How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER* - Part 1

[Lencho01]

Superan Killing Zod and F/Zaora in the comics
Right click and open image in new tab to view a larger picture and read the text.

Zod: You may have roobed us of our powers superman but that will avail you nothing!
Zod: We will find a way to get them back! We will find a way to get to your reality
Zod: and we will 'DESTROY YOU AND YOUR WORLD!
Zaora: You cannot even return us to the phantom zone!
Superman: You're Right zaora. I have no Idea how to rebuild the phantom Zone Projector Quex-ul destoryed.
Superman: Nevertheless, I am forced to stop the three of you once and for all!
Superman: You have ruthlessly murdered all the people on this planet... FIVE BILLION HUMAN!
Superman: That is a crime without equal! The Nazi Holocaust Pales by comparison.
Zod: You share this pathetic idealism. you cherish life even ours and that is what make you weak.
Superman: what i must now do is harder than anything i have ever done before but as the last representative of law and justice on this world it falls to me to act as JUDGE, JURY.... AND EXECUTIONER
ZOD: GREEN KRYPTONITE!
ZAORA: NO! NO!!

Zod: *beg's for life*
Zaora: *beg's for life then offers to be superman's sex slave*
Superman: *Cry's*

technically Zod gets murder by the other Kryptonian while superman is killing all three with the Kryptonite.

That was even worse than MOS because he straight up killed powerless people.

 

[Max Newlander]

This was the first origins story since 1978.

Things that I expected was to see and hear on screen -

Some new imaging, and some reimaging.

Superman being 'Super'.

A rousing score.

An exciting and 'wow' moment when the public were introduced to Superman.

Some of the above I got, some I didn't, however something I didn't expect was that by the end of the re-boot Superman would have been a killer.

It just doesn't sit with me at all.

Some superhero's might be able to get away with such extremes, but someone with such massive powers, and morals like the MoS shouldn't. "With great powers comes great responsibilities" is always the perfect ethos for 'Super' powerful hero's.

However Superman was let down by a poor script ultimately. IMO.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah I understand all this, Superman does it because he didn't have any other option in the situation, I get that and so does everyone who is okay with it, given the circumstances. I'm not saying everyone who is okay with it is wrong and should feel bad, because Superman is presented with a very tough decision.

I just wish it wasn't written like that. For instance, Faora, Nam Ek (the bog guy if that's his name) and all the other Kryptonians presented the same challenge as Zod. Near invunerable, wouldn't stop and wouldn't back down. Did Superman have to go round breaking all their necks? No, the story was written so that that didn't have to happen. To which I say the same could have been done for Zod. Writing him out by being murdered by Superman wasn't the only way to do it.

Now I'm not saying films shouldn't challenge notions of what can be done, or make us think outside the box, but the climax here doesn't attempt to do that (in my opinion).

Great post! Completely agreed. I find it hard to understand how people in favor of this ending claim "realism" and that sending him to the zone would've been "lazy" but have no problem with the rest of the Kryptonians being sent away...that logic doesn't compute for me.

 

[BH/HHH]

That was even worse than MOS because he straight up killed powerless people.

Yeah problem with that was it was execution. But knowing what followed like Exile, Panic in the Sky etc I can't help but be a fan of that story cause I consider the period between that and the Death as the best in Superman comics.

 

[Marvin]

As for the argument 'Well what else could he have done against the General, as he was as strong and as indestructible'

Well this comes down to poor story telling, poor scripting, and a poor concept. In this story the writers should have written a better screenplay that gave an option other than death at the end. Be that the phantom zone, or whatever. However they decided on the ultimate example of lazy storytelling by having 45mins of pure destruction, then after hitting their 2hrs 25mins (or whatever) limit in time they just decided that Superman would turn into some kind of trained cold blooded killer who professionally snaps people's necks in a crisis. There should have been a better option in the script, someone somewhere in the production of this movie should have said 'Does this feel right as an ending, or as something Superman would do'. This is my opinion on the matter. I will accept the ending was probably the only way to go in this version of Superman, but that's not a glowing endorsement, just highlights how poor this script was. (IMO)

If they had Zod get knocked out after a punch...that might have worked. And I'm thinking some of you might have thought that was "better" writing.
God forbid they give a hero a moral dilemma and a real inner challenge when approaching an origin story.

I for one am not a fan of this better by fact of purism way of thinking I've reading. This is the same rhetoric people have for explaining why red trunks result in a better costume/movie than no trunks. Obviously that's a far lesser issue but the point is that people are using purism as their argument. I heard someone say that if zod got sucked up with the rest of them, it would have been "Stronger writing". Really, stronger writing? Take a step back and really weigh concepts against each other. More accepted, more enjoyable...no, stronger writing...
please explain.

On a side note.
Also, before calling superman a "cold blooded killer" take a look at what the other bright, colouful, funny and inspirational heroes are doing these days. Superman may be different(and in this film he is unless you're blind), but when's the last time anyone called Cap and Stark(and the rest of them) "cold blooded killers"?

Someone ask hawkeye how many head shots it takes before one wins the title of being a cold blooded killer...

With the situation, the stakes and the remorse....
Cold blooded killer....you guys must really be upset of this.

buzz words.

 

[Marvin]

Still that is one of the only few isolated events in superman's history to depict that kind of action. Arguably every super-hero should kill their main super-villain adversary due to the fact they will undoubtedly kill and destroy again?

As Pa kent would say, "Maybe".

Some do, some don't, some are better at this than others. Some are always written with alternatives some just never encounter it.

When faced with this situation, canon has shown us how superman acted. Curious how this can be disputed...
pocket universe? Bad writing?
I personally don't even care about canon but we seemingly have a bunch of purists in our midst.

This is something Batman in the comics goes through constantly with the joker about why he doesn't just kill him and stop him for good?

I know you are talking about the comics but to be sure, but batman has absolutely never faced a dilemma like the one faced by this films superman. Especially after 2 days of costume wearing.

I can only remember it storta happening once, and bat's was gung ho about it.

This has been one of the defining issues of characters like batman and superman for years now.

Before or after he killed Zod?

 

[Daybreak_st]

They where threatening to get out of there pocket universe and kill every human in his universe if he left them alive. He knew that potentially that they could get there powers back. He knew they where capable of mass murder. So they would eventually come to his world and kill if he just left them there. He was in a no win situation so he had no choice. It's identical to what they did in MOS.

Not exactly. I'm not going to defend stupid plot lines from the comics but put it in perspective. They killed that universe's Superboy. Without him to oppose them they wiped out the planet. Mass genocide. Not just threatened but did it with smiles. Now they threatened to do it again. He felt that in that context, with no way for them to stand trial for their crimes the only justice was being sentenced to death. Those people were worse than any Nazi of war crimes including Hitler himself. So yes Superman wasn't just trying to punish them but doing what he felt would've been done based on a legal system if such a system still existed in that place. And like people have already said it have major repercussions beyond a loud scream. Not really the same thing in MOS. Not saying I agree with the story but the scenario was a little different.

I'd add something that seems a bit obvious but when he first discovers the ship and is attacked by the security drone he's injured and bleeding. Hmmm...as the end shows us he was able to snap Zod's neck...hmmm...Doesn't that raise the question why they never bled or seemed actually injured in their fights? Basic internal story logic would indicate that if a drone could make him bleed then a punch to the face would do the same. Similarly if enough force could break a neck couldn't a solid punch break a nose or make him or Zod bleed. My point is if that was the case then the fight would've rendered both of them very hurt by the end of that fight, equivalent to two regular guys injuring each other in a down and out brawl. So why couldn't he have been knocked unconscious? It worked at the end of the Incredible Hulk with the Abomination. They could've easily not destroyed that one ship and converted it into the fortress of solitude or some such thing.

 

[Daybreak_st]

As Pa kent would say, "Maybe".

Some do, some don't, some are better at this than others. Some are always written with alternatives some just never encounter it.

When faced with this situation, canon has shown us how superman acted. Curious how this can be disputed...
pocket universe? Bad writing?
I personally don't even care about canon but we seemingly have a bunch of purists in our midst.


I know you are talking about the comics but to be sure, but batman has absolutely never faced a dilemma like the one faced by this films superman. Especially after 2 days of costume wearing.

I can only remember it storta happening once, and bat's was gung ho about it.


Before or after he killed Zod?

Ok see I like you and most of your posts, but now with "purist" label on anyone who didn't like elements of the film like the killing...now that we know Nolan also wasn't a fan of that ending originally I'm going to resort to calling those who do like it as "Goyer fanboys"...there I said. And I'm not taking it back

 

[Marvin]

Ok see I like you and most of your posts, but now with "purist" label on anyone who didn't like elements of the film like the killing...now that we know Nolan also wasn't a fan of that ending originally I'm going to resort to calling those who do like it as "Goyer fanboys"...there I said. And I'm not taking it back

Do we or or do we not have purists here? I'm sure you've read one or two of Heretic's posts. I think he's a purist. I also don't think that's any kind of dig. I'm a batman purist.
However to these individuals, mostly everything is explained by an appeal to "legacy"(i guess). I've seen maybe one or two arguments as to why it's "better" if Clark learned his strong aversion to killing form his up bringing alone. Most of the rest, because that's how it is in the books.

We have goyer/nolan/snyder fanboys here to. I wonder what lines of thought they have been using to rationalize any of this. Certainly not purism.

And to be clear, I said we have a bunch of purists on here, not everyone here or everyone against this is one. It's up to you to decide what type of man you want to be.

And yes, now that we know Nolan(the man with seemingly full script approval) was initially against the idea of a superman movie ending like one of his batman movies and killing someone but then was convinced after actually looking at the resolution with an open and analytical mind....people are going to start waving the Nolan is on our side flag. Don't let me stop you. Again, that's your choice.

 

[Marvin]

What if Zod wanted to kill himself? Would people also argue that Superman is immoral for not letting him?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Had a thought this morning.

To all the people saying 'what was he supposed to do, just let that family die?'

Doesn't that sort of mirror what Clark said to JK after saving the kids on the bus.

And JK's response? Maybe.

As in he recognised that there is sometimes a bigger picture to look at - something more important that needs to be preserved at all costs.

Just a thought.

 

[Mysteryman]

I've been back and forth about the killing thing. To be honest reading snyders explanation of "this is why superman doesn't kill" kinda turned me against the idea again.

Just based on the values he had been brought up with, did he need that lesson to know why he shouldn't have to kill?

Did he have to be written into a situation where he had no choice but to kill to actually feel the impact of taking a life? I'm still not sure.

It's also very interesting how Nolan was actually very against them having superman kill.

but, he got on board in the end .

 

[elgaz]

Had a thought this morning.

To all the people saying 'what was he supposed to do, just let that family die?'

Doesn't that sort of mirror what Clark said to JK after saving the kids on the bus.

And JK's response? Maybe.

As in he recognised that there is sometimes a bigger picture to look at - something more important that needs to be preserved at all costs.

Just a thought.

For me, the bigger picture was what we got. Superman was preserving humanity's future when he snapped Zod's neck. Zod himself freely admitted he would never stop.

 

[Smashlilman]

If they had Zod get knocked out after a punch...that might have worked. And I'm thinking some of you might have thought that was "better" writing.
God forbid they give a hero a moral dilemma and a real inner challenge when approaching an origin story.

I for one am not a fan of this better by fact of purism way of thinking I've reading. This is the same rhetoric people have for explaining why red trunks result in a better costume/movie than no trunks. Obviously that's a far lesser issue but the point is that people are using purism as their argument. I heard someone say that if zod got sucked up with the rest of them, it would have been "Stronger writing". Really, stronger writing? Take a step back and really weigh concepts against each other. More accepted, more enjoyable...no, stronger writing...
please explain.

On a side note.
Also, before calling superman a "cold blooded killer" take a look at what the other bright, colouful, funny and inspirational heroes are doing these days. Superman may be different(and in this film he is unless you're blind), but when's the last time anyone called Cap and Stark(and the rest of them) "cold blooded killers"?

Someone ask hawkeye how many head shots it takes before one wins the title of being a cold blooded killer...

With the situation, the stakes and the remorse....
Cold blooded killer....you guys must really be upset of this.

buzz words.

The funny thing is using a Deus ex Machina is weak writing. The Phantom Zone in an of it self is the Deus ex Machina in this movie and of the Comic to make Superman's choices easy.

 

[elgaz]

The funny thing is using a Deus ex Machina is weak writing. The Phantom Zone in an of it self is the Deus ex Machina in this movie and of the Comic to make Superman's choices easy.

I think this sums it up. Superman didn't take the easy choice in this film; he took the hard one. He's not a natural born killer like Zod and his Kryptonian soldiers were. His natural instinct is to help people and to preserve life, not end it; hence why he reacted so emotionally after killing Zod and why he was begging Zod to stop even as he had him in his choke hold and Zod was about to fry the humans. Snyder went to lengths here to show that Zod had been given every chance available up until the last minute.

I think the repercussions of what he did will certainly be explored in a future film, but I'm not surprised we didn't really get to see them at the end of MOS. The film was already clocking well over 2hrs by the time we get to Superman killing Zod, I just don't think their editing allowed for much restrospective sentimentality after the act.

 

[Daybreak_st]

And to be clear, I said we have a bunch of purists on here, not everyone here or everyone against this is one. It's up to you to decide what type of man you want to be.

See this is why I like your posts

 

[Max Newlander]

If they had Zod get knocked out after a punch...that might have worked. And I'm thinking some of you might have thought that was "better" writing.
God forbid they give a hero a moral dilemma and a real inner challenge when approaching an origin story.

I for one am not a fan of this better by fact of purism way of thinking I've reading. This is the same rhetoric people have for explaining why red trunks result in a better costume/movie than no trunks. Obviously that's a far lesser issue but the point is that people are using purism as their argument. I heard someone say that if zod got sucked up with the rest of them, it would have been "Stronger writing". Really, stronger writing? Take a step back and really weigh concepts against each other. More accepted, more enjoyable...no, stronger writing...
please explain.

On a side note.
Also, before calling superman a "cold blooded killer" take a look at what the other bright, colouful, funny and inspirational heroes are doing these days. Superman may be different(and in this film he is unless you're blind), but when's the last time anyone called Cap and Stark(and the rest of them) "cold blooded killers"?

Someone ask hawkeye how many head shots it takes before one wins the title of being a cold blooded killer...

With the situation, the stakes and the remorse....
Cold blooded killer....you guys must really be upset of this.

buzz words.

Superman doesn't kill people, maybe in some comic story lines he does, but the ethos of the character doesn't. I also love the tone of your post, and the way you are generalising all the posters that don't like it and grouping us together as 'purists' .. I ultimately don't really care what pigpen hole you want to put me in (that's irrelevant to me). However in my opinion better writing and a better concept of storyline would have given Superman a better option than taking someone's life. As you don't truly understand my original post, I will explain for your benefit what I meant... I was not expecting a few lines of a re-write to solve the problem of killing Zod, I wanted the storyline to be fundamentally different, through intelligent writing to provide a less brutal ending to a comicbook movie about Superman. Superman snapping someone's neck!!! What's next?

As for this, showing Superman's anguish over wether to kill him or not is intense and clever writing.. Please. That was a 'we need a way to end this marathon action sequence and quite honestly we have nothing else' So let's go against everything the character stands for and have him kill Zod!!! Yeehaa we have a solution...

 

[Smashlilman]

Not exactly. I'm not going to defend stupid plot lines from the comics but put it in perspective. They killed that universe's Superboy. Without him to oppose them they wiped out the planet. Mass genocide. Not just threatened but did it with smiles. Now they threatened to do it again. He felt that in that context, with no way for them to stand trial for their crimes the only justice was being sentenced to death. Those people were worse than any Nazi of war crimes including Hitler himself. So yes Superman wasn't just trying to punish them but doing what he felt would've been done based on a legal system if such a system still existed in that place. And like people have already said it have major repercussions beyond a loud scream. Not really the same thing in MOS. Not saying I agree with the story but the scenario was a little different.

I'd add something that seems a bit obvious but when he first discovers the ship and is attacked by the security drone he's injured and bleeding. Hmmm...as the end shows us he was able to snap Zod's neck...hmmm...Doesn't that raise the question why they never bled or seemed actually injured in their fights? Basic internal story logic would indicate that if a drone could make him bleed then a punch to the face would do the same. Similarly if enough force could break a neck couldn't a solid punch break a nose or make him or Zod bleed. My point is if that was the case then the fight would've rendered both of them very hurt by the end of that fight, equivalent to two regular guys injuring each other in a down and out brawl. So why couldn't he have been knocked unconscious? It worked at the end of the Incredible Hulk with the Abomination. They could've easily not destroyed that one ship and converted it into the fortress of solitude or some such thing.

Um They weren't Threatening Mass Genocide in Man of Steel They where in the process of doing so. The only reason they didn't kill more was because superman bused there World Engine. There was a 100% change that Zod was going to killed every one. Whether he did it with a World engine or he kill everyone by hand. He was going to commit Genocide. Purely out of spite for Kal-El.

Read this

I got this from IMDB.

by General_Haberdashery




Decided to make a list since the same questions keep resurfacing. A lot of these answers were given in the film, some are common sense, or would be known to anyone familiar with Superman, but if you aren't familiar with Superman or missed something I hope this helps.

1. How did the suit get on the 20,000 year-old ship? Did Jor-El's hologram print it out or something? Makes no sense, man!

No, Jor-El's hologram didn't download it. It is a 20,000 year old suit. The suit belonged to the explorers who were aboard the scout ship. The reason it has an 'S' already on it was explained in the film. The symbol represents 'HOPE" not the El Family, aslo if you note during the scene where Holo-Jor-El projects the history of Krypton for Kal-El, you will see that the space colonists were planting flags with the 'S' on it at the planets they arrived at. Not to claim for the El family, but to symbolize the hope for Krypton and it's expansion. The symbol is not used in the same way as previous films or comics.​

2. Why did Zod take Lois in the ship, he aready had Kal-El? Stupid!

Zod took her for the same reason the Feds did.

Zod wanted to extract every bit of info on Kal El's secret identity, and if you recall, the national news networks had interviewed a blogger who stated that Lois knows who the alien really is. Zod monitored the news, apparently.

When she meets up with Clark after he passes out, she explains that they went into her mind and learned everything she knew about him. Zod didn't know exactly what she knew, just that she knew something. As a brilliant tactician and military mind, to make sure that he had all the possible information he could, he took her to see exactly what she knew.

He didn't want to take any chances and wanted to know everything he could.

Remember, at this time he wanted the codex, not Kal El specifically.
The location of the pod Kal El was sent in could have housed it.

Anyone with any information (including Ma Kent) were questioned.​

3. Why not just read Ma Kent's mind instead of choking her? DUH!

Obviously there was no need. The choke worked.​

4. Why didn't the Kryptonians evacuate the planet when Jor-El told them to?! They have spaceships, just fly away!

No one believed Jor-El. One man saying the planet is going to explode isn't enough to convince the entire population to leave it. Especially if that man's theories are refuted by other scientists.

When a man tells the world that the planet is going to end very shortly (by comet/meteor, God/rapture, natural disaster, etc.) on Earth, no matter how respected, what happens? No listens, and they're always wrong.

Krypton was an isolationist society, heavily controlled, and mired in bureaucracy. They stopped exploring (Jor-El explains this) and were content to remain where they were with what they had. The leaders were arrogant and stubborn. The implosion happens so violently and suddenly there was no time to leave. None of their ships were prepared for long distance space travel with no clear destination. If someone DID managed to get through the violent quakes and volcanic eruptions and make it to a ship that wasn't toppled over how far would they get with the little food, water, and fuel that they had?​

5. Why didn't Kal-El lead Zod away from Metropolis? He did that in Superman 2, so why not do it again?

The fight between Superman and the Kryptonians/Zod in metropolis during Superman 2 and Man of Steel were not for the same reasons. In Superman 2, Zod wanted to rule Earth, and defeat Kal-El based on his hatred of his father. In Man of Steel, Zod explained his goal for the planet before the fight. To kill every human he could. Illustrated when he tries to incinerate a family. The fight in Man of Steel was to keep him from doing that. If Kal-El suddenly left Metropolis hoping Zod would follow to some desert or Antarctica, he would have seen Zod stay behind to continue his destruction of the city.

Zod in Superman 2 wanted to rule humans. Zod in Man of Steel wanted them all dead. Two different objectives for the fights taking place.​

6. He could have just flown straight up though and took him out of Metropolis, right? So stupid yall!

At the point where they were fighting Zod had learned to begin to master the ability to fly. If Superman tried to fly up, Zod simply had to fly down. What would happen when this occured would have been a stalemate which is pretty much what we saw. Zod could have easily resisted Superman's attempt to pull him up.​

7. Since when are there Kryptonian "avatar" Dragons? So ridiculous!

Since October 1, 1952. http://i.imgur.com/dqAauXm.jpg

Kryptonian dragons exist on Krypton in the comics and one recently appeared in the latest version of Superman comics (New 52) which he killed.
​

8. Why Terraform Earth? Zod could have found another place, come on!

In order to have a new Krypton fully restored Zod needed two things: 1. The Codex and 2. A suitable world. He found both on Earth. Could he have left and found another world to terraform? Absolutely. He could have also simply adapted to Earth's atmosphere and lived peacefully with the humans. He didn't want that. He viewed humanity as inferior and irrelevant.

Zod was no different than the many human conquerors throughout history that went to new lands and wiped out the native population to take everything, rather than live peacefully or find another place to settle. He's a psychopath from an isolationist world.​

8B Superman could have convinced him to leave, why didn't he?? Lame.

He did try. During the scene where Zod entered his mind. He begged him not to do it. He literally screamed 'NO!" Later holographic Jor-El also tried to change his mind, and Zod erased him entirely. He didn't want to change his mind.​

9. Superman doesn't kill! Why did they make him do it?

Superman DOES kill if he has to. In fact, he killed Zod and Faora in the comics at one point before the retcon. This however doesn't negate the fact that he did this, as well as the fact that recently in the New 52 he planned to kill again when he had no choice:

http://i.imgur.com/PgWkrwT.jpg

He also killed Zod and the Nuclear Man in the previous films.​

10. Superman said he let his Dad die because people weren't ready? Crazy!

No. He said he let his father die because his father believed the world wasn't ready. His father refused to let Kal save him because he was protective of his son and feared what might happen to him. Not physically, but psychologically and emotionally if the world rejected and feared him. Maybe even worshiped him.​

11. Why is Perry White, now Black??!

Because he's played by Laurence Fishburne.

12. Why so much collateral damage? Does Superman not care?

This is consistent with the battles Superman had with powerful villains in the comic book: http://i.imgur.com/2QIeF6g.jpg

...and the cartoon where he punches Darksied through 7 skyscrapers and into the busy streets in the middle of the city: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoJ2Bd41zsw

As well as the previous movies where he threw Zod through a building and almost killed the people in a cab: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkfUUqowQjA

I am sure he would be concerned if innocent people died, but clearly some things were unavoidable. This never bothered people before, I guess.​

13. Wouldn't changing the atmosphere render the Kryptonians powerless? Why terraform then?

The powers came from the sun and the environment of the planet Earth. They could likely have retained their abilities in a new planetary atmosphere and gravity level with the same sun in some capacity or degree.​

14. So Superman can now breath underwater and in space? Come on!!

No, he can't. He held his breath. Kryptonians breath like we do. That was why Zod and his crew wore helmets on Earth.​

15. Why was Superman coughing on the ship? So dumb!

The ship had a Krytponian atmosphere, like how the Star Trek Enterprise has an Earth one. Kal-El's body was used to Earth's atmosphere after breathing it for 33 years and the sudden transition overwhelmed him. Lois had a helmet on to protect her. He did not.​

16. Who suddenly rebuilt Metropolis??! Clark just walks into the Daily Planet and everything is suddenly normal?

Time had passed.​

17. Why no use of the John Williams theme?

It's 2013. This is a new Superman and they want a new score.​

18. How did Clark know about the ship in Antarctica?! Silly.

Using his super sense of hearing. He overheard the soldiers in the bar talking about what was discovered there. He somehow worked his way into being a part of the crew that did menial labor. Once he got there, he then used his X-ray vision to see exactly where the ship was. Once he found it, he used his heat-vision to bore a tunnel straight to it. That's why the tunnel Lois entered was dripping and had running water in it. He literally just made it.​

19. Why did the Council send Zod to the Phantom Zone when the planet was about to be destroyed?

Jor-El was the only one freaking out about the planet's destruction, and he's killed by Zod before he and his goons are sentenced to the Phantom Zone. If he had been alive, then there would actually be a legitimate reason for this question, because you can assume that were Jor-El alive, he would object to sending Zod off planet. But he got killed, and I think the writers did this on purpose specifically so there would be nobody to object to sending Zod away.​

20. Why did Superman lose his powers aboard Zod's ship ?

When Superman is restrained to the operating table (for lack of a better word) Kryptonian criminal scientist Jax-Ur explains to him that his strength derived from the Earth's sun was neutralized. The Kryptonians had the technology to enter his mind aboard their ship, it stands to reason that they also had the ability to neutralize his strength. One could assume it could be some form of technology that generated a form of Red Sun Radiation or even possibly an atmospheric configuration that they used because it was clearly planned, but once Jor-El took over the ship, it ceased to function (alarms went off) and Superman's strength returned instantly, but it isn't explained exactly how they did it. Just that they did it.

EDIT: Forgot to add that Jor-El also once downloaded into the computer, changed the atmospherics back to the Earth composition. This also benefited Kal-El. Whatever device they were using ceased to function at that point.​

21. Why did Superman get weakened aboard the ship? What the?!




http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/board/thread/216037205

 

[elgaz]

Superman doesn't kill people, maybe in some comic story lines he does, but the ethos of the character doesn't

I don't get this 'ethos'. Every interpretation of Superman is different, and there's no single defining interpretation. Sure, they all maintain most of the common themes (Superman being a force for good, his Kryptonian background, the suit, the powers, etc) but that's where it ends. Some have him stronger than others; some have him more reserved; some have him willing to kill.

You seem to imply that Superman has been this whiter than white character and MOS has somehow tarnished that by having him break his enemy's neck when he felt he had no other options left. I'm genuinely curious then as to what your thoughts are on the following?

Superman vs Doomsday - he ended Doomsday's life in order to stop further destruction and loss of human life. Doomsday of course recuperated later, but Superman wasn't aware of his regenerative abilities at that stage - he was, to all intents and purposes, killed by Superman.

Superman II - after neutralising the Kryptonian's superpowers and with them no longer posing any kind of threat, he tossed Zod to his death in a black abyss underneath the fortress of solitude. He also did nothing to stop the other 2 going to similar fates.

Superman IV - after moving the moon into a position where it would block the sun's rays from hitting Earth, Superman killed Nuclear Man by tossing his depowered body into the core of a nuclear reactor.

Superman Returns - Superman is indirectly responsible for the death of all of Luthor's henchmen. They are all crushed by a huge rock which falls over when Superman begins lifting New Krypton.

Injustice - Gods Among us - an enraged Superman kills the Joker after he causes the death of Lois and her unborn child.

Action Comics #583 - he kills Mr Mxyzptlk when his body is torn apart by a phantom zone projector.

And of course, there's the example already quoted where he killed the 3 pocket universe Kryptonians.

Superman has killed before, when he has to and sometimes even when he didn't. The only difference in MOS is that it's arguably done in a more brutal way, but the method shouldn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Marvin]

Had a thought this morning.

To all the people saying 'what was he supposed to do, just let that family die?'

Doesn't that sort of mirror what Clark said to JK after saving the kids on the bus.

And JK's response? Maybe.

As in he recognised that there is sometimes a bigger picture to look at - something more important that needs to be preserved at all costs.

Just a thought.

It's a good point and it highlights the quality of the script in itself. A recurring theme payed off in a big way. Clark had to decide. And he got that lesson from his father.
Superman.

 

[Marvin]

The funny thing is using a Deus ex Machina is weak writing. The Phantom Zone in an of it self is the Deus ex Machina in this movie and of the Comic to make Superman's choices easy.

Luckily a certain someone(I believe his name is Satan) but most people refer to him as Zack, saw this and pushed for a more thought provoking and deconstructing ending.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

The funny thing is using a Deus ex Machina is weak writing. The Phantom Zone in an of it self is the Deus ex Machina in this movie and of the Comic to make Superman's choices easy.

I get the sense that with some people, not necessarily here but perhaps or maybe some critics, that they don't like that the ending challenged them especially considering it's Superman. They wanted a nice easy safe choice with how Superman could resolve the situation, just suck the aliens into another dimension. No hard choice for the superhero to make, everyone is happy, yay! I like how the superhero and thus the audience was challenged with the dilemma Superman faced. No cheap and easy way out.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Superman never kills anyone, except sometimes when he does.

 

[Marvin]

Superman doesn't kill people, maybe in some comic story lines he does, but the ethos of the character doesn't. I also love the tone of your post, and the way you are generalising all the posters that don't like it and grouping us together as 'purists' .. I ultimately don't really care what pigpen hole you want to put me in (that's irrelevant to me). However in my opinion better writing and a better concept of storyline would have given Superman a better option than taking someone's life. As you don't truly understand my original post, I will explain for your benefit what I meant... I was not expecting a few lines of a re-write to solve the problem of killing Zod, I wanted the storyline to be fundamentally different, through intelligent writing to provide a less brutal ending to a comicbook movie about Superman. Superman snapping someone's neck!!! What's next?

Not sure when I called you purists, in fact I went on to state that some people are acting like purists and some are explaining themselves beyond holding up source material that argues against their point better than I could ever hope to.

I respect your opinion, tbh if I wrote the movie I would probably have gone a different way. I would go a different way for lots of movies, especially cbms. That doesn't devaule the films though. You think it would have been a "better" (superman)story with a more traditional approach(this is pretty darn traditional btw), but just as many people think otherwise. I'm looking for the why's though. Beyond, "I wanted the storyline...a less brutal ending to a comic book movie about superman".
Ok great.
You could say the same about the death of superman arc too, that's not how you go about criticizing that story imo.

As for this, showing Superman's anguish over wether to kill him or not is intense and clever writing.. Please. That was a 'we need a way to end this marathon action sequence and quite honestly we have nothing else' So let's go against everything the character stands for and have him kill Zod!!! Yeehaa we have a solution...

Before I address this, could you please tell me if you are being serious? Honest question.

 

[Marvin]

See this is why I like your posts

cool.