Discussion in 'Man of Steel' started by Frontier, Jun 14, 2013.
Yes! Thank you!
It was certainly a risky move, but what win me over was his guilt scream and how he hugged Loise looking for consolation.
I just loved that incredibly human moment.
The same Kents who believed even for a moment he should have let the kids on the bus die in order to protect his secret?
And I love Superman. He's my favorite superhero. About a year ago when the topic on whether he should kill or not I made a strong argument that he should not but Man of Steel showed me he could.
Thank you. You basically said what I was trying to say, but your response was more eloquent.
Yeah, obviously we don't like Superman, seeing as we saw MOS at midnight, read the comics, watch the DVD's, and spend hours of our time on a SUPERMAN forum saying how much we love the guy. We're weird that way, I guess.
The Kents would never even CONSIDER that Clark should let those kids die. It would not even cross their minds.
What this movie did to redefine the Kents was worse than what they did to redefine Superman.
^ Agreed. I like the movie, but agreed.
Then maybe some of you like him, but don't understand him.
This movie is very, very damaging to the Superman character. In Kill Bill 2, we had Tarantino give us a monologue that was so incredibly misguided that anyone with any knowledge of Superman should have known how wrong it was. Instead...the mainstream non-comic reading community actually believed that this was the real Superman. This stupid scene that didn't even happen in a Superman filmed redefined Superman in many people's eyes.
Now we get this movie...where the Kents think that maybe Clark should let people die, and CERTAINLY they believe that Clark should stand there and watch his loved ones needlessly die. This movie is saying that Clark did not receive the needed moral upbringing to become the Man of Tomorrow, and will kill his villains to win.
We are seeing a major, major shift in what Superman is, and those of us who appreciate what he used to stand for do not like it.
I was just pointing that you said that we who "don't even like Superman" disregard the actual plot of the film and use sources outside the film to support our stance. When you are doing the same.
"kill his villains to win."
I'm sure Superman didn't feel like he was winning. Zod was beat and wanted to die. Superman knew that if he didn't do something, more would die in the long run, and a visible family was at stake. There wasn't any longterm solution. Unless this is an ongoing problem for the series, I would consider it to be a fluke and not let it ruin the franchise for me.
I'm not disreagrding the plot of the film...I'm saying that it is not Superman.
Deadpool with no mouth who could shoot eye beams and teleport was not Deadpool...and Superman who was raised by a Kent family that believed that maybe people (including loved ones) should be allowed to die, and that winning with brute strength at any cost is the secret to being considered a beacon of hope is NOT Superman.
It could have had major, major impact if this were Man of Steel 5...but it is a redefined origin, with no back story about his morality/no-kill policy.
Well regardless of what anybody says....SUPERMAN IS THE GREATEST SUPERHERO OF ALL TIME!!!
I grew up reading the 1930's era comic so to me a Superman that can fly and doesn't kill people isn't Superman
I said the film made a clear point that he will become an ideal for others and you said it already happened because he lived with the Kent's for 33 years and now your saying the Kents aren't the moral compass you originally stated.
And this Superman is not using brute strength to be a symbol of hope. You want that you get Iron Man who deliberately told a he would kill him. This Superman screamed in pain over the death of Zod some might say more powerful then when he screamed in pain at his father's death. You're making this Superman out to be a remorseless killer.
Zod's death is the backstory of his morality.
I wonder if a lot of people would have changed their stance on the killing aspect if the final fight had taken place on a rooftop or inside a busted up skyscraper where after Zod dies Supes reacts not just to what he did but to a visual of all the death and carnage in Metropolis. a sweeping over the shoulder shot of the destroyed city skyline. And maybe leave Lois out of it, leave him alone on his knees crying and taking it all in.
I love the comic book Superman, and it is because of his incredible and noble moral outlook. If asked a year ago about Superman killing on the big screen I would be firmly in the anti camp on that question. I myself am very surprised at my own reaction. I accept this version, and think it added a weight, and emotional weight that might other wise not be there. I understand the other sides argument, I really do. That the creative team decided to write a story in which the resolution was Superman taking the life of the villain is the real bone of contention. They decided on no outs, no idealized magical 3rd option, some maguffin or some contrivance of Superman's super intellect. I would never in a million years thought I would be fine with that kind of story. But as a dramatic and heartfelt moment in a film, it worked. Because of the love and connection I have always felt for the character I was devastated he was put in this situation. It brought a strong reaction from me. However it did not ruin the movie for me. It did not make me think of this as a ''failed" version of Superman. If anything it made me commiserate with him all the more. As this is the first in a franchise picture and possibly a DCCU I have a strong feeling that this as an issue is not going to be glossed over in future installments. I have only my gut to tell me that having experienced the taking of a life, this Superman will not go down that road again and will, from this moment on, always look for another way. Of course, I could be wrong....
He really had no option, Zod wanted to die and clearly forced supermans hand at that point. Theres no kryptonite, i dunno what cell would hold him, and Superman couldnt open up the phantom zone again. Zod's total reason for being up to that point was taken from him and he went ham.
Ah yes...the old "he was changed once, so he can be changed again" tactic.
The problem is...in the Golden Age...with all due respect to those creators...some didn't really understand what they had on their hands. Later creators really defined them...Batman doesn't use a gun (even though he used to)...and Superman doesn't kill. Once that definitive spin is given to the character...then I see NO reason why decades of comics should be thrown aside.
I'll admit that sometimes it does make sense though. Captain America was a soldier...who for some reason opposed killing the enemy. I actually liked the fairly recent run where they decided that it was idiotic that an American soldier in World War 2 would not kill a nazi in battle.
It isn't about what came first...it is about what is definitive. If we are saying that the definitive Superman is not worth continuing, then that is a sad day for the industry.
I can't decide myself yet if Zod had "death by Superman" in mind from the start or if he was beyond forming any kind of thought and was just an inferno of rage. Was he looking for a warriors death as a kind of capstone in his eyes to the end of the Kryptonian race and culture he knew, or was he just looking to tear the world apart? I can't really decide.
That actually would of been a great scene.
The Kents are the moral compass that raised the Man of Tomorrow. In this movie, we see a cheap bastardization of the Kents.
I don't know why Superman screamed out. It could have been for a variety of reasons. I believe that he screamed out because he had spent 20 years or more devoted to ONE goal...finding out about his homeland...and Zod's death was the death of his quest. That issue was ALL THROUGHOUT the movie, while "I would be sad if I kill someone" was never mentioned...so to me it makes sense in the context of the story that Clark cried out for selfish reasons, and we know nothing about whether or not he would kill again.
I think so. Like when Batman stood over the carnage after Rachel's death in TDK. It helped define his solidarity and added gravitas to the scene. Action -> consequence. Now think of Supes in the same situation but on a massive scale. Adding Lois there to comfort him I think would have stopped him from him taking it all in. Crying over having killed is one thing, crying over seeing his failure to protect the people of Metropolis is another. He won the battle but lost the war.
I thought it worked well in the context of the film. However, I was thinking he could've done that to any of them at anytime before they destroyed half of Metropolis and let thousands of people die. He knew the scope of Zod's plan before the earth bound battle commenced. I guess Snyder thought we needed to see a more "intimate" view/reason for this to go down.
Also i think the payoff of Zods death was Lois comforting Superman after that scream. Most powerful being on the planet and hes not invincible emotionally. It was really touching. She kept him from getting unhinged.