How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[Senator Pleasury]

the audience clapped when he snapped his neck

That's all we need.

 

[Jim-El]

Superman...

Spoiler

DOES NOT KILL!!

 

[stillanerd]

1. Based on some comments that I've seen about the scene in question, I find it fascinating how some are saying that, since this is Synder/Goyer's take on Superman that one can't compare it to Donner's Superman the Movie, that it's own unique take on the character; yet in the same breath they cite Superman II and John Byrne's comic to justify Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel. Never mind that just because Superman killed Zod in that film and comic, it doesn't automatically mean that Man of Steel had to go down a similar route.

2. Also, just because Superman has the power to kill in order to protect lives doesn't mean he should. Superman--as the film itself tries to tell us--is supposed to be an inspiring figure, a symbol of hope which he literally wears on his chest. As Jor-El says in the film which is quoted in the trailer: "You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders." Well, doesn't the fact that Superman is forced to kill Zod not only go against Superman's own ideals but the very message of Superman that Man of Steel film tried to impart to it's audience?

3. Zod basically gives Superman this choice: "Either I kill this family and other humans, or you kill me." But sometimes, making a decision isn't always an either/or choice, especially considering how Superman could've easily prevented Zod from using his eye-beams, such as say, covering Zod's eyes with his hand or flying away with him to a desert and getting him out of the heavily populated metropolis, or flying him out of Earth's atmosphere and hoping to knock him out in the vacuum of space, or any number of ways of incapacitating Zod without killing him (or perhaps Goyer and Snyder could've combined the Superman and Zod fight with the whole sucking the evil Kyrptonians back into the Phantom Zone. Heck, couldn't that family get up and move out of danger instead of being "paralyzed by fear?") Instead, by having Superman kill Zod, not only does this compromise Superman's own ideals, but he's also accepting the terms of the moral dilemma Zod imposes. In short, Superman doesn't win--Zod does. Also, rather than underscoring how Superman is a person of free will as opposed to the genetic predetermination of the other Kryptonians, it diminishes it simply because Superman isn't shown to be able to find another way that can both stop Zod without killing him and saving lives.

4. Even if the idea is to present Superman with a tough moral choice of killing Zod in order to save lives, it probably would have been better served had we seen Superman actually making an effort to prevent all sorts of collateral damage and actively trying to save lives while engaging in his climatic fight with Zod before that moment with the family. Cause if you think about it, hundreds, if not thousands, of people died during his fight with Zod prior to that point, and Superman didn't seem the least bit concerned about those potential lives being lost.

 

[Godzilla2000]

I just love the conflict of Superman's solution to stopping General Zod and that he really didn't want to kill another. Zod really left him no choice though and that's a pretty realistic element. Does Superman allow innocent people to be killed or does he kill the man that's the threat to their safety?

 

[BH/HHH]

Superman...

Spoiler

DOES NOT KILL!!

No unless its Phantom Zone criminals from a pocket universe, Doomsday or the things he used to punch out back when he was created in the 30s

< and this moment led to Exile which then led to the greatest run in Superman comics (IMO)

I just love the conflict of Superman's solution to stopping General Zod and that he really didn't want to kill another. Zod really left him no choice though and that's a pretty realistic element. Does Superman allow innocent people to be killed or does he kill the man that's the threat to their safety?

Exactly, I loved it when is he ever put in that situation in the comics? I mean other than Doomsday really that single moment where he really doesn't have a choice.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's because he didn't have time. I don't get the Superman just flying over people as they die comments. Zod and his scheme really had Superman tied up. It showed the basic concept that's already there for Superman: When he goes to save someone else, someone else will die. We don't see it, but Superman always has to make a choice.

And besides, Superman was a pacifist before Zod threatened his mother. He knew it wasn't in his nature to kill. It devastated him to do it. Now if Superman killing is again used to solve his problems in sequels, then I can see the issue. But I doubt Superman will ever do it again. I think in a sequel it would be a cool idea to show how Superman will now make the conscience effort to not kill and do whatever he can to never put himself in that position again. I wasn't like Batman Begins where Batman really could save Ra's (there's that whole debate) I believe comics Batman would have saved Ra's in that train... anyway, with this, it was a mistake of course, but one in the heat of the moment.

I get he's Superman, but this film was just as focused on the man. And a man in any situation where there's danger has to make a difficult choice. It's so easy as an observer to say what he could have done or what we would have done. But we're not him. And we're especially not Superman. Yeah he's Superman, and he fights super problems. This takes a concept relevant to the real world and makes it super.

I won't argue against the idea of how Superman is in the comics. But this Superman is slightly different than the comics, mainly in tone and character aspects; and it looked pretty apparent in the promotion. Killing is a change, but I don't think it will happen again. This Superman learns and grows and makes mistakes. He's not perfect. That always seemed apparent by everything surrounding this movie. It's consistent.

 

[Jim-El]

I just love the conflict of Superman's solution to stopping General Zod and that he really didn't want to kill another. Zod really left him no choice though and that's a pretty realistic element. Does Superman allow innocent people to be killed or does he kill the man that's the threat to their safety?

I have to agree with this. I originally did not.

No unless its Phantom Zone criminals from a pocket universe, Doomsday or the things he used to punch out back when he was created in the 30s

Exactly, I loved it when is he ever put in that situation in the comics? I mean other than Doomsday really that single moment where he really doesn't have a choice.

I am warming up to these issues...

 

[Doctor Jones]

1. Based on some comments that I've seen about the scene in question, I find it fascinating how some are saying that, since this is Synder/Goyer's take on Superman that one can't compare it to Donner's Superman the Movie, that it's own unique take on the character; yet in the same breath they cite Superman II and John Byrne's comic to justify Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel. Never mind that just because Superman killed Zod in that film and doesn't automatically mean that Man of Steel had to go down a similar route.

2. Also, just because Superman has the power to kill in order to protect lives doesn't mean he should. Superman--as the film itself tries to tell us--is supposed to be a inspiring figure, a symbol of hope which he literally wears on his chest. As Jor-El says in the film which is quoted in the trailer: "You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders." Well, doesn't the fact that Superman is forced to kill Zod not only go against Superman's own ideals but the very message of Superman that film tried to impart to it's audience?

3. Zod basically gives Superman this choice: "Either I kill this family and other humans, or you kill me." But sometimes, making a decision isn't always an either/or decision, especially considering how Superman could've easily prevented Zod from using his eye-beams, such as say, covering Zod's eyes with his hand or flying away with him to a desert and getting him out of the heavily populated metropolis, or flying him out of Earth's atmosphere and hoping to knock him out in the vacuum of space, or any number of ways of incapacitating Zod without killing him (or perhaps Goyer and Snyder could've combine the Superman and Zod fight with the whole sucking the evil Kyrptonians back into the Phantom Zone. Heck, couldn't that family get up and move out of danger instead of being "paralyzed by fear?") Instead, by having Superman kill Zod, not only does this compromise Superman's own ideals, but he's also accepting the terms of the moral dilemna Zod imposes. In short, Superman doesn't win--Zod does. Also, rather than underscoring how Superman is a person of free will as opposed to the genetic predetermination of the other Kryptonians, it diminishes it simply because Superman isn't shown to be able to find another way that can both stop Zod without killing him and saving lives.

4. Even if the idea is to present Superman with a tough moral choice of killing Zod in order to save lives, it probably would have been better served had we seen Superman actually making an effort to prevent all sorts of collateral damage and actively trying to save lives while engaging in his climatic fight with Zod before that moment with the family. Cause if you think about it, hundreds, if not thousands, of people died during his fight with Zod prior to that point, and Superman didn't seem the least bit concerned about those potential lives being lost.

See, this is a good argument, and a friend of mine echoes your beliefs. Again, I can't argue with that because that is more of the Superman that is true to the comics. This film in itself is still Superman, but not everything from the comics applied. It comes down to preference I suppose. But I loved the change. Now I don't want to see Superman killing his enemies in each film to solve a problem, but for this film, I think it was fine in showing a very flawed Superman. We know flawed Superman in the comics, but this is a flawed we haven't really seen before applied to real moral situations people face all the time.

I want to still keep seeing a flawed Superman though. As long as it can be fresh.

 

[BH/HHH]

I have to agree with this. I originally did not.



I am warming up to these issues...

Warming up? Lol have you not read the issues?

 

[KalMart]

"'Daaawwwwwwwww.......!"

 

[Motown Marvel]

the audience clapped when he snapped his neck

That is amazingly disheartening.

 

[King K]

This was a huge HOLY $%^& moment in the crowd last night and it was awesome. I have not jumped out of my seat like that in years while in a theatre it was such a surprise. I agree with the way Superman handled Zod and was a really awesome moment.

 

[Motown Marvel]

No unless its Phantom Zone criminals from a pocket universe, Doomsday or the things he used to punch out back when he was created in the 30s

< and this moment led to Exile which then led to the greatest run in Superman comics (IMO)

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.

...

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I gotta say from a visual stand point how cool was it to see a "super" neck break?!

the audience clapped when he snapped his neck

And this, is why I cry

 

[Chiquichiqui]

Hated it. The Superman I grow up with is not a murderer.

 

[Warhammer]

My thing about Superman killing Zod is simple. In context to the story, it was absolutely necessary. And one cannot throw a fit about Zod's death here without also complaining about Zod's death in Superman II. And about that last part, don't just suddenly have an issue for the sake of argument. If a year ago, you weren't royally pissed at what Superman did to Zod, don't begin to be angry now.

 

[DACrowe]

I totally disagree. Bane's death felt cheap and empty. Superman did everything within his physical powers to stop Zod and when faced with a hard decision, Clark decided to save lives by ending one...and in doing so he felt immense guilt and sorrow for having to do what he did. His cry "NOOooooo!!" showed that he absolutely did NOT want to do what he did.

Thematically. Also, Bane wasn't killed by Batman (though I far prefer Bane's death, but that is a different matter).

A better comparison is Batman killed Two-Face. He didn't want to, but a life that we cared about (Jim Gordon's son) was at stake and it was well established for 2 hours of movie before that that he cannot "break his one rule," even if it means killing the man who murdered his girlfriend and will undoubtedly murder again. It is a powerful moment and the cost it has on Batman's soul is to be hunted and harassed for eight years for a crime he does not commit. Action and consequence.

Compared to Man of Steel, Superman kills Zod, cries and gets over it. No repercussions. Kind of like he and Zod killing THOUSANDS of people in their fight when they trash about a dozen skyscrapers all surely with people in them. No consequence as he is in Metropolis next day to join the Planet where everyone is having playful banter like thousands of their neighbors didn't die in 9/11 redux.

Also, it is never established in MOS that Superman has one rule. So his breaking it means nothing.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

It's because he didn't have time. I don't get the Superman just flying over people as they die comments. Zod and his scheme really had Superman tied up. It showed the basic concept that's already there for Superman: When he goes to save someone else, someone else will die. We don't see it, but Superman always has to make a choice.

And besides, Superman was a pacifist before Zod threatened his mother. He knew it wasn't in his nature to kill. It devastated him to do it. Now if Superman killing is again used to solve his problems in sequels, then I can see the issue. But I doubt Superman will ever do it again. I think in a sequel it would be a cool idea to show how Superman will now make the conscience effort to not kill and do whatever he can to never put himself in that position again. I wasn't like Batman Begins where Batman really could save Ra's (there's that whole debate) I believe comics Batman would have saved Ra's in that train... anyway, with this, it was a mistake of course, but one in the heat of the moment.

I get he's Superman, but this film was just as focused on the man. And a man in any situation where there's danger has to make a difficult choice. It's so easy as an observer to say what he could have done or what we would have done. But we're not him. And we're especially not Superman. Yeah he's Superman, and he fights super problems. This takes a concept relevant to the real world and makes it super.

I won't argue against the idea of how Superman is in the comics. But this Superman is slightly different than the comics, mainly in tone and character aspects; and it looked pretty apparent in the promotion. Killing is a change, but I don't think it will happen again. This Superman learns and grows and makes mistakes. He's not perfect. That always seemed apparent by everything surrounding this movie. It's consistent.

If he never kills again, I'll be fine with it, as this is the catalyst for the no-kill policy. If he ends up killing another alien, I won't be.

BUT this isn't the optimal ending. I think the writer should have found a way for Superman to outsmart his enemy.

 

[DACrowe]

the "fad" he's talking about is probably a reference to Amazing Spider-Man. I definitely see similarities between the structure of MoS and ASM. They are both designed for potential sequels and quite honestly I am thrilled with the concept.

Comic book movies should build up to a sequel. Potential is at least half the fun.

But they should stand on their own. Batman Begins introduces the threat of the Joker, but is a stand alone perfectly told story. The Dark Knight introduces the concept that Batman is on the run from the cops, but it ends its story in a satisfying way where a sequel is not desperately needed to fill in the gaps. The Avengers sets up more to come, but finishes explaining its entire story and character arcs.

All of them are far better movies than The Amazing Spider-Man and its half-assed storytelling for that reason. I am not trying to be harsh, but yeah.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

My thing about Superman killing Zod is simple. In context to the story, it was absolutely necessary. And one cannot throw a fit about Zod's death here without also complaining about Zod's death in Superman II. And about that last part, don't just suddenly have an issue for the sake of argument. If a year ago, you weren't royally pissed at what Superman did to Zod, don't begin to be angry now.

Which is why I dislike the story.

 

[KalMart]

Hated it. The Superman I grow up with is not a murderer.

Neither is this one...he did it as a last line of defense, totally justified. And more importantly, the film made it clear that it was something he took no joy in doing.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Superman is above justifying murder.

 

[tomoe]

People keep bringing up the flying away with Zod 'solution' vs killing him... How do you know he wasn't trying to do just that but couldn't because Zod had his knees planted firmly on the ground and was hellbent on destroying that family? Some people seem to forget that Zod was just as powerful as Superman. It would be like 2 equally powers humans fighting and coming to an impasse. I've also heard burning a hole around them so they can crash onto possibly another family downstairs. That would also assume Superman could turn in a circle while still holding Zod. He was trying to turn Zod away but couldn't. I do not like the killing but I've yet to hear a solution that seems really feasible. The only one is that since that family was too dumb to move he should have shouted at them to move while he still had Zod restrained. And then what more 'thousands' of lives lost because they would have continued crashing into buildings? Which by the way I do not think thousands were lost from their fight most were lost from that gravity beam.

 

[Motown Marvel]

If superman had the strength to snap Zod's neck, he had the strength to to turn his head away from family (without snapping it) giving them the time to flee.

 

[Man in the Suit]

If superman had the strength to snap Zod's neck, he had the strength to to turn his head away from family (without snapping it) giving them the time to flee.

And then he gets the upper hand and goes after more people.