How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[DACrowe]

Goyer is also the man who wrote the story in the comics where Superman renounced his American citizenship.

This is a man who hates what Superman is and he has been given control over the character.

Huh, I did not know that.

That is actually really interesting, because I thought Man of Steel embraced the American iconography of the character far more than Superman Returns did. True, Superman Returns has the great moment where he "returns" on a baseball field (after saving a falling plane reminiscent of 9/11 five years before, no less...), but they refuse to show a flag or state the obvious in that movie. Even Perry White says "Truth, justice, all that stuff..."

Man of Steel point blank explains that he is an American immigrant story. It even ends with him proudly saying he grew up in Kansas and is as American as it gets. It felt more in line with how he was originally conceived to me than what Singer did or the comics as of late.

But now you tell me the biggest departure of that was written by Goyer himself? Huh. Really interesting.

 

[Marvolo]

I liked the thematic resonance of Superman reluctantly killing his Kryptonian side. But the consequence of him breaking his "one rule" (which is never explicitly developed in the movie) or the personal effects it has on his own mind are glossed over.

Thematically it makes sense. But it was both underdeveloped before and after the event, making it feel like a cheap one-off moment.

That is my problem with the scene.

Having never been a fan of the "one rule" I didn't put much thought into it. With humans I can accept the one rule as an ideal, but with Zod that rule need not apply. Man that scream Cavill did when Pa Kent died and when he killed Zod was . Usually I find that stuff cheesy, but he wasn't holding back and it didn't seem dramatic, but more raw I guess would be how I would describe it. I about choked up when Pa bit it. Jeeze, just the way Costner plays it calm and puts his hand out and accepts his fate.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Having never been a fan of the "one rule" I didn't put much thought into it. With humans I can accept the one rule as an ideal, but with Zod that rule need not apply. Man that scream Cavill did when Pa Kent died and when he killed Zod was . Usually I find that stuff cheesy, but he wasn't holding back and it didn't seem dramatic, but more raw I guess would be how I would describe it. I about choked up when Pa bit it. Jeeze, just the way Costner plays it calm and puts his hand out and accepts his fate.

Me too.

 

[Heretic]

I liked the thematic resonance of Superman reluctantly killing his Kryptonian side. But the consequence of him breaking his "one rule" (which is never explicitly developed in the movie) or the personal effects it has on his own mind are glossed over.

Thematically it makes sense. But it was both underdeveloped before and after the event, making it feel like a cheap one-off moment.

That is my problem with the scene.

That's the thing. The only way for this scene to mean what people are suggesting that it means is for the viewer to be aware of Superman's no-kill rule in other media, to know his goodness and ability to always find a way out (again, not on display in this film) and then we care because we see him have to accept that he is unable to find a way and is forced to break his rule.

The impact of the scene relies 100% on the work of other movies, comics etc.

This is why I believe that he is grieving for selfish reasons. Looking at what IS in this movie...the man had been obsessed with finding out about his homeland and heritage for decades. He basically gave up a human life to TRY to find out about his birthplace. After all of that...he was forced to destroy the last possible links to his homeland (the ship, Zod, the Jor-el program) and this realization brought him to tears. THAT story was very clearly told in this movie. The "no kill policy" was never mentioned.

 

[Marvolo]

A few Ma Kent moments got to me as well. This film tugged on me more than any other comic book film has. I think thats why it resonated so much with me.

 

[Heretic]

Huh, I did not know that.

That is actually really interesting, because I thought Man of Steel embraced the American iconography of the character far more than Superman Returns did. True, Superman Returns has the great moment where he "returns" on a baseball field (after saving a falling plane reminiscent of 9/11 five years before, no less...), but they refuse to show a flag or state the obvious in that movie. Even Perry White says "Truth, justice, all that stuff..."

Man of Steel point blank explains that he is an American immigrant story. It even ends with him proudly saying he grew up in Kansas and is as American as it gets. It felt more in line with how he was originally conceived to me than what Singer did or the comics as of late.

But now you tell me the biggest departure of that was written by Goyer himself? Huh. Really interesting.

This movie throws America in your face for the same reason it throws Jesus in your face...laziness.

Want the viewer to know that Clark is the pinnacle of morals, self sacrifice and goodness? Well...that sounds like work...so lets just show a close-up of his face next to Jesus, and let the viewer figure it out for themselves since they've probably read other Superman stories.

Want to show that he is worthy of our awe and respect? Show an American flag every now and then and people will subconsciously equate him with our brave troops.

It's just so much easier than actually writing a story where Clark has to actually embody these aspects.

 

[Marvolo]

That's the thing. The only way for this scene to mean what people are suggesting that it means is for the viewer to be aware of Superman's no-kill rule in other media, to know his goodness and ability to always find a way out (again, not on display in this film) and then we care because we see him have to accept that he is unable to find a way and is forced to break his rule.

The impact of the scene relies 100% on the work of other movies, comics etc.

This is why I believe that he is grieving for selfish reasons. Looking at what IS in this movie...the man had been obsessed with finding out about his homeland and heritage for decades. He basically gave up a human life to TRY to find out about his birthplace. After all of that...he was forced to destroy the last possible links to his homeland (the ship, Zod, the Jor-el program) and this realization brought him to tears. THAT story was very clearly told in this movie. The "no kill policy" was never mentioned.

I don't need to be aware of the one rule to understand the power of that scene. He killed his last link to his home world, he killed a life, and he couldn't save someone. Seriously, Kal is a living emotional being. Sometimes I feel people expect him to be like a vulcan. It's no different than when any human has to take a life because they have no other choice. It isn't selfish, and it sure as hell isn't selfish to react emotionally. It hurts us on a deeper level than anyone can understand who hasn't had to take a life. The one rule isn't needed at all to give that scene that meaning.

Regarding the one rule, I'm in full support of chucking that arm chair morality BS from comic book films. Its a nice ideal but impractical in certain situations away from the armchair. I'm glad Snyder never introduced it into his version of Superman.

 

[Lencho01]

So....guess this means there's no Kingdom Come movie in the future then, huh?

 

[Heretic]

I don't need to be aware of the one rule to understand the power of that scene. He killed his last link to his home world, he killed a life, and he couldn't save someone. Seriously, Kal is a living emotional being. Sometimes I feel people expect him to be like a vulcan. It's no different than when any human has to take a life because they have no other choice. It isn't selfish, and it sure as hell isn't selfish to react emotionally. It hurts us on a deeper level than anyone can understand who hasn't had to take a life.

Regarding the one rule, I'm in full support of chucking that arm chair morality BS from comic book films. Its a nice ideal but impractical in certain real situations. I'm glad Snyder never introduced it into his version of Superman.

I appreciate that you ended your comment with the truth...that you really don't like Superman. I don't like Deadpool...but I at least respect the character and the fans enough to stand with them in protest to the teleporting, laser beam shooting merc with no mouth. Because the comics and the history actually mean something to me.

Superman IS impractical. He thinks and acts in ways that none of us could. That is what makes him Superman! Removing that might give non-Superman fans a movie they like, but it is certainly not respectful to the character. Yeah...he'd be COOLER if we made him act like Wolverine...but it wouldn't be Superman any more.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I appreciate that you ended your comment with the truth...that you really don't like Superman. I don't like Deadpool...but I at least respect the character and the fans enough to stand with them in protest to the teleporting, laser beam shooting merc with no mouth. Because the comics and the history actually mean something to me.

Superman IS impractical. He thinks and acts in ways that none of us could. That is what makes him Superman! Removing that might give non-Superman fans a movie they like, but it is certainly not respectful to the character. Yeah...he'd be COOLER if we made him act like Wolverine...but it wouldn't be Superman any more.

Absolutely right. Senator Pleasury approves your post.

 

[Marvolo]

I appreciate that you ended your comment with the truth...that you really don't like Superman. I don't like Deadpool...but I at least respect the character and the fans enough to stand with them in protest to the teleporting, laser beam shooting merc with no mouth. Because the comics and the history actually mean something to me.

Superman IS impractical. He thinks and acts in ways that none of us could. That is what makes him Superman! Removing that might give non-Superman fans a movie they like, but it is certainly not respectful to the character. Yeah...he'd be COOLER if we made him act like Wolverine...but it wouldn't be Superman any more.

No I love Superman just not this idea that he can't kill at all. That goes for all comic characters I like. I'm just not a fan of that kind of morality. It's childish and out of touch with a responsible real world. I seriously hope you aren't equating what he did to Zod as him being like Wolverine. Cause the last thing I want is for Superman to becoma a roid raging attack dog. Saying I don't like armchair morality doesn't mean I want to go all the way to left field.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Anyone else think Hollywood has a problem ending Superman movies?

Superman- He turns back time by spinning the Earth?
Superman II- He throws the Kryptonians down the FOS and memory wipes Lois
Sup3/4-The whole movie
Returns- Lex gets away and Superman leaves his son with Richard and Lois
MOS- Neck snapping and a huge untalked about body count

You compare that with X2's Phoenix rising or "You never have to"/Joker Card and it always seems like Hollywood writes itself into a corner with Supes and then just ends it.

 

[Marvolo]

The body count and destruction in Metropolis is a real problem in this film for me. It's completely ignored after Zod's death. Its the same probelm I had with Star Trek Into Darkness's ending.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I appreciate that you ended your comment with the truth...that you really don't like Superman. I don't like Deadpool...but I at least respect the character and the fans enough to stand with them in protest to the teleporting, laser beam shooting merc with no mouth. Because the comics and the history actually mean something to me.

Superman IS impractical. He thinks and acts in ways that none of us could. That is what makes him Superman! Removing that might give non-Superman fans a movie they like, but it is certainly not respectful to the character. Yeah...he'd be COOLER if we made him act like Wolverine...but it wouldn't be Superman any more.

THIS. I liked MOST of the screenplay for MOS, but they should find the JLA/Superman TAS screenwriters for the sequel. Maybe a little Goyer for a consistency of writing style. As for Nolan, I don't feel like he cares about the genre, but makes up for it in storytelling ability.

 

[BH/HHH]

MOS's ending to me was damn near perfect

 

[MadVillainy]

The more I think about the Zod resolution I realize the true reason I didnt like it...there's almost no build up to it.

By that I mean there's no discussion beforehand in the movie where Superman states he wont kill or someone instilling that value of no killing in him. So when the moment comes, to me it just feel like the creators just did it to have a shocking moment.
I feel that if you dont know Superman the whole moment would just be a indifferent moment.

For example, picture in TDK after the all the speeches Joker said about Batman breaking his one rule and in BB when Batman refuses to cut off that guy's head for justice back when he was in the League of Shadows. Later in TDK, somehow Joker/Batman are in a similar position to Zod/Superman and Batman snaps Joker's neck to save people. That wouldve made the moment feel very powerful. And I wish they did something like that here

I'd actually really like to hear what Snyder and Goyer have to say about that scene.

 

[danoyse]

The body count and destruction in Metropolis is a real problem in this film for me. It's completely ignored after Zod's death. Its the same probelm I had with Star Trek Into Darkness's ending.

Star Trek Into Darkness ended with a memorial service a year after the crash and Kirk's speech referenced Starfleet's resolve going forward would be to honor the lives that had been lost. The scene used actual veterans.

I thought it seemed off that they were even back in the Daily Planet's office at the end of Man of Steel, much less having tickets to games. I loved the movie, but it was definitely missing a reference to the destruction that was caused.

 

[Heretic]

No I love Superman just not this idea that he can't kill at all. That goes for all comic characters I like. I'm just not a fan of that kind of morality. It's childish and out of touch with a responsible real world. I seriously hope you aren't equating what he did to Zod as him being like Wolverine. Cause the last thing I want is for Superman to becoma a roid raging attack dog. Saying I don't like armchair morality doesn't mean I want to go all the way to left field.

No I wasn't equating the two, as presented.

Superman's attitude is...not really childish...but definitely out of touch. That is a major issue he has with Wonder Woman. She sees him as out of touch and unable to make the difficult decisions. That's the thing...we as fans are SUPPOSED to take sides...do we believe that Batman, Superman or Wonder Woman are the best equipped to solve these issues? I'm not supposed to think that ALL of them would be the best choice. With Superman...I do not view him as cool...and that is fine. I am supposed to be in awe of him (but when his choice ends up being wrong and Wonder Woman is correct, I can point that out). I am a man of today...he is the man of tomorrow...I SHOULD conflict a bit with his choices.

That is why I say that Man of Steel has robbed a potential cinematic Wonder Woman of her proper role (and therefore, I'd bet that the on screen Wonder Woman will likely be more for sex appeal...and may even refuse to kill).

And again...I would love to see a story where it shows that Superman has tried everything and has no other choice...I'd love to see that conflict within him. I don't think it is proper to do in the first film, and I don't think that he was properly placed in that truly no-win situation, since they had never sown him actually win any no-win situations.

 

[Bruce Malone]

There was an article by someone that superman should have at least been depicted trying to save a few citizens here and there during all that destruction as opposed to "appearing" to be un-caring in that regards.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

There was an article by someone that superman should have at least been depicted trying to save a few citizens here and there during all that destruction as opposed to "appearing" to be un-caring in that regards.

Then he would have let Zod escape. This is pretty much a no-win situation, unless Superman repeatedly batted him to the sky, and that would be a one sided fight with the character bobbing up and down like a Yoyo until he figured out what to do. As SOON as the Fight hits Metropolis, destruction and death are pretty much guaranteed.

But yes, I'd prefer it if he'd tried to bring Zod up higher to the sky. As for a final outcome, they'd have to create another wormhole or something for Superman to fling Zod into. It'd be too fantastical for Nolan, I'll guarantee you. I'm sure Goyer already had to provide a LONG explanation on why the PT CAN exist

 

[ThePhantasm]

By that I mean there's no discussion beforehand in the movie where Superman states he wont kill or someone instilling that value of no killing in him.

I think those values were instilled in him when we saw him being bullied and his father talked with him afterwards about being a good character who would change the world.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I thought it seemed off that they were even back in the Daily Planet's office at the end of Man of Steel, much less having tickets to games. I loved the movie, but it was definitely missing a reference to the destruction that was caused.

I would have liked that too, and this is no excuse for the way the movie played it BUT I do really feel like the issue of the death and destruction will play a big role in MOS 2 when Lex is (inevitiably) introduced. That will give Lex plausible argumentative ammunition against the idea of Superman. And if they use that to introduce CADMUS as well then... we're on the way to a kickass DC cinematic universe.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ The film never breaks its internal logic about killing, it just doesn't adapt Superman's NON-deadliness from comics. I still prefer the snapping to the monastery scene, or the train encounter, or the missile launching on the truck, or the death over the ledge at the end of TDK. Maybe I just prefer MOS Superman to Nolan Batman so far

 

[StarvingArtist]

Superman is one of the last bastions of naive, undimmed clarity of justice and goodness that people still find credible. We all want to believe in his sense of morality but we feel like we can't because in this world of constant awareness of every horrible thing going on around the world, we're so much less naive then we were before.

Regardless, I still believe in it. I don't want to see Superman brought down to our level. I want Superman handled in a way that makes people want to aspire to his.

I honestly would have be fine with Zod's death if it had been handled the same way it was in the comics. Killing Zod is kind of a big deal to Superman. There was an entire arch, superbly drawn very moody by Jerry Ordway I think, where you really see Zod's death take its toll on the man f steel. He exiles himself from earth for god's sake. In this movie, you have one big crying yell and then the next day he's doing fine. Bull****. Sorry, not enough to make me forgive an icon who's supposed to be the example for every other hero to follow.

As my favorite reviewer of this movie said, "If this is the new Man of Tomorrow, I'll stick with yesterday."

 

[danoyse]

There was an article by someone that superman should have at least been depicted trying to save a few citizens here and there during all that destruction as opposed to "appearing" to be un-caring in that regards.

I read that article as well, and I thought that Superman just wasn't able to do both at the same time, at least not yet. He wasn't being uncaring, he was just still learning what he was able to do.

The 1978 Superman had a 12 years to train to be a superhero. This Superman had, what? A day?