How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[Motown Marvel]

WOW!!! So Superman NEVER kills?? What about "the death of Superman" series? In Man of Steel Superman had no choice. Zod would have killed everyone because he knew thats the only way to hurt Superman.

Doomsday was a non-sentient genetic experiment. He doesn't even have organs.

A lot of other people bring up the time in the comics when superman killed the pocket universe zod. Which was just a result of bad writing and a huge mistake on behalf of the publishers, which they thankfully recognized and retconned out of continuity.

Also, lets point out that just because something happened in the comics doesn't make it acceptable. Lots of crazy stuff has happened in superman comics over the past 75 years...the majority of which you would never want to see on the screen.

If superman had the power to snap Zods neck, then he had the power to turn his head away from the family. He could of covered his eyes blocking the beam long enough for the to escape and flown zod out of the scene. They purposely wrote superman to kill zod because they wanted him to kill zod, not because he had to. And it was done for no reason. It does nothing to service the character or story, in fact it merely diminishes it and demonstrates their complete misunderstanding and handling of superman.

 

[Heretic]

I'm a HUGE John Byrne fan...and I will tend to make excuses for his occasional lapses in judgment, but Superman killing in the comic was a mistake because people who likely never read the comic have permanently used that as a reason to make Superman kill again.

The idea was that we had all this backstory and knowledge that Superman is the very pinnacle of what we could hope to be. Then, after several adventures, one pushes him to the point of where he kills. This decision haunts him for years and helped solidify his stance to never, ever kill. In Man of Steel (the movie), Superman is cracking jokes in the very next scene.
In this movie, it was his very first adventure so we hadn't spent years watching him find other routes to defeat enemies. Also, ma and pa Kent not only were never shown to teach him the super-morals he should possess...they actually do the opposite by spending years teaching him that it is better to let people die than to use his powers.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Referring to a one-off in a comic to justify something that many people are having a hard time accepting in film use is very weak. Comics =/= good. Lots of stuff happened in the comics that should never, ever happen in movies

 

[DorkyFresh]

Quoting myself...

Exactly...the way I see it is like this. Say a man loves the forest and the woods and everything involving nature. He comes across 2 kids running around and all of the sudden a bear comes out and starts attacking the kids for no apparent reason. Maybe the kids got too close to her territory, maybe they smell like sammiches...but the bear is still attacking defenseless, innocent kids. Is that man who loves nature gonna shoot the bear in the leg? NO! He's gonna aim to kill! Not because he wants to kill the bear, but because he wants to save the kids' lives.

...when you're faced with a split second life or death decision you never know what you're gonna do. Some people will cave in and die or let someone die, some people will find the motivation to defend by killing an attacker. Superman, being the ultimate protector of HUMANITY (not Krypton), made a split second decision to protect humans by sealing his fate as the Last Son of Krypton. I don't see why this is such a problem.

 

[Heretic]

Quoting myself...



...when you're faced with a split second life or death decision you never know what you're gonna do. Some people will cave in and die or let someone die, some people will find the motivation to defend by killing an attacker. Superman, being the ultimate protector of HUMANITY (not Krypton), made a split second decision to protect humans by sealing his fate as the Last Son of Krypton. I don't see why this is such a problem.

Your first problem (as well as Goyer and Snyder's) was assuming that Superman thinks like you do. This movie created a character that DOES think like you. His parents, not the super-moral force that created Superman, but instead a couple that taught their son to watch people die rather than step in to help. This character grew up to be conflicted and unsure of himself, and he made a snap decision to kill Zod. The problem is...that isn't Superman...it's some character that Goyer and Snyder made up. The Clark Kent who was raised by that wonderful couple to become the Man of Tomorrow that we all aspire to someday become (regardless of whether or not he'd ever put on a costume) does not appear in this movie, and that is unfortunate.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Your first problem (as well as Goyer and Snyder's) was assuming that Superman thinks like you do. This movie created a character that DOES think like you. His parents, not the super-moral force that created Superman, but instead a couple that taught their son to watch people die rather than step in to help. This character grew up to be conflicted and unsure of himself, and he made a snap decision to kill Zod. The problem is...that isn't Superman...it's some character that Goyer and Snyder made up. The Clark Kent who was raised by that wonderful couple to become the Man of Tomorrow that we all aspire to someday become (regardless of whether or not he'd ever put on a costume) does not appear in this movie, and that is unfortunate.

Bingo. That's why it's impossible to answer the "well what would YOU have done with Zod" question because the entire structure of the movie (and Clark's character) was built to lead to that very decision. There was no other alternative... for THIS version of Superman. Some people are ok with that. Some aren't.

 

[jimbob]

Wow. My family saw this scene totally differently than people on here seem to have. What I saw was Superman getting Zod in a choke hold, Zod struggled but couldn't break free, so rather than be choked out he went to the heat vision. As he turns toward the family, Superman tries to hold him back, but can't quite do it. He pleads with Zod to stop, but then realizes the people are going to be fried. His emotion takes his strength to another level and Zod's neck snaps. Shocking, yes. Badass, yes. Intentional, no. It seemed pretty obvious to me, but I'm sure I'll see it plenty of times and see if it still is. People weren't cheering because Superman found the will to Kill Zod; they were cheering because Superman found the strength to stop him. Then end of the fight was inevitable. Either Zod kills Superman, Superman kills Zod, or Superman allows Zod to continue killing people. Having the cops cuff him and take him down to the station wasn't on the table.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I think there's a big difference between "Zod's neck snaps" which to me implies Supes used just a little bit too much pressure and giving him a Mortal Kombat finishing move. Not touching on the motivation at all, just the actual action. He practically turned the guy's head around like an owl and the crack resonated louder than the score

 

[jimbob]

No, there really isn't. I have never snapped someone's neck, but I have broken arms and dislocated joints. Of course his head's going to turn like an owl! Once his neck breaks, there won't be any more resistance. And I don't think Superman used "a little too much pressure," he just went to a level he didn't know he had. Kind of like a mother lifting a car off her child.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You've dislocated joints right? Seen Watchmen? When Niteowl punches through the mugger's elbow joint exploding it outword? that's not the same as tweeking someone's joint until it pops.

There's a big difference, and like every other Goyer-only written script MOS employed the FINISH HIM good guy/bad guy move

 

[SentinelMind]

Bingo. That's why it's impossible to answer the "well what would YOU have done with Zod" question because the entire structure of the movie (and Clark's character) was built to lead to that very decision. There was no other alternative... for THIS version of Superman. Some people are ok with that. Some aren't.

You're right...it fact didn't surprise me all that much when he did it. It seemed logical to the type of Superman we're presented in the movie. Although I think this was better than Superman Returns, I can NOW understand people's dislike of the new characterization after thinking about it.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I'm unsure how I feel. Obviously there is the precedence of killing Zod, and plenty of instances where Superman says he never kills. But there's only (to my mind) been a few instances where Superman was fighting someone who could destroy the world and he has no Kryptonite weakness and no phantom zone projector. In those instances, Superman killed, and understood it was neccesary. I'll put it in the same group as Harvey's death, Bruce intentionally threw him off the building, let's face it he did, but it was to save the child.

 

[jimbob]

I don't know how to say this, but if you're basing your understanding of anatomy in combat on Watchmen, then there's no discussion to be had here. You might as well be talking about Wile E. Coyote. But I'll say this much: You can break things on purpose or by accident, but once they're broken, they're broken.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I think i'm just going to pop in here every now and then and remind everyone that my problem with the ending CANNOT be discussed with 'well what would you have done' 'what else could he do' 'he saved that family, didn't he?' type of answers.

My problem is that David Goyer wrote a script putting Superman in a scenario where he'd have to kill someone.

And Zack Snyder filmed it in a rather brutal and unapologetic way.

Now some people can argue that they like the fact that they mixed it up or whatever.

But those people obviously didn't have the same attachment to what Superman represents as I do.

And I don't just mean his 'no kill rule'.

I mean the very nature of Superman is a character whose stories are full of light and hope and 'always finding another way'. Superman always shows up just in the nick of time (had plenty of that thankfully ), and the reason the no kill rule is so satisfying is because it's Superman's way of doing things one step better than all the other Superheroes.

Anyone with those superpowers could have killed Zod to save everyone. It takes strength of character to stop Zod WITHOUT killing him... to have to think outside the box and find another way, and STILL save everyone.

It just makes me so sad that a whole new generation of Superman fans are going to grow up not knowing all the wonderful aspects of Superman I know.

Your first problem (as well as Goyer and Snyder's) was assuming that Superman thinks like you do. This movie created a character that DOES think like you. His parents, not the super-moral force that created Superman, but instead a couple that taught their son to watch people die rather than step in to help. This character grew up to be conflicted and unsure of himself, and he made a snap decision to kill Zod. The problem is...that isn't Superman...it's some character that Goyer and Snyder made up. The Clark Kent who was raised by that wonderful couple to become the Man of Tomorrow that we all aspire to someday become (regardless of whether or not he'd ever put on a costume) does not appear in this movie, and that is unfortunate.

 

[Maximus One]

They should have developed the Kents' establishing morals in him a bit more but Johnathan only said "Maybe" and reluctantly at that when Clark asked if he should've just let them die. The only time that we really saw Johnathan tell Clark to let someone die was when he himself was killed

 

[Poni_Boy]

You're right...it fact didn't surprise me all that much when he did it. It seemed logical to the type of Superman we're presented in the movie. Although I think this was better than Superman Returns, I can NOW understand people's dislike of the new characterization after thinking about it.

Yup. Mark Waid said it best in his review. He saw it coming, KNEW it was coming, but still couldn't believe they did it.

Again, some people are ok with it. Some aren't. For those that aren't it pretty much screws up the character from here on out.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Your first problem (as well as Goyer and Snyder's) was assuming that Superman thinks like you do. This movie created a character that DOES think like you. His parents, not the super-moral force that created Superman, but instead a couple that taught their son to watch people die rather than step in to help. This character grew up to be conflicted and unsure of himself, and he made a snap decision to kill Zod. The problem is...that isn't Superman...it's some character that Goyer and Snyder made up. The Clark Kent who was raised by that wonderful couple to become the Man of Tomorrow that we all aspire to someday become (regardless of whether or not he'd ever put on a costume) does not appear in this movie, and that is unfortunate.

And YOUR first problem is thinking that I have a problem...

...this movie created a character that DOESN'T think like I do. I can't tell you how many times I've been faced with a tough decision and I've caved in. However, this movie DID portray a character that I ASPIRE to be! A character that ultimately makes the right decision despite the blow back. I'm not sure what movie you were watching but I never got the impression that Pa Kent taught his son to just watch people die. I suppose handing Clark a helpless kid and telling him to get everyone under the overpass means "watching people die". Yes, Pa Kent said that "maybe" he should have let the kids on the bus die...but he always followed it up by telling Clark that his power isn't his speed or physical strength, but in the choices he will make. He urged Clark to keep that side of him a secret, but he also said that he believes Clark was sent to Earth for a reason and that reason would change the world....which is why Pa Kent kept telling Clark that whatever decisions he makes by utilizing his powers will dictate the type of man he becomes.

It's a very gray subject and you can't just write it off as "Pa Kent taught Clark to embrace death". If you believe that, then you clearly missed the point that the movie was trying to make.

 

[jimbob]

So you guys all spazzed out about Superman II then?

 

[Poni_Boy]

I don't know how to say this, but if you're basing your understanding of anatomy in combat on Watchmen, then there's no discussion to be had here.

that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Maybe actually read what I said. There's gratuitous, exaggerated physical trauma (i.e. what happened in that scene in Watchmen, Supes/Zod in MOS) and realistic trauma. Goyer is known for the former, just watch his films.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

It's weird, I saw that Mark Waid didn't like it before I saw the movie. And there was this little niggling bit in my head going 'Dude wrote your favourite Superman story and he hates the movie... that's bad'...

But I tried to ignore it. I even remember being annoyed at him and thinking he must just be stuck on his own version of the character and is being a grump'.

I'm sorry Mark Waid. Because you were right. And we had the exact same experience in the cinema.

I'm actually a bit upset with myself for not having a more vocal and physical reaction like he did.

Mine kind of creeped up on me. Like it happened, and I didn't really register it... and then by the time we got to the pa kent watching the little boy scene, i'd zoned out and don't really remember what was said there... cause all of a sudden my heart caught up with what i'd seen with my eyes and these crushing slow tears starting falling, as I started to accept that trying to like this movie/franchise was now hopeless. When I realised everything I had just lost.

Because I feel like i've lost so damn much positivity now. The whole way through this last couple of years i've had this awesome thing to look forward to. And this film was supposed to be something I could turn to for comfort. I thought i'd love it so much that whenever I was feeling a bit ****, I could watch this movie and it would make me feel better...

I don't have that any more. And I doubt i'll have that from the sequel either, cause I don't see how they can go from this wrong to something right.

So i'm back to what I already had. The GN's that I love, STAS and my nostalgic love of LnC. And I guess that's all i'm ever gonna have.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I've accepted the inevitability of Superman killing the villain in the movies after having seen it happen with Batman. I just wished they could made the regret last longer than that one scene. The next time we see him (with the general and the captain, with Ma Kent, and finally in the Daily Planet) he seemed back to his usual chipper self. I'm not necessarily saying that he had to be an emotional wreck afterwards or anything, but they don't have to gloss over it completely either. Even something simple like Ma Kent asking him how he's coping after what happened, and Clark invoking that subtle wistfulness that's characteristic of guys like the current Doctor or Himura Kenshin.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Yup. Would have been nice.

 

[DorkyFresh]

If there's anything I have a problem with, when it comes to Zod's end, it's not that Superman killed him. It's that they were in such a hurry to wrap up the film that they made no mention of what they did or were gonna do with him.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I think it's a bit deflating that Zod says in the battle that either he dies or Superman dies, there is no alternative, and thus in the end he's essentially vindicated and victorious and Superman is in fact no better than Zod thought he was. Also, I don't really buy the "HE HAD NO CHOICE!" arguments. If Superman had the strength to snap Zod's neck, you think he'd also have the strength to knock him out with a solid blow to the back of the head or something.

 

[baerrtt]

Regarding people mentioning the idea of Luthor using it to turn people against Superman.....considering what Zod and his soldiers had done to Metropolis I don't realistically think the public would hold that against him or fear him due to it.