How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[Heretic]

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.

But he knew that he was from another planet for most of his life. He knew he was an outsider and felt like a man without a home. The movie spent A LOT of time talking about this.

But he did feel a natural desire to help people...despite the upbringing by the Kents. I'm really saddened by how the Kents came out of this...as being wrong, and their teachings needing to be rejected in favor of his Krytptonian calling.

 

[DarkKnight88]

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

People are strange. I guess It's not that he killed him, it's how he killed him. I'm sure if Supes punched Zod off a cliff everybody would be cool with it (ala Superman II).

And no, Zod is dead in Superman II. Extended or deleted scenes don't count cause it wasn't in the actual final film

 

[Sun_Down]

But he did feel a natural desire to help people...despite the upbringing by the Kents. I'm really saddened by how the Kents came out of this...as being wrong, and their teachings needing to be rejected in favor of his Krytptonian calling.

I really didn't see this. The Kents weren't wrong, and he didn't accept any sort of Kryptonian calling

 

[Marvin]

People are strange. I guess It's not that he killed him, it's how he killed him. I'm sure if Supes punched Zod off a cliff everybody would be cool with it (ala Superman II).

And no, Zod is dead in Superman II. Extended or deleted scenes don't count cause it wasn't in the actual final film

You haven't seen the extend/deleted scene from MOS though.

It's pretty funny actually.

 

[redhawk23]

But he knew that he was from another planet for most of his life. He knew he was an outsider and felt like a man without a home. The movie spent A LOT of time talking about this.

But he did feel a natural desire to help people...despite the upbringing by the Kents. I'm really saddened by how the Kents came out of this...as being wrong, and their teachings needing to be rejected in favor of his Krytptonian calling.

Ultimately what the Kent's taught Superman is that he has a choice in what he becomes. This was the dream of his Kryptonian parents as well of course.

 

[C. Lee]

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.

Zod did a variation of what they call "death by cop"....he put himself into a situation where the only ending would be his own death. He knew he couldn't live with the knowledge that there would be no more Krypton or Kryptonian people....he couldn't actually commit suicide....so he made Superman kill him.

 

[Heretic]

Ultimately what the Kent's taught Superman is that he has a choice in what he becomes. This was the dream of his Kryptonian parents as well of course.

When Pa Kent was about to die...he raised his hand...not telling Clark "make up your own mind" but telling him "Don't save me...let me die."

It was the most important message the Kents ever gave him...and Clark had to reject that nonsense in order to be a hero. sadly, the Kents in this movie set him up to fail...which he did in the end...and I guess in the sequel they will strengthen him in some other way.

 

[Daybreak_st]

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!

In the comic Superman killed Zod AFTER he had killed every person on the planet including that dimension's Superboy. Zod had committed genocide an no one was left to punish him for his crimes. In order to protect any other civilizations he executed them as any jury would have. And he spent the next few years in the comic with serious psycological issues after that incident. So no it's not exactly the same as the comic.

Batman tackled Harvey off a building. Bats survived the fall and Harvey didn't. Not the same as snapping a neck with bare hands. Just saying.

The argument is interesting and odd to me. In story logic, yes you can justify. From a writing stand point it just doesn't make sense. You could easily have Zod sucked in with everyone else. In fact as cool as that fight scene was it felt tacked on. Why not have the fight scene raging on as the portal is still open and then suck Zod in. Do people really feel like it was absolutely necessary to show Superman snapping a guy's neck? Really, that helps define his character? It just seemed like an attempt to make him look bad@$$ to me.

And if people want to say "oh that's not realistic". Okay what is realistic about a ship full of Krytponians NOT coming to help Zod and Faora kill this ONE MAN who stood in their way Just saying.

 

[FreeRadical]

Zod did a variation of what they call "death by cop"....he put himself into a situation where the only ending would be his own death. He knew he couldn't live with the knowledge that there would be no more Krypton or Kryptonian people....he couldn't actually commit suicide....so he made Superman kill him.

Yep, I've heard of that term - where a suicidal individual acts in a threatening way, provoking a lethal response by a cop or law enforcer. Superman didn't have a choice.

A bit similar to TDK, with Harvey after Rachel's death using chance to determine the fates of the other protagonists and himself. He was about to kill Gordon's kid, so Batman had to react.

Looks like the DC movie universe is going to be putting the heroes in 'no-win situations'

 

[Daybreak_st]

When Pa Kent was about to die...he raised his hand...not telling Clark "make up your own mind" but telling him "Don't save me...let me die."

It was the most important message the Kents ever gave him...and Clark had to reject that nonsense in order to be a hero. sadly, the Kents in this movie set him up to fail...which he did in the end...and I guess in the sequel they will strengthen him in some other way.

Clark had to come to the conclusion "

 

[Heretic]

In the comic Superman killed Zod AFTER he had killed every person on the planet including that dimension's Superboy. Zod had committed genocide an no one was left to punish him for his crimes. In order to protect any other civilizations he executed them as any jury would have. And he spent the next few years in the comic with serious psycological issues after that incident. So no it's not exactly the same as the comic.

Batman tackled Harvey off a building. Bats survived the fall and Harvey didn't. Not the same as snapping a neck with bare hands. Just saying.

The argument is interesting and odd to me. In story logic, yes you can justify. From a writing stand point it just doesn't make sense. You could easily have Zod sucked in with everyone else. In fact as cool as that fight scene was it felt tacked on. Why not have the fight scene raging on as the portal is still open and then suck Zod in. Do people really feel like it was absolutely necessary to show Superman snapping a guy's neck? Really, that helps define his character? It just seemed like an attempt to make him look bad@$$ to me.

And if people want to say "oh that's not realistic". Okay what is realistic about a ship full of Krytponians NOT coming to help Zod and Faora kill this ONE MAN who stood in their way Just saying.

It could have been cool...as they fight, Superman sees people being sucked into the black hole (again...it is INEXCUSABLE that Lois fell AWAY from a black hole that was sucking everything else into it)...and he has to stop fighting Zod to save people, and while he's busy Zod destroys a building, putting more people in danger. The mistake was making Zod suddenly as powerful as Clark, and having it be about the two of them fighting. It should have been about Zod using strategy to put Superman at a disadvantage and Superman having to use his brain to figure out a way to win.

 

[Marvin]

Death by black hole(to other dimension). The GA and critics would have loved that.

 

[FreeRadical]

Death by black hole(to other dimension). The GA and critics would have loved that.

Saturday morning animated version of death!

 

[Heretic]

The Phantom Zone is not death (any more than jailing a criminal is death). It is victory. AND it allows for a return at a later point...where maybe Superman can be put in a position where he DOES have to kill Zod.

 

[C. Lee]

The Phantom Zone is not death (any more than jailing a criminal is death). It is victory. AND it allows for a return at a later point...where maybe Superman can be put in a position where he DOES have to kill Zod.

Superman did have to kill Zod. The ability to put him into the zone or the black hole was gone. Zod had killed thousands of innocent humans, and planned on continuing to kill every last person on earth. He had to die, and Superman was the only one able to do it.

 

[Marvin]

Superman did have to kill Zod. The ability to put him into the zone or the black hole was gone. Zod had killed thousands of innocent humans, and planned on continuing to kill every last person on earth. He had to die, and Superman was the only one able to do it.

...but did the writers have to?

Someone was bound to ask.

 

[LostSon88]

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.

You're being sarcastic right? Please tell me you're being sarcastic...

 

[C. Lee]

...but did the writers have to?

If you want to discuss "what ifs?"....you'll have to find someone else. I'm discussing the movie I watched....

 

[THANOSRULES]

Then why didn't he kill Zod before, when he was not trying to kill a family but thousands of lives while tearing Metropolis's buildings down?

But that's not the card this movie played. It was supposed to be an "extreme" situation. But it wasn't actually more extreme than it had been before.



Except a police officer doesn't have the exact morals Superman does. Superman could have prevented thousands of death if he had killed Zod before. How was that family's lives more urgent than thousands of people's?



I haven't said "murder" myself.

wow this thread is pretty fast and furious...my answer to your points would likely be that he may in fact would have killed him earlier..I personally think (and the simplest answer) he just finally got good position on Zod with the headlock to deliver a killing blow..it was difficult to say if Clark may have done this earlier..Zod was pretty tough after all.

But at any rate, certainly the movie harped that Clark could be a bridge between Kryptonian and human as well..so in terms of why he didnt kill them earlier it's unclear if genocide aside from murder didnt factor into Clark's equation.

I think at some point the equation certainly changed..maybe this was when the Planet terraformer dropped and at the latest when Zod was left alone and crazed. At that point it was pretty clear what had to be done eventually.

Aside from the Phantom zone plan being non-lethal..i think it was just the only option..and the Kryptonians didnt even seem killable frankly.

It was difficult to say if at any point Clark was pulling his punches V any of the Kryptonians in order not to kill them...it more seemed to me he wasnt holding back much versus them. I didnt see anything on screen for me to assume when Clark threw kryptonians though buildings he knew they would make it and just be knocked out or something.

And as for the "Police Officer" comparison..I do think it was there and is sound. Clark escalated his use of force through the movie to deal with the situation. His giving himself up, trying to speak with and reason with zod, and even the fact his force use against them increased to "lethal force" was very responsible...and as long as you consider Clark would probably have snapped Zod's neck at any point when the situation escalated to extreme levels (but didnt have him in this position) ..it makes sense.

 

[FreeRadical]

...but did the writers have to?

Someone was bound to ask.

That what some critics of Superman's act have said, the writers shouldn't have put him in that situation. But since Goyer has said that this is more reality based, people such as law enforcers have to make the choice in a no-win situation - there is no right answers, Batman went through it in The Dark Knight with Harvey and when the nuke was about to go off in TDKR killing Taila and the driver.

If it was a villain with a gun, Supes can easily prevent a loss of a life. Even if Kryptonite existed in MOS, likely Superman would have used it. Hopefully, as the DC movie universe expands, with all the technology and advances from other aliens - stuff like this could be prevented. But in a tight spot, where life is at risk...

 

[Heretic]

You're being sarcastic right? Please tell me you're being sarcastic...

Not at all. I have no respect for a guy who doesn't like one guy, so he destroys public property, affecting totally uninvolved people, destroys a vehicle which probably wasn't owned by the guy he doesn't like, AND destroys the livelihood of the man he doesn't like (not to mention whatever he was hauling, which was someone else's property).

I would not do that. In this film, Clark Kent did. I am a BETTER man than he is.

 

[DACrowe]

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!

Indeed. And it was built up for 2.5 hours before that moment that he would never kill. Not even the Joker who murdered his would-be lover. Then the consequence of killing Harvey is that he takes responsibility for Harvey's crimes to protect his reputation and is forced to go on the run and enter a deep depression for almost a decade.

Superman never talks about killing (or not killing), nor is instilled morally about it by either father. Then he cries for five seconds after Zod dies and...nothing.

Quite different.

 

[danoyse]

Not at all. I have no respect for a guy who doesn't like one guy, so he destroys public property, affecting totally uninvolved people, destroys a vehicle which probably wasn't owned by the guy he doesn't like, AND destroys the livelihood of the man he doesn't like (not to mention whatever he was hauling, which was someone else's property).

I would not do that. In this film, Clark Kent did. I am a BETTER man than he is.

You know, that whole argument would be like me saying The Avengers must have ruined someone's birthday when they couldn't get into NY to see a Broadway show the night of the attack on NY...

 

[Motown Marvel]

Everyone keeps looking at the moment of superman snapping Zods neck as this secluded moment in the movie and in that moment there was no other alternative (which is bull, but currently besides the point). But fact of the matter is the film makers purposely constructed the whole movie to lead to that moment. It was a choice they made from the beginning to have superman kill. It wasn't like they got to that point in the script and were like "oh crap, what do we do now? I guess there is no other way out of this than to have him kill because we are lazy and void of imagination". No, it was a decision they made from the beginning. And that is a decision which is completely averse to the superman character. It's actually a decision that contradicts most of their own freaking movie. It was just non-sense that serves no purpose because these film makers found superman un-relateable and boring and didn't have the talent to portray him otherwise without resorting to cheap shock value.

 

[FreeRadical]

Not at all. I have no respect for a guy who doesn't like one guy, so he destroys public property, affecting totally uninvolved people, destroys a vehicle which probably wasn't owned by the guy he doesn't like, AND destroys the livelihood of the man he doesn't like (not to mention whatever he was hauling, which was someone else's property).

I would not do that. In this film, Clark Kent did. I am a BETTER man than he is.

If you were in Superman's situation, having got Zod in a headlock and he's firing his beams towards a defenseless family - what would you do?