How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[Daybreak_st]

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



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

Question is how can you say it won't happen again? Yes now they say "oh this is where his rule comes from and he'll never kill again"...okay...but in the same situation, in the same exact circumstances are you saying he wouldn't do the same thing? Are you saying there in fact is another way out? If not then you're being disingenuious. The writers are basically "we did it this time but we won't write him into a corner again, because killing once was good enough " Again if that's the case them why do IT IN THE FIRST PLACE What character growth comes from this? How can you swear "I will never kill again...umm...unless I'm in an equally challenging situation then you know...I'd probably snap a neck "

 

[scifiwolf]

I love your courage. If only more had it

I read it back to myself after posting and seeing it in context with the conversation. It was a crap post and needed more thought. It had to do with the notion that Superman would need to kill someone to know not to do it. Part of me thinks that is a load of crap, and is the one thing the detractors of Superman's killing in the movie have got right. However, I think his going through the experience serves a distinct narrative purpose, but I haven't quite figured out how I want to break that down analytically. I certainly don't think he needed it to know not to kill.

I'm thinking it's more to do with learning that he can be tactically backed into a corner whereby his only options will compromise his ethics. I think, after killing Zod, the biggest lesson to be learned is to leave a way out of every situation so as not to have to play God with someone's life ever again.

 

[Marvin]

Question is how can you say it won't happen again? Yes now they say "oh this is where his rule comes from and he'll never kill again"...okay...but in the same situation, in the same exact circumstances are you saying he wouldn't do the same thing? Are you saying there in fact is another way out? If not then you're being disingenuious. The writers are basically "we did it this time but we won't write him into a corner again, because killing once was good enough " Again if that's the case them why do IT IN THE FIRST PLACE What character growth comes from this? How can you swear "I will never kill again...umm...unless I'm in an equally challenging situation then you know...I'd probably snap a neck "

Never writing that situation again wouldn't be any more "disingenuious" than never writing it again.

Mind you, if he faced the same situation again, his choice would be all the more interesting. There was a time when we used to care about such things, now it seems we care more about emulating the material, as simple as it may have been.

 

[Marvin]

I read it back to myself after posting and seeing it in context with the conversation. It was a crap post and needed more thought. It had to do with the notion that Superman would need to kill someone to know not to do it. Part of me thinks that is a load of crap, and is the one thing the detractors of Superman's killing in the movie have got right. However, I think his going through the experience serves a distinct narrative purpose, but I haven't quite figured out how I want to break that down analytically. I certainly don't think he needed it to know not to kill.

I'm thinking it's more to do with learning that he can be tactically backed into a corner whereby his only options will compromise his ethics. I think, after killing Zod, the biggest lesson to be learned is to leave a way out of every situation so as not to have to play God with someone's life ever again.

In the world of narrative writing, what other purpose is there. Rather this is the crown jewel of narrative I would think.

To be honest playing god is a tricky term. I mean many dozens of families have lost their lives cause batman risked his life to save joker a dozen times. As much as I agree with batman in this regard, this is playing god. Especially if you ask Spock.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Never writing that situation again wouldn't be any more "disingenuious" than never writing it again.

Mind you, if he faced the same situation again, his choice would be all the more interesting. There was a time when we used to care about such things, now it seems we care more about emulating the material, as simple as it may have been.

What I care about is logic. People writing this off as a learning curve including Goyer are illogical at best. You can't make him face an impossible choice, kill, then say "that's why he will never kill again"...why because you won't write in the film again. Seeing him do it again just feels gratuitous and seeing him come up with a new solution makes the first instance seem lazy. If the "solution" is a deux ex machina then it's even worse. But the whole notion of "oh he will never kill again" is silly and naive. The level of threats he faces, Darkseid, Mongul etc are right up there with Zod in terms of threat level, is he just going to break all their necks too. If not them why? As people like to point out "they'll just keep coming back".

 

[scifiwolf]

In the world of narrative writing, what other purpose is there. Rather this is the crown jewel of narrative I would think.

To be honest playing god is a tricky term. I mean many dozens of families have lost their lives cause batman risked his life to save joker a dozen times. As much as I agree with batman in this regard, this is playing god. Especially if you ask Spock.

Yeah, see, that's why I deleted my post a few pages back. My brain is very herp derp today and I'm really having trouble trying to get my ideas across.

 

[Marvin]

What I care about is logic. People writing this off as a learning curve including Goyer are illogical at best. You can't make him face an impossible choice, kill, then say "that's why he will never kill again"...why because you won't write in the film again. Seeing him do it again just feels gratuitous and seeing him come up with a new solution makes the first instance seem lazy. If the "solution" is a deux ex machina then it's even worse. But the whole notion of "oh he will never kill again" is silly and naive. The level of threats he faces, Darkseid, Mongul etc are right up there with Zod in terms of threat level, is he just going to break all their necks too. If not them why? As people like to point out "they'll just keep coming back".

Believe the line of thinking is, "that's why he won't want to kill again"
I'm not saying he "wanted" to before. But my point is they aren't saying that's why he won't do it. They're saying that's where he developed his passion against it. Very different.

I'm against killing right now. If I had to kill someone and got real blood on my hands, I might make it a passion not to.

This tends to happen with people that have to put their pets down.
If I ask my dad if I can have a dog, he says no. I ask why, he shares the story of when he had to put down old yeller. I get it. That being said, we get end up getting a dog and he's forced to do it again. Narratively speaking this is a flawless victory imo. Apply it to superman and call it a day.
It's already been applied to batman.

 

[Random490]

I thought it was great, mainly because it was done so well. Having Superman completely breaks down makes it more of a character moment and gives the act the weight it deserves. You didn't see Ironman show any remorse for the half dozen guards he killed in Ironman 3. If I recalled correctly he even threw a guy's face into a fountain that had a grenade go off in it. I'm not saying that was wrong to do, just saying keep Superman's reaction to the act in perspective. Would I have prefer them go another way, sure, but I'm glad with how it was handled for the most part. I would argue that they should have toned it down a bit use a wide shot with no sound effect, just sudden silence would be so effective and less gruesome.

I think it would be brilliant if, in the next film, he's haunted by that decision and we see him have to deal with it. Maybe face a similar situation and have him overcome through conviction and sheer force of will, to avoid doing that again, and have him be triumphant. That would provide a great potential character arc for him and make the moment more than an easy way out for the villain.

Plus as others have pointed out as well when you really watch the end of Superman 2, Superman and Lois unmercifully toss their defenseless enemies into a, what might as well be a, bottomless pit. And show no remorse about it.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Believe the line of thinking is, "that's why he won't want to kill again"
I'm not saying he "wanted" to before. But my point is they aren't saying that's why he won't do it. They're saying that's where he developed his passion against it. Very different.

I'm against killing right now. If I had to kill someone and got real blood on my hands, I might make it a passion not to.

This tends to happen with people that have to put their pets down.
If I ask my dad if I can have a dog, he says no. I ask why, he shares the story of when he had to put down old yeller. I get it. That being said, we get end up getting a dog and he's forced to do it again. Narratively speaking this is a flawless victory imo. Apply it to superman and call it a day.
It's already been applied to batman.

Yeah you make good points. I still don't think it was "necessary". I get that's where Goyer wanted to take it, I'd just argue the validity and worth but I guess to each his own. Any other issues I can pretty easily overlook but that just made a statement about their treatment of the character I'm not keen on. In Chronicle or some other film I accept it, it's just harder with Superman for me at least. Similarly I wouldn't want to see Spider-man snap someone's neck. Incidental death is...I don't know...easier to accept. But murder ie deliberately taking a life just taints the character for me. But that's just me.

Not sure I'm following with the last bit you wrote about Batman though?

 

[Marvin]

Yeah you make good points. I still don't think it was "necessary". I get that's where Goyer wanted to take it, I'd just argue the validity and worth but I guess to each his own. Any other issues I can pretty easily overlook but that just made a statement about their treatment of the character I'm not keen on. In Chronicle or some other film I accept it, it's just harder with Superman for me at least. Similarly I wouldn't want to see Spider-man snap someone's neck. Incidental death is...I don't know...easier to accept. But murder ie deliberately taking a life just taints the character for me. But that's just me.

Not sure I'm following with the last bit you wrote about Batman though?

Fair enough.
The bit about batman is that he had his "moment" in the books when his parents were killed. In Begins it was the combination of that and the court room scene.

I personally think it was a good idea to address the scene/issue as vividly as possible. With all the odds stacked out on the table and with a big iconic boy scout of a character. I say this for two reasons.
1. They wanted to make a narrative point. Too often in the bat films this points are vague and almost benign to me. He're it's very bold and clear. Moving forward, everyone will be along for the ride.

2. I think it will make people take more notice when this stuff happens to readily in other films, particularly cbm's. I mean I'm curious how high the body count will have to get in Wolverine before people start feeling "disturbed". And this is a great thing. A good use of Superman.

I remember when Ironman saved the crew of air force one and someone compared it to the lack of saves of that nature in MoS, Never once addressing what happened to the villain Stark was fighting on board the plane. Stark is no Clark, but feeling disturbed shouldn't be a selective thing. Especially when it comes to heroism.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Fair enough.
The bit about batman is that he had his "moment" in the books when his parents were killed. In Begins it was the combination of that and the court room scene.

I personally think it was a good idea to address the scene/issue as vividly as possible. With all the odds stacked out on the table and with a big iconic boy scout of a character. I say this for two reasons.
1. They wanted to make a narrative point. Too often in the bat films this points are vague and almost benign to me. He're it's very bold and clear. Moving forward, everyone will be along for the ride.

2. I think it will make people take more notice when this stuff happens to readily in other films, particularly cbm's. I mean I'm curious how high the body count will have to get in Wolverine before people start feeling "disturbed". And this is a great thing. A good use of Superman.

I remember when Ironman saved the crew of air force one and someone compared it to the lack of saves of that nature in MoS, Never once addressing what happened to the villain Star was fighting on board the plane. Stark is no Clark, but feeling disturbed shouldn't be a selective thing. Especially when it comes to heroism.

Yeah I think it's partially the viseral nature of snapping someone's neck. Other than that the fact that in other films it's glossed over making it less of a focus. Also Stark made weapons to kill people from the very beginning. His suit was always a weapon. Captain America was in a war. I get them killing. Superman above all the characters is always presented with higher morality. Plus it was the focus of the scene. Even in Spider-man (the first film) his uncle's killer dies. That was different in the comics. But it was "incidental". Spidey didn't do it intentionally. Somehow for me at least that makes it more palatable. Ultimately most other heroes just aren't held to the same standard as Superman, so him doing it so viscerally felt out of place though justified in the film.

 

[Marvin]

Yeah I think it's partially the viseral nature of snapping someone's neck. Other than that the fact that in other films it's glossed over making it less of a focus. Also Stark made weapons to kill people from the very beginning. His suit was always a weapon. Captain America was in a war. I get them killing. Superman above all the characters is always presented with higher morality. Plus it was the focus of the scene. Even in Spider-man (the first film) his uncle's killer dies. That was different in the comics. But it was "incidental". Spidey didn't do it intentionally. Somehow for me at least that makes it more palatable. Ultimately most other heroes just aren't held to the same standard as Superman, so him doing it so viscerally felt out of place though justified in the film.

How do you think the casual audience just walking into the film felt. The ones with no such preconceptions about anything or any one?

Also what did you make of the originals goblins death? I personally felt that was somewhat on par(in terms of vivid) with the original jokers death only with joke it was far more comic book like especially that that laughing at the end there.

 

[BestGirl]

Superman killing Zod didn't bother me. First, because I knew it was coming; second, because it was made so clear that he was trying his hardest to convince Zod to stop and the general was just not having it; and third, because he was so devastated afterwards.

I didn't expect the killing to be so gruesome, but rather that it would be more like Bane's neck-breaking moves in TDKR. I appreciated it, though because it makes Superman's anguish more understandable for the audience. I only hope Clark's guilt over his taking of a life will be referred to in MOS2.

 

[Daybreak_st]

How do you think the casual audience just walking into the film felt. The ones with no such preconceptions about anything or any one?

Also what did you make of the originals goblins death? I personally felt that was somewhat on par(in terms of vivid) with the original jokers death only with joke it was far more comic book like especially that that laughing at the end there.

Goblins death was pretty made worse but it impaling him the privates Seriously I remember thinking "why in the world would you have the glider hit him there.." Yeah. But the notion that he basically killed himself, spidey just dodged made it again an "incidental" killing.

Back when the Joker died I was rather surprised. While it didn't bother me the way this film did as a kid I was a little upset that Batman would kill him. At the same time he didn't make the gargoyle fall, he was only trying to prevent the Joker from escaping. So again, I guess it was more incidental though the laughing part was haunting as I recall.

I really don't know about the GA. Based on the numbers I'd say most people aren't bothered by it. I would've thought that folks who took their kids to see all the Marvel films would've been upset by this film both by the tone and the killing at the end. Like they just didn't expect this treatment for Superman. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[X Knight]

MOS was a more serious movie ( in tone ) than the Marvel movies.

but not anymore serious than the Dark Knight movies.......

 

[KalMart]

Goblins death was pretty made worse but it impaling him the privates Seriously I remember thinking "why in the world would you have the glider hit him there.." Yeah. But the notion that he basically killed himself, spidey just dodged made it again an "incidental" killing.

Back when the Joker died I was rather surprised. While it didn't bother me the way this film did as a kid I was a little upset that Batman would kill him. At the same time he didn't make the gargoyle fall, he was only trying to prevent the Joker from escaping. So again, I guess it was more incidental though the laughing part was haunting as I recall.

I really don't know about the GA. Based on the numbers I'd say most people aren't bothered by it. I would've thought that folks who took their kids to see all the Marvel films would've been upset by this film both by the tone and the killing at the end. Like they just didn't expect this treatment for Superman. But maybe I'm wrong.

But remember when he shot all those guys on the parade float with his plane...and the big guy he blew up with dynamite in 'Returns'? It's like Burton just didn't give a crap about the 'death' rule.

MOS clearly took a lot more into consideration.

 

[Marvin]

I really don't know about the GA. Based on the numbers I'd say most people aren't bothered by it. I would've thought that folks who took their kids to see all the Marvel films would've been upset by this film both by the tone and the killing at the end. Like they just didn't expect this treatment for Superman. But maybe I'm wrong.

Yea this is why I asked about the GA and what it is in particular that makes this all the more gruesome. If a parent can have their kid watch all sorts of superhero kills and no one's the wiser, all things being equal why would someone walking in off the street(with their kids) think any differently of this. Neck breaking is pretty ugly stuff perhaps, but technically not any more ugly than stabbing or shooting or blowing up.

It seemingly really boils down to the character, at which point it boils down to a preconceived notion coming in, at which point it boils down to purists. Then again, it could very well just be this scene was too boldly directed I suppose.

 

[DACrowe]

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



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

I read it. So, Nolan had the right instinct that it was out of character and Snyder insisted because, in short, "it would be cool." Why am I not surprised.

Ugh. I really do not want Snyder to make anymore of these. It will always hold the series back.

 

[Marvin]

Superman killing Zod didn't bother me. First, because I knew it was coming; second, because it was made so clear that he was trying his hardest to convince Zod to stop and the general was just not having it; and third, because he was so devastated afterwards.

Those latter two elements definitely helped me to accept this. I remember silence in the theater at that moment. Pretty effective stuff.

 

[Marvin]

I read it. So, Nolan had the right instinct that it was out of character and Snyder insisted because, in short, "it would be cool." Why am I not surprised.

funny.

 

[Glassjaw]

I wonder how late in the process Synder convinced the others to have Zod killed like that, because although that scene is changed, nothing else about the film, either before or after the scene, deals or comments on it.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

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

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

It actually makes me sadder to know how close we came to a version of this movie without the neck snap scene in it.

I am glad to hear that Nolan was against it though. Cause it was irking me that Batman got to keep his no kill rule, but Supes didn't.

I guess that's just an aspect that Nolan cared about more than Goyer and Snyder.

I wonder how late in the process Synder convinced the others to have Zod killed like that, because although that scene is changed, nothing else about the film, either before or after the scene, deals or comments on it.

Yeah, the fact that there were discussions about the scenes inclusion makes a lot of sense with how out of place it felt to me with the scenes following on.

 

[Lighthouse]

I read about the Empire interview, and that Snyder actually says “The ‘Why?’ of it for me was that if was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained…" is just forehead slapping astonishing to me.

 

[Heretic]

The goal wasn't to create a planet where his people could live like gods. The goal was to make a planet that they didn't have to share with humanity.

The world engine was a weapon to Zod. Not a tool for salvation.

There are no humans on Mars.

And no...Zod did not think of it as a weapon. He did not come into the film with the plan to wipe out humanity...that was just a side effect of making earth like the old Krypton

 

[Marvin]

It actually makes me sadder to know how close we came to a version of this movie without the neck snap scene in it.

I am glad to hear that Nolan was against it though. Cause it was irking me that Batman got to keep his no kill rule, but Supes didn't.

That's news to me.

I guess that's just an aspect that Nolan cared about more than Goyer and Snyder.

You've gotta figure with his listed producer credit, that by the time the film was released he signed of if not endorsed big story decisions such as that. That's kinda the point of a producer credit I would think. Whether he had to be convinced or otherwise.