.
I just find that choice of words odd.