How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[TDK elbowstrike]

Superman killed Zod in the comic books. Why are people so mad? It makes MOS Supes just like his comic counterpart.

Also,

Batman killed Harvey Dent to save a family too!

 

[king666]

Right...and not only that...but the driver likely didn't own that truck (they often do, but there's no way Clark could know) and Clark used public property to destroy the truck, looked like power lines if I recall...so taxpayers had to pay to fix it...and what if someone lost power who was on oxygen or something? Clark is a petty, angry, selfish man in this...which again...is why I believe that he screamed after killed Zod for selfish reasons.

I actually liked the truck scene. and hey, superman was kind of a jerk in SII too.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Funny how you never hear anyone complain about Superman killing a powerless Zod in Superman 2.

 

[John Locke]

But his mental quest was to find out about his home ever since he found out that he is from another planet. It is implied that the reason why he went on that fishing boat was to travel closer to that beacon that the government picked up...and then get a job working near that beacon.

Oh...and he was punching saying something like "don't threaten my mother" or whatever...he was angry...and fought out of anger...and mostly didn't bother to save people until the fight was over (and the movie didnt show him saving anyone then either). This movie was more interested in showing Superman the fighter rather than Superman the hero

He didn't hear about the beacon until after he saved the guys on the oil rig after he has the job on the fishing boat. How is it implied he took a job to take a job to be something he doesn't know about.

Of course he's going to fight in anger when someone threaten's his mother. And of course he didn't save anyone then what was he supposed to do stop fighting Zod so he can save someone (who might not even be in danger, we never saw anyone in danger.) Zod's not going to just stand there and wait for him, he would have turned to another person. Like when Superman saved that guy from falling from the helicopter, Faora took out another helicopter and plane.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Time cures all ails. Also, the extended cut has Zod arrested by the Arctic patrol. But that was when Zod didn't want to destroy Earth, and Superman could just turn back time

 

[moviedoors]

I got that from the first 20 times you wrote it in this thread. I also get that you are very upset about the whole thing, and that's fine.
But please don't talk down to me just because it hasn't totally ruined the franchise for me.

You are preaching your opinion on how this should have been done, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong for having their opinions.

Yes, this. Please.

 

[Heretic]

Superman killed Zod in the comic books. Why are people so mad? It makes MOS Supes just like his comic counterpart.

Also,

Batman killed Harvey Dent to save a family too!

It was a mistake in the comics as well (and a poorly written scene by Byrne).

However, the comics had set up the idea that he hates to kill...AND...this decision to kill haunted him for years...he even exiled himself from Earth! It was a PART of really showing why Superman more than anyone else DOES NOT have the right to kill.

The sequel either has to be about emo sad Clark tormented by regret...or it has to just do what the scenes following the killing did and ignore it. Either way, not a great way to start a franchise.

 

[Heretic]

He didn't hear about the beacon until after he saved the guys on the oil rig after he has the job on the fishing boat. How is it implied he took a job to take a job to be something he doesn't know about.

Of course he's going to fight in anger when someone threaten's his mother. And of course he didn't save anyone then what was he supposed to do stop fighting Zod so he can save someone (who might not even be in danger, we never saw anyone in danger.) Zod's not going to just stand there and wait for him, he would have turned to another person. Like when Superman saved that guy from falling from the helicopter, Faora took out another helicopter and plane.

In the prequel comic, the beacon activates and THEN Clark is on the boat heading towards it. Then in the movie he taks about how he FOUND it...meaning he was looking.

 

[Regthar]

WRONG

I want it to be SUPERMAN. You like that it went against everything Superman is.

If they had cast a black Superman, people would be losing their minds...but completely altering who he is as a man is being applauded.

There you go again... Is it to much to ask, that we debate instead of the childish "you're not a real Superman fan, but I am"?

If you really think about it, you haven't SEEN the Superman of this franchise yet. You saw a man becoming Superman. Where it goes from here is crucial, as I agree that Superman doesn't kill. You claim that I'm happy about it, which shows that you didn't really read my post.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

He didn't hear about the beacon until after he saved the guys on the oil rig after he has the job on the fishing boat. How is it implied he took a job to take a job to be something he doesn't know about.

Of course he's going to fight in anger when someone threaten's his mother. And of course he didn't save anyone then what was he supposed to do stop fighting Zod so he can save someone (who might not even be in danger, we never saw anyone in danger.) Zod's not going to just stand there and wait for him, he would have turned to another person. Like when Superman saved that guy from falling from the helicopter, Faora took out another helicopter and plane.

When he plows through the gas station, he is reckless. But it's also personal, it's his MOM, and he's not gonna let him escape easily. I'd be almost MORE bothered if he managed to keep from crashing into anything due to his inexperience at both flying and fighting.

Though I agree about the Metropolis battle. It's an urban area, so fighting on the ground is pretty much deadly. He should have tried harder to get Zod into the sky.

 

[Heretic]

Yes, this. Please.

Again...it is only my OPINION of Superman if there was no history to back me up.

You got a movie called Man of Steel that is about a new character that you like. I did NOT get a movie about the Man of Steel I've been reading about all my life. As comic fans, this SHOULD mean a lot to us.

But no...people are mocking me for actually placing value on the comic books and the characters in them. We seem to have reached a point where even superhero fans want to minimize the value of the source material.

 

[John Locke]

Yesterday I found a dollar on the ground. I wasn't looking for it. I just happened to be there. I read the prequel comic it didn't imply he was heading toward it. He just was on a boat. If he was heading for it he would have swam not work on a fishing boat.

 

[Sun_Down]

I also find it ironic that a big argument against Supes' action is that his decision was not a binary, black and white choice. And then those arguments are followed up with an extremely black and white moral declarations. See, e.g.:

WRONG

I want it to be SUPERMAN. You like that it went against everything Superman is.

If they had cast a black Superman, people would be losing their minds...but completely altering who he is as a man is being applauded.

It's pretty intellectually dishonest for you to ignore everything else in the movie and declare that they've destroyed the character based on one scene. Clearly Clark was devastated by what he did. Maybe we'll even see it affect him in the sequel, and he could, I dunno, learn from the experience? Wouldn't that be something?

The race-baiting part is also unnecessary.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Stop playing the victim, heritic. Movies and comics are different mediums, and what works in one medium might not work as well in other. That being said, I care about characterization. It's not shoddy characterization to have Superman kill when he HAS to, but a disrespect of the genre which allows Superman to avoid making such choices to begin with. The truth is, we won't see the best WB adaptations on earth until the DCAU writers pen the screenplay the live action DC movies. I'm more than happy for what I have so far.

 

[Heretic]

There you go again... Is it to much to ask, that we debate instead of the childish "you're not a real Superman fan, but I am"?

If you really think about it, you haven't SEEN the Superman of this franchise yet. You saw a man becoming Superman. Where it goes from here is crucial, as I agree that Superman doesn't kill. You claim that I'm happy about it, which shows that you didn't really read my post.

Okay...let debate...

I say that Superman got his sense of heroism and morals through his upbringing by the Kents. In this movie, he is POSSIBLY reaching that through trial and error...and the Kents were actually working AGAINST the morality of Superman.

Would you like to counter my argument and back up a claim that Superman does NOT get his morals etc from the Kents?

 

[Heretic]

Yesterday I found a dollar on the ground. I wasn't looking for it. I just happened to be there. I read the prequel comic it didn't imply he was heading toward it. He just was on a boat. If he was heading for it he would have swam not work on a fishing boat.

Right...he left Smallville on a quest to discover more about his past...and happened to take a job that took him to a spaceship from Krypton.

 

[Regthar]

Again...it is only my OPINION of Superman if there was no history to back me up.

You got a movie called Man of Steel that is about a new character that you like. I did NOT get a movie about the Man of Steel I've been reading about all my life. As comic fans, this SHOULD mean a lot to us.

But no...people are mocking me for actually placing value on the comic books and the characters in them. We seem to have reached a point where even superhero fans want to minimize the value of the source material.

Well it's kinda easy to back your opinion up, when you write off the comics that doesn't suit you as bad writing. It doesn't change the fact that it did happen and it shaped the Superman of that time. Same can happen here, we just don't know yet.

And the only one I see mocking others, is you. Saying other people don't love/know Superman just because they disagree with you, is not a very good way to get your opinions heard.
I fully understand why you have such strong feelings about this, and I tried to make that clear in my previous post. But that doens't mean that youre vision of Superman is the only right one. Imagine if there had never been any changes to Superman along the way... Then you would never have gotten the character you love.

 

[John Locke]

Right...he left Smallville on a quest to discover more about his past...and happened to take a job that took him to a spaceship from Krypton.

He didn't leave Smallville to discover more about his past. He got a job to get away from people because he has a compulsive need to save people but if he saves people they will know his powers which his father died to prevent that from happening.

 

[Heretic]

I also find it ironic that a big argument against Supes' action is that his decision was not a binary, black and white choice. And then those arguments are followed up with an extremely black and white moral declarations. See, e.g.:



It's pretty intellectually dishonest for you to ignore everything else in the movie and declare that they've destroyed the character based on one scene. Clearly Clark was devastated by what he did. Maybe we'll even see it affect him in the sequel, and he could, I dunno, learn from the experience? Wouldn't that be something?

The race-baiting part is also unnecessary.

I'm not ignoring anything...in fact, I'm one of the few who are actually taking the movie in as a whole. Every argument I've seen in favor has been basically "well, the movie didn't show it...but we know Superman..." I am taking the movie as its own story...and the story is OBVIOUS.

The movie repeatedly, over and over and over again, pushes the idea that he is wanting to know who he really is, and wants to learn about his homeland. The movie NEVER MENTIONS that he has superior morals and would try hard not to kill. In fact, he does petty, angry, reckless things such as destroy that truck. In fact, the movie even shows that it migth be better to watch loved ones die rather than save them. In the end, he chooses to kill Zod. Given what we know exclusively from the film, with no input from other sources...the story is clear...Clark was mourning the death of his connections with his homeland.

I know I've said this a thousand times...but seriously...it is just as annoying seeing people say "Superman does not want to kill but was sad that he had to" when you really don't see that in the film itself.

 

[Sun_Down]

I'm not ignoring anything...in fact, I'm one of the few who are actually taking the movie in as a whole. Every argument I've seen in favor has been basically "well, the movie didn't show it...but we know Superman..." I am taking the movie as its own story...and the story is OBVIOUS.

The movie repeatedly, over and over and over again, pushes the idea that he is wanting to know who he really is, and wants to learn about his homeland. The movie NEVER MENTIONS that he has superior morals and would try hard not to kill. In fact, he does petty, angry, reckless things such as destroy that truck. In fact, the movie even shows that it migth be better to watch loved ones die rather than save them. In the end, he chooses to kill Zod. Given what we know exclusively from the film, with no input from other sources...the story is clear...Clark was mourning the death of his connections with his homeland.

I know I've said this a thousand times...but seriously...it is just as annoying seeing people say "Superman does not want to kill but was sad that he had to" when you really don't see that in the film itself.

I actually agree that the rest of the big fight was super reckless.

I guess we'll have to disagree about not seeing his sadness on screen. I thought the scream and collapse into Lois' arms pretty much showed that. We'll also have to disagree that his sadness had anything to do with his lost connection to Krypton. But good art leaves room for interpretation.

 

[Heretic]

Well it's kinda easy to back your opinion up, when you write off the comics that doesn't suit you as bad writing. It doesn't change the fact that it did happen and it shaped the Superman of that time. Same can happen here, we just don't know yet.

And the only one I see mocking others, is you. Saying other people don't love/know Superman just because they disagree with you, is not a very good way to get your opinions heard.
I fully understand why you have such strong feelings about this, and I tried to make that clear in my previous post. But that doens't mean that youre vision of Superman is the only right one. Imagine if there had never been any changes to Superman along the way... Then you would never have gotten the character you love.

Yes, Superman killed in the comics...and its not just me that says it was a mistake...SUPERMAN said it was a mistake. He was destroyed by guilt over it. We had stories before it where he opposed killing...then he killed...then years of stories where he regretted it and it tore him apart, eventually strengthening his morality to never kill again.

You guys are cherry picking one issue...but that one issue was in the middle of a bunch of other stories...and it had impact because of what happened before and on what happened later. In this movie, the only thing that came before was Clark learning the lesson that its better to stand by and watch people die rather than save them. He clearly was rejecting the lessons taught to him by the Kents...he knew inside that the Kents were wrong...and he had to reject their teaching to become Superman. That is a shame.

 

[Heretic]

I actually agree that the rest of the big fight was super reckless.

I guess we'll have to disagree about not seeing his sadness on screen. I thought the scream and collapse into Lois' arms pretty much showed that. We'll also have to disagree that his sadness had anything to do with his lost connection to Krypton. But good art leaves room for interpretation.

I guess...

I just tend to think that movies have themes...with the climax being the culmination of that theme. had the theme of this movie been "killing is wrong" or "protect human life at any cost" then you guys would have a solid point and I would actually be okay with the killing. But the theme was that Clark was wanting to connect with his homeland, spent decades caring about it (even telling Pa Kent that he isnt his real dad). Then, he destroyed the ship that carried the program of his real dad (and all info he could ever learn about Krypton)...AND embryos of potential Krytonians who he could befriend...then killed the last other Kryptonian. Now THAT fits the theme!

 

[Marvin]

It's pretty intellectually dishonest for you to ignore everything else in the movie and declare that they've destroyed the character based on one scene. Clearly Clark was devastated by what he did. Maybe we'll even see it affect him in the sequel, and he could, I dunno, learn from the experience? Wouldn't that be something?

The race-baiting part is also unnecessary.

That would be a welcomed changed from the marvel character sequel restart approach to things. I think this really opens up for some real growth going forward.

 

[FreeRadical]

Someone mentioned this in another forum, but could have Zod wanted to have died anyway? Since his people are gone, codec in Supes, he's not going to integrate himself with humankind - the only way out is suicide.

Putting Superman in that situation, Zod was in a neckhold using his laser sight which if he wanted to escape, he could have stopped - but it could be possible that he wanted Superman to kill him, the last of his people, making Supes feel guilty.

But Zod was crazy anyway, and wanted revenge on Earth - so he would have gone on a worldwide killing spree, eventually being a hermit on a dead Earth.

 

[Sun_Down]

I guess...

I just tend to think that movies have themes...with the climax being the culmination of that theme. had the theme of this movie been "killing is wrong" or "protect human life at any cost" then you guys would have a solid point and I would actually be okay with the killing. But the theme was that Clark was wanting to connect with his homeland, spent decades caring about it (even telling Pa Kent that he isnt his real dad). Then, he destroyed the ship that carried the program of his real dad (and all info he could ever learn about Krypton)...AND embryos of potential Krytonians who he could befriend...then killed the last other Kryptonian. Now THAT fits the theme!

I just didn't see that as the theme. To me, it was more of Clark wanting to learn who he was and who he needs to be going forward. It's close, but different. I just don't think he had any real connection to Krypton. He only knew it existed for a few hours/days.

So for me, the big conflict wasn't Clark wanting to reconnect to Krypton, it was Clark trying to figure out how to live in a world that doesn't understand him, and balancing his need to help people with his desire to protect those he cares about.