How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[TheFlamingCoco]

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=37841

But yes, I think MOS flaws aren't in the directing, but the writing and editing. I still give it high marks, even with some moments that are questionable.

 

[Hcmarvel]

Wait, he was involved? Link?

IT's in that Empire Magazine podcast link that's floating around. Around minute 50 of their episode on MOS

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

"Look I'm not saying he was celebrating killing Zod. And I know he seemed sad about it after. But I felt that it was because by killing Zod he was now the only Kryptonian left in the universe (I guess a few of them are in the Phantom Zone but he had no way to get to them). But, not to answer your question with a question, but what part of killing Zod was bad for Clark? We never learn that he had a rule against killing, so it's not some shattering of his moral fiber. He saved the family, saved the world...all in all killing Zod was definitely the "right" thing to do."

Thus, the disconnect between comics and movies continues. I have no problem with his ACT of killing Zod, but being in a situation where he has to. Considering there was a draft in which Zod is sent back to the phantom zone, I feel like the Metropolis fight was a step back in storytelling. Considering that Zack tends to be really faithful in other areas, that feels strange.

Zack should not be involved in the writing department. And he really needs to find a better editor.Paul Hirsch of MI4 had some of the best editing I've seen. It flows well, but also allows itself to breathe, without compromising scale.

I don't think anyone else could make MOS look or feel as amazing. But I feel like his involvement in the third act hampered the movie, though his emphases on America and other aesthetic things are welcome.

 

[KalMart]

"Look I'm not saying he was celebrating killing Zod. And I know he seemed sad about it after. But I felt that it was because by killing Zod he was now the only Kryptonian left in the universe (I guess a few of them are in the Phantom Zone but he had no way to get to them). But, not to answer your question with a question, but what part of killing Zod was bad for Clark? We never learn that he had a rule against killing, so it's not some shattering of his moral fiber. He saved the family, saved the world...all in all killing Zod was definitely the "right" thing to do."

Thus, the disconnect between comics and movies continues. I have no problem with his ACT of killing Zod, but being in a situation where he has to. Considering there was a draft in which Zod is sent back to the phantom zone, I feel like the Metropolis fight was a step back in storytelling. Considering that Zack tends to be really faithful in other areas, that feels strange.

Zack should not be involved in the writing department. And he really needs to find a better editor.Paul Hirsch of MI4 had some of the best editing I've seen. It flows well, but also allows itself to breathe, without compromising scale.

I don't think anyone else could make MOS look or feel as amazing. But I feel like his involvement in the third act hampered the movie, though his emphases on America and other aesthetic things are welcome.

I'd say the real issues go deeper than the editing. And if the filmmaker's can't recognize 'worse' edits or don't have the wherewithal to steer it in the right direction, that's still more on them not the editor.

 

[Marvin]

Look I'm not saying he was celebrating killing Zod. And I know he seemed sad about it after. But I felt that it was because by killing Zod he was now the only Kryptonian left in the universe (I guess a few of them are in the Phantom Zone but he had no way to get to them). But, not to answer your question with a question, but what part of killing Zod was bad for Clark? We never learn that he had a rule against killing, so it's not some shattering of his moral fiber. He saved the family, saved the world...all in all killing Zod was definitely the "right" thing to do.

The only reason to not kill if you are a hero like Superman, is because it is such a slippery slope. And people may not trust you if you do it. But once you have killed someone, there is no reason not to kill any villain who claims he will "never stop". Because none of them will ever stop. They're super-villains. It's kind of their thing.

What Snyder basically says is that Superman dipped his toe into killing baddies, said "eh...that's not for me". But he may change his mind next time. Sweet lord...

What part was bad about it for him, is your question?
The part where he didn't pull out the cocktails like in IM3 essentially. He was affected by it, plain an simple. Moreover unlike Batman who was affected by death and killing at a young age and vow'd against it there(still going on to kill his enemies in all 3 of this new movies), Superman never faced the issue in his life before and now that he has he feels a certain way about it. Thus the answer to your question.

It's not about what's bad about something, people aren't dogs that need to be giving reward or punishment before they can grow.

You can extrapolate all you want about what YOU thought it meant(he's the last of his kind) but to then critique the film based on your assumption knowing full well that the people you are disagreeing with see it differently, seems pointless.
That would be like saying superman wants to kill as many people as possible and because of that, the film kinda fails. Well perhaps you need to prove that point first before using it. Why does superman mourn. For starters, unless JorEl suggested he kill the other kryptonians with his singularity(which wouldn't kill superman by the way).....pretty sure he doesn't think he's the last of his race.

And as for that interview, Snyder actually reiterated what I just said. He went onto say that this is now a world where the audience won't think it's an absolute impossibility that death won't occur and it will add a much needed edge to superman conflicts(as it does with every other super hero movie not named Batman in the 60's), Never did he once say it will happen again. Everything points to it never happening again actually, but if you must....

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Here's the thing, though, you don't see people scattering around or screaming when Supes and Zod are fighting. They might have all evacuated. Also, Goyer doesn't seem to really KNOW if people died, he said something like "I think they did" implying that he didn't mean to write INTENTIONAL carnage, but something with more ambiguity. As for Zod in the headlock, it was necessary.

 

[Eros]

^ Here's the thing, though, you don't see people scattering around or screaming when Supes and Zod are fighting.

Thats cause they are all dead.

 

[kedrell]

No but you do see them standing around and watching these two fight. Ugh!

I believe you also seem doing the same thing as buildings collapse once it becomes a mano-a-mano.

 

[LostSon88]

Wouldn't you though?

 

[kedrell]

No, I wouldn't. I'd be running for my life.

 

[Marvin]

How many buildings collapsed during the one on one fight(Including the empy one Zod laser'd)?

 

[kedrell]

I lost count.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Thats cause they are all dead.

If they are, then there should have been a shot of Superman mournfully looking out at the distance, knowing what a waste it all was.

 

[Eros]

If they are, then there should have been a shot of Superman mournfully looking out at the distance, knowing what a waste it all was.

lol na Christopher reeve superman did that, the new superman is a man of action and sex appeal.

 

[Marvin]

lol na Christopher reeve superman did that, the new superman is a man of action and sex appeal.

Who had more sex appeal after killing Zod, the cry baby or the ladies man?
Kinda walked into that one.

 

[Marvin]

I lost count.

Must have been a pretty high number, I tend to lose count around after a few million.

 

[kedrell]

To be honest, I didn't know there was going to be a quiz.

 

[Heretic]

I don't see any reason in the film to believe that standing on the streets of Metropolis would include any risk of death. The gravity device flattened cars while people stood right next to them. Lois fell AWAY from the black hole that sucked up Kryptonians and inanimate objects. Humans seemed immune to the destruction.

 

[Marvin]

To be honest, I didn't know there was going to be a quiz.

Did you know there would be honest questions though?

 

[Project862006]

Who had more sex appeal after killing Zod, the cry baby or the ladies man?
Kinda walked into that one.

so a cry vs an eye winkt:

also chris had his chance to do what cavill did..wimp

 

[DACrowe]

As for the killing specifically. My brother made a silly joke to me the other day when I brought this up with him.

Ironman traps Killian in his suit and blows him to hell, that doesn't work so they try a few more things and eventually smoke him and badly. Then his hot half naked middle aged girl friend and himself make out and we get fire works and everyone cheers, cut to the disney logo of all things.

Superman, faces an enemy that will wipe the planet out in less than 24 hours after superman isn't able to fight any more. And unlike the marvel u, there is no one else to take up the fight. He's put into a corner, makes a tough choice, smokes his enemy, shows a very vivid amount of regret, his hot middle aged overly dressed girl friend shows up to console him, tears are shed...

And people say superman is not being held to a higher standard then the rest?
His two cents.

Your brother sounds kind of like a tool.

I kid. Kind of.

 

[Mikelus]

For the ones that have not read it, Snyder and Goyer explaining Zod's death:

“Killing Zod was a big thing and Chris Nolan, originally, said there’s no way you can do this,” Goyer told the magazine. “That was a change–originally Zod got sucked into the Phantom Zone along with the others and I just felt it was unsatisfying and so did Zack. We started questioning–we talked to some of the people at DC Comics and said, ‘Do you think there is ever a way that Superman would kill someone?’ And at first they said ‘No way, no way,’ and we said, ‘but what if he didn’t have a choice?’ Originally Chris didn’t even want to let us try to write it and Zack and I said, ‘We think we can figure out a way that you’ll buy it.’”

He acknowledged that it’s a shocking and possibly uncomfortable scene, but that they’ve hopefully set up the mainstream audience to question what they know about Superman.

Director Zack Snyder also explained the decision that went into killing, and how it will affect sequels to come.

“I guess for me–and in the original version of the script he just got zapped into the Phantom Zone–David and I had long talks about it and Chris and I talked long about it and it was like, ‘I really think we should kill Zod and I really think Superman should kill him,’” Snyder explained. “And the why of it was, for me, that if it’s truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained. It’s just in his DNA. I felt like we needed him to do something, just like him putting on the glasses or going to the Daily Planet or any of the other things that you’re sort of seeing for the first time that you realize will then become his thing. I felt like, if we can find a way of making it impossible for him–like Kobayashi Maru, totally no way out–I felt like that could also make you go, ‘Okay, this is the why of him not killing ever again, right?’ He’s basically obliterated his entire people and his culture and he is responsible for it and he’s just like, ‘How could I kill ever again?’”

He said that after Zod’s purpose was taken from him, he was nothing but a killing machine, and there was really no putting him in jail and walking away. He compared Zod’s actions to “suicide by cop,” tying it back to the repeated use of “a good death is its own reward” in the movie. The warrior bred, Snyder said, felt that if Kal-El was capable of killing him, then that was an honorable way to go after having failed his people.

He also said that in potential sequels, Superman having killed Zod will keep the audience from becoming complacent and thinking they know Superman’s limitations.

“I think that when you really put in stone the notion that he won’t kill, it erases an option in the viewer’s mind,” Snyder said. “That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t now have a code that ‘I just won’t do that; I have to find another way.’”

http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/06/1...n-opposed-the-ending-dc-comics-advised-on-it/

I understand their reasons, it makes sense and is good character development.

 

[kedrell]

Did you know there would be honest questions though?

Well I know there was a number of them that collapsed and I distinctly remember one going over while people just stood there and watched like they were spectators at a football game.

 

[Rogue Kira]

What part was bad about it for him, is your question?
The part where he didn't pull out the cocktails like in IM3 essentially. He was affected by it, plain an simple. Moreover unlike Batman who was affected by death and killing at a young age and vow'd against it there(still going on to kill his enemies in all 3 of this new movies), Superman never faced the issue in his life before and now that he has he feels a certain way about it. Thus the answer to your question.

It's not about what's bad about something, people aren't dogs that need to be giving reward or punishment before they can grow.

You can extrapolate all you want about what YOU thought it meant(he's the last of his kind) but to then critique the film based on your assumption knowing full well that the people you are disagreeing with see it differently, seems pointless.
That would be like saying superman wants to kill as many people as possible and because of that, the film kinda fails. Well perhaps you need to prove that point first before using it. Why does superman mourn. For starters, unless JorEl suggested he kill the other kryptonians with his singularity(which wouldn't kill superman by the way).....pretty sure he doesn't think he's the last of his race.

And as for that interview, Snyder actually reiterated what I just said. He went onto say that this is now a world where the audience won't think it's an absolute impossibility that death won't occur and it will add a much needed edge to superman conflicts(as it does with every other super hero movie not named Batman in the 60's), Never did he once say it will happen again. Everything points to it never happening again actually, but if you must....

2.... 2 movies it can be argued 1 but meh.

 

[Heretic]

I love Snyder's excuse...it's basically "After Superman commits genocide, he would never want to kill again."

Also, I'd like to point out that Snyder claims that Superman's aversion to killing is "in his DNA." This yet again shows that Snyder believes that Superman is who he is because of his Kryptonian birth, not anything done by the Kents. The man simply doesn't understand Superman.