BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[spider-neil]

There's probably a bunch of other reasons why they avoided that, no doubt tonal and or thematic. A better question is to ask is why they have seemingly always avoided this. Might not have all that much to do with the length of the segmented end battle.

I would have taken them fleshing out the flashbacks they themselves introduced.

 

[Marvin]

I would have taken them fleshing out the flashbacks they themselves introduced.

That's not what you were asking for.

This new thing is something else. I think few people would disagree with it. I can't speak for everyone though.

 

[The Question]

Aw hell. I can't stay away.

The_Guard did a fabulous job with your post, but I have to go through this (again):

• The killing of Zod is not integrated into the script as a major plot point, and thus is only shocking because Superman doesn't kill in other continuities;

Yes. He. Does.

I realize in the current canon that he hasn't killed, but he killed in Superman II, he's killed Zod and two other Kryptonians, he killed Doomsday. He's killed the Joker.

In one arc of Superman/Batman, he killed Green Arrow (incineration) and Wonder Woman (beaten and strangled with her lasso) He and Batman fixed everything they broke, but they both still killed people.

I think he killed Joe Chill once.

And Parademons, which I think are considered sentient beings.

Did I forget anything?

So? Wether or not Superman has killed in other continuities is irrelevant, except to say that if he has then it makes Zod's death even less impactful. The criticism wasn't "Superman has never killed anyone in any other version of the mythos," 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."

 

[Krumm]

So? Wether or not Superman has killed in other continuities is irrelevant, except to say that if he has then it makes Zod's death even less impactful. The criticism wasn't "Superman has never killed anyone in any other version of the mythos," 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'll agree that it is "tacked on" to a certain extent. But I think an argument can be made that it does fit one of the threads of the story. Jonathan's whole purpose in protecting Clark was that he didn't think the world was ready and also that Clark may not be ready. His decision to kill Zod and the emotional and psychological impact it has on Clark can fall under Jonathan's teachings about the responsibility that comes with what he can do.

 

[The Question]

I'll agree that it is "tacked on" to a certain extent. But I think an argument can be made that it does fit one of the threads of the story. Jonathan's whole purpose in protecting Clark was that he didn't think the world was ready and also that Clark may not be ready. His decision to kill Zod and the emotional and psychological impact it has on Clark can fall under Jonathan's teachings about the responsibility that comes with what he can do.

I don't see that reflected in the film itself. That is to say, that connection could be made, but I didn't see the film actually make that connection.

 

[BlueLantern]

Oh, so now that we've shown that MOS has canon base in it, now we're just going to say that canon sucks too.

I would really like to know, more than anything else about the details of your hatred of MOS, what Superman story fits the mold of what you think Superman should be.

Because that is the root of all the problems in MOS for most people (I get that the shaky cam is a legitimate issue, and the choppy editing. Those are critiques I have no problems discussing).

But honestly, dig deep. Think about it. Are you disappointed with MOS because of legitimate script issues, or are you using the 'horrible script' as a cover because you simply don't like this version of Superman?

Now...I know you may try to say that the issue with Superman is in large part a problem with the script, but that's not true. If you pretend that this is not Superman, the characterization makes perfect, logical sense in the story.

So...is it the version of Superman that upsets you more than anything else?

Ask me again without being so hostile. Then we'll talk, or we'll just go around in circles.

 

[Krumm]

I dob't see that reflected in the film itself. That is to say, that connection could be made, but I didn't see the film actually make that connection.

I'll say that's fair. It's just how I digested the underlying consequences of the scene.

 

[The Question]

I'll say that's fair. It's just how I digested the underlying consequences of the scene.

That is also fair. I will say, though, that we have to recognize that we, as prior fans, have a greater tendency and greater ability to read meaning into something that may have been under developed because we possess prior knowledge of and prior emotional investment in these characters.

 

[Krumm]

That is also fair. I will say, though, that we have to recognize that we, as prior fans, have a greater tendency and greater ability to read meaning into something that may have been under developed because we possess prior knowledge of and prior emotional investment in these characters.

Definitely agreed. That's probably a large component to my enjoyment of the film. I thought the killing of Zod relied a little too much on the audiences view of Superman as a boy-scout despite my support of its inclusion in the film. I don't think it's a bad thing to use the audiences pre-conceived notions of Superman and turn it on it's head but a little more narrative support and I think most everyone would have been floored.

As it stands now, and this is completely anecdotal, I know quite a few people who just wondered, "Why didn't he just kill him from the beginning?" which isn't necessarily the reaction you want. Now that may say more about those people or the cynicism of our society but I think the narrative can carry some of the blame.

 

[Milkman95]

Anybody read Andrew Kevin Walker's Batman vs. Superman script that Wolfgang Petersen was going to direct back in 2002? Wonder if they'll take anything from that, it was pretty good IMO.

 

[Mjölnir]

Sauron is very much the active villain, remove him from the entire story and it all stops(and or never starts, this goes far beyond being the looming threat and rests in the greater antagonist with sub divisions of henchmen all directly influenced by him category, with the exception of gollum.

As for Zods accomplishments, it’s easy to paint anything in a diminished light due to circumstance. For example, if I say he made a threat to find the Kal, then followed through on that threat, one could then say kal made himself available to find. That doesn’t change the fact that he followed through on that threat and thus the tension builds and the audience feels he’s in fact, a threat. That’s like saying well Mufasa put himself in the middle of a stampede at his own discretion. Or Sauron(and his team) only found the ring when it made itself available to be found by way of beacon, these are still villainous accomplishments that build fear and antagonism. The villain gaining ground on the protagonist.
Zod killed the hero’s father. It’s been established that a villain need not achieve everything in a fair manner(again, see mufasa’s entire situation) but what’s more you yourself acknowledge that he in fact wasn’t out for the kill in the outset(implying he was holding back). The threat there is simply that he’s willing to do ugly things to get what he wants period, that establishes legitimate credible villainy. The amount of death and carnage he placed on earth speaks for itself. Amassing a force and attempting a failed takeover is nothing short of Saurons villain building. Being stopped a greater force speaks more about the greater force in this scenario. Being stopped by tripping over a log in the ground speaks to the opposite.

As for Wile E, as much comedy as there is, to shrug off the idea that the win is never expected due to the greater trope is to seemingly shrug off this similar trope ridden material at hand. People don’t actually expect the villain to defeat the hero in these stories. Like with Wile e, they expect them to present and demonstrate a threat. Point being, I don’t think there is a person in the audience that actually thinks Zod is going to defeat Superman. It all exists in the intent of the villain.

No, he's not. The only thing he does actively towards the protagonists is to talk to Aragorn. In the books he doesn't even do that. The ring is the active villain during the story, something that's been said even by the creators. Jackson was even about to have Sauron fight Aragorn at the Black Gates just because he has no active role whatsoever. Luckily they understood what the story is about and scrapped that.

Now you're really reaching. Finding Kal isn't a goal, it's a step toward the real goal which is to reclaim the codex (and in the process he finds a world to terraform). I said that Zod failed at all his goals, I didn't say he was the most ******ed man on Krypton who couldn't even tell his crew to steer towards a signal beacon. Making this equal to something like making sure Mufasa is killed and claim the rule over all the land just shows that you don't really grasp what this is about.

Zod didn't have a goal to kill Jor. In fact he wanted to avoid it as long as he could. The comparison to Scar is really bad. Scar is the weasel that couldn't rule because his brother was stronger than he, so he had to use his wits instead. Zod is the military leader that failed to use both force and wits and lost everything.

While the hero wins in the end the movie has to actually try to paint the villain as a real threat. As someone that will actually look like he can beat the protagonist. Just because the common result is the hero prevailing doesn't mean that you can just stop trying.

 

[Marvin]

No, he's not. The only thing he does actively towards the protagonists is to talk to Aragorn. In the books he doesn't even do that. The ring is the active villain during the story, something that's been said even by the creators. Jackson was even about to have Sauron fight Aragorn at the Black Gates just because he has no active role whatsoever. Luckily they understood what the story is about and scrapped that.

Now you're really reaching. Finding Kal isn't a goal, it's a step toward the real goal which is to reclaim the codex (and in the process he finds a world to terraform). I said that Zod failed at all his goals, I didn't say he was the most ******ed man on Krypton who couldn't even tell his crew to steer towards a signal beacon. Making this equal to something like making sure Mufasa is killed and claim the rule over all the land just shows that you don't really grasp what this is about.

Interestingly enough we aren’t discussing the books. Nor are we assuming the creators or director’s intentions but rather their final feature product. An abstract villain such as a ring “trying to get back to its master” vs. everything that Sauron is and is responsible for and has answer back to his person is a discussion I’d rather have at another time. I also would assume the work of Tolkien is not beyond that of multiple interpretation. The point being that for all the failures of the “villain” in LotR(and there are plenty of failures), the threat the villain propagates and presents is more than indicative of an “effective villain”, failures or no.

Separating the goal from achieving a key step in achieving that goal is hardly cause for attribution of utter failure. Finding the whereabouts the batcave(due to a slip up) but falling short of killing batman is still goal building. Lest you want to confuse taking over the kingdom with the steps to achieve said goal(getting rid of the rightful heir). I attributed finding the beacon to the badguy being alerted the one ring, a villain achieving something that builds his villainy and cues the audience into deliberate antagonistic tension.
Furthermore, I attributed killing mufasa to zod killing Jor. Something not done in a fair manner, but rather that of devious tactics, and underhanded opportunist cunning. Also building in the audiences “respect for the villain”

While the hero wins in the end the movie has to actually try to paint the villain as a real threat. As someone that will actually look like he can beat the protagonist. Just because the common result is the hero prevailing doesn't mean that you can just stop trying.

Do you mean to assert that at no point in this plot did the audience feel the “villains” were capable of overcoming or beating the hero as we know him? I would think the superior numbers and skills alone would argue against that at the outset…

 

[Mjölnir]

Interestingly enough we aren’t discussing the books. Nor are we assuming the creators or director’s intentions but rather their final feature product. An abstract villain such as a ring “trying to get back to its master” vs. everything that Sauron is and is responsible for and has answer back to his person is a discussion I’d rather have at another time. I also would assume the work of Tolkien is not beyond that of multiple interpretation. The point being that for all the failures of the “villain” in LotR(and there are plenty of failures), the threat the villain propagates and presents is more than indicative of an “effective villain”, failures or no.

Separating the goal from achieving a key step in achieving that goal is hardly cause for attribution of utter failure. Finding the whereabouts the batcave(due to a slip up) but falling short of killing batman is still goal building. Lest you want to confuse taking over the kingdom with the steps to achieve said goal(getting rid of the rightful heir). I attributed finding the beacon to the badguy being alerted the one ring, a villain achieving something that builds his villainy and cues the audience into deliberate antagonistic tension.
Furthermore, I attributed killing mufasa to zod killing Jor. Something not done in a fair manner, but rather that of devious tactics, and underhanded opportunist cunning. Also building in the audiences “respect for the villain”

We don't need to discuss it. You could just have said which direct actions Sauron took against the Fellowship and show that he's an active villain and that would have been it. Of course that's just in theory as Sauron in the movie is of extremely limited power and doesn't do anything but talk, hence not being the active villain. That's like saying that Darth Sidious is the active villain of The Empire Strikes Back.

The villains have their success in LotR as well. As an example, Gandalf doesn't just say that Saruman is the greatest of his order, Saruman straight up defeats Gandalf. With MoS writing Gandalf would have kicked his ass easily, only to let his guard down after he achieved his goal.

Counting Zod being alerted to Kal-El's presence by that beacon as a success and something that paints Zod as a villain to be reckoned with just says low standards to me. I would personally never call Frodo putting the ring on as an achievement of Sauron's.

Do you mean to assert that at no point in this plot did the audience feel the “villains” were capable of overcoming or beating the hero as we know him? I would think the superior numbers and skills alone would argue against that at the outset…

As they were consistently being written as failures I didn't have much hopes of them winning any partial victories on the way to their ultimate defeat, no. And that's how it went down. I'll give them that they killed a lot of humans, which is something. Too bad the movie seemed to just want us to focus on how cool it looked while it happened and never really touched upon it much afterwards.

 

[Marvin]

We don't need to discuss it. You could just have said which direct actions Sauron took against the Fellowship and show that he's an active villain and that would have been it. Of course that's just in theory as Sauron in the movie is of extremely limited power and doesn't do anything but talk, hence not being the active villain. That's like saying that Darth Sidious is the active villain of The Empire Strikes Back.

The villains have their success in LotR as well. As an example, Gandalf doesn't just say that Saruman is the greatest of his order, Saruman straight up defeats Gandalf. With MoS writing Gandalf would have kicked his ass easily, only to let his guard down after he achieved his goal.

Counting Zod being alerted to Kal-El's presence by that beacon as a success and something that paints Zod as a villain to be reckoned with just says low standards to me. I would personally never call Frodo putting the ring on as an achievement of Sauron's.

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.

As they were consistently being written as failures I didn't have much hopes of them winning any partial victories on the way to their ultimate defeat, no. And that's how it went down. I'll give them that they killed a lot of humans, which is something. Too bad the movie seemed to just want us to focus on how cool it looked while it happened and never really touched upon it much afterwards.

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.

 

[DA_Champion]

So? Wether or not Superman has killed in other continuities is irrelevant, except to say that if he has then it makes Zod's death even less impactful. The criticism wasn't "Superman has never killed anyone in any other version of the mythos," 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."

The Question,

Not quite my original point in bringing up this issue, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

My point about Zod's death is that it only has any meaning whatsoever because audiences are used to a Superman who doesn't kill, as per the popular conception in spite of Tempest bringing up movies from 30 years ago that almost nobody remembers, and comics that almost nobody reads. That's why the killing of Zod was a "controversial ending", because in other continuities as most fans recall them (e.g. Superman 1978, Lois and Clark, STAS) Superman doesn't kill.

However, within MoS itself (and you do address this second part), the killing is clearly appended to the movie, and in fact it is appended to the movie. That scene was ended in very late in filming, after the rest of the script was written, and without subsequently adjusting the rest of the script to better incorporate, and to increase the emotional resonance, of this particular scene. If somebody who had never heard of Superman before watched this movie, they would think nothing of the killing of Zod, it would just be the hero killing the villain like we've seen in many franchises. The ending is controversial because a Superman killed Zod, not because this Superman killed Zod.

I'm pretty angry about this, honest. I don't mind Superman killing Zod per se, but I mind Superman killing in such a wasteful manner that doesn't contribute to the plot. Zach Snyder only added one thing to the script, there are so many things he could have added... instead of amplifying an existing plot point, he decided to add a completely different plot point

 

[DA_Champion]

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.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ In his defense..yeah he should have seen the problems with his script.

But maybe the extended cut's better. Don't let the hours of extra footage go to waste! MOS DC, ASAP!

 

[DA_Champion]

As it stands now, and this is completely anecdotal, I know quite a few people who just wondered, "Why didn't he just kill him from the beginning?" which isn't necessarily the reaction you want. Now that may say more about those people or the cynicism of our society but I think the narrative can carry some of the blame.

Superman actually would not have been able to kill Zod from the beginning. That Superman was able to kill Zod is due to the fact that Zod wanted to die, it was a suicide-by-cop. Zod gave a speech saying that he no reason left to live, and then he said that either Superman would die or Zod would die.

I thought this was pretty clear, but if it's not, then that's another failing of the movie.

 

[DA_Champion]

^ In his defense..yeah he should have seen the problems with his script.

But maybe the extended cut's better. Don't let the hours of extra footage go to waste! MOS DC, ASAP!

Hollywood probably won't release the extended edition until after we've all paid $30 for the theatrical cut :-(

 

[Krumm]

Superman actually would not have been able to kill Zod from the beginning. That Superman was able to kill Zod is due to the fact that Zod wanted to die, it was a suicide-by-cop. Zod gave a speech saying that he no reason left to live, and then he said that either Superman would die or Zod would die.

I thought this was pretty clear, but if it's not, then that's another failing of the movie.

I'm aware of that. As for others who wondered why he didn't kill him from the start, you'll have to bring that up to them.

But I will say, suicide-by-cop or not, Clark still had to make that choice so that doesn't take away his responsibility in the act.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm aware of that. As for others who wondered why he didn't kill him from the start, you'll have to bring that up to them.

But I will say, suicide-by-cop or not, Clark still had to make that choice so that doesn't take away his responsibility in the act.

In the movie yes, but it could have been filmed more as euthanasia than as murder. Euthanasia and murder are not the same thing... but anyway they didn't go in that potentially interesting direction, or at least I don't think they did.

 

[Krumm]

In the movie yes, but it could have been filmed more as euthanasia than as murder. Euthanasia and murder are not the same thing... but anyway they didn't go in that potentially interesting direction, or at least I don't think they did.

I like the scene as it stands now, though it could have used more narrative support before and after the fact.

To give it more a euthanasia slant you may need Zod to ask him to kill him, in which case Clark's decision have been seen as more cold-blooded seeing as it wouldn't be in direct service of saving lives. Right now, it's a decision that is made necessary, IMO, given the circumstances laid out.

I'm sure there are other ways to make the euthanasia angle work, this is just something off the top of my head.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ 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

 

[DA_Champion]

I like the scene as it stands now, though it could have used more narrative support before and after the fact.

To give it more a euthanasia slant you may need Zod to ask him to kill him, in which case Clark's decision have been seen as more cold-blooded seeing as it wouldn't be in direct service of saving lives. Right now, it's a decision that is made necessary, IMO, given the circumstances laid out.

I'm sure there are other ways to make the euthanasia angle work, this is just something off the top of my head.

I think Zod made it clear to the audience that he wanted to die, since you understood it and I understood it and I know a lot of others understood it. I'm not sure Clark understood it since he said "you're a monster Zod, and I'm going to stop you". I kind of wonder if David S. Goyer wrote a suicide-by-cop scene without realising that this is what he was doing.

I think that for a euthanasia angle to work better we would have needed a better fleshing out of Zod's motivations, of the genetic determinism angle, so that we would feel horrified after the Genesis chambers were destroyed and thus Zod had nothing left to live for. Think of the horror when Harvey Dent lost Rachel Dawes and had half his face destroyed.

Admittedly, it's really hard to create horror.

 

[Isearch4dope]

I think the entire situation could have been nearly a non-issue if they had allowed Zod to suddenly turn his attention from Superman during their brawl to fry and clobber humans while Superman is chasing and desperately trying to stop him. Imagine Superman and Zod fighting like hell and each time he manages to establish a little space from Supes he starts firing heat vision at buildings and the people while racing towards them to clobber them. After Superman fails to save maybe 10-15 persons from Zod's rampage his anger overflows, he starts to cry and proceeds to pound Zod down ferociously non-stop and hold him in a headlock all while pleading for him to stop. Now we have the never line from Zod which leaves Supes no choice but to end him.