How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[Poni_Boy]

t didn't work for me, personally. Not the killing of Zod part but the aftermath. He killed one guy, reacted to it and was comforted. Won the battle. Had support. But what about Metropolis? It's not addressed until the final scene where it all looks completely rebuilt. No weight. It made the choice/sacrifice about the killing, not the failure to protect. I think leaving Lois out of the scene completely (no idea how she got there to begin with) would have made it HIS moment.

 

[Tanin]

Ah yes...the old "he was changed once, so he can be changed again" tactic.

Not a tactic or hyperbole or anything. Tis my serious opinion as a trait that can go either way. I forgo the flying as people will never want to change that. Though I think it silly.

But a no kill policy should be dependent on the story being told. Kal-El/Clark isn't Superman yet. He is just an alien who lives on Earth who did his best growing up and stopped an alien invasion. He will become Superman in the sequel if we are lucky enough to get one. Hopefully with all the mortals and convictions of the comic character.

I see no reason why he should have a no kill policy at this point in his career. He is raised American and we are violence incarnate. He is fighting a General who becomes a madman with the loss of his genetic purpose for life and basically chooses to commit suicide. The only way to contain Zod was destroyed... and with how fast Zod was growing in strength the probability of not being able to stop him for much longer.

They did not show Kal going through anything profound enough in his life to warrant a no kill policy. I hope that Zod's death is what makes him decide one way or the other what kind of a beacon he wishes to be for the people of Earth.

Though to say on a personal level.... I was shocked at his death even though I knew it was coming. It was well acted and well written in the context of this film. I've lost quite a bit of sleep over this scene so I think it worked well.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

"I wonder if a lot of people would have changed their stance on the killing aspect if the final fight had taken place on a rooftop or inside a busted up skyscraper where after Zod dies Supes reacts not just to what he did but to a visual of all the death and carnage in Metropolis. a sweeping over the shoulder shot of the destroyed city skyline. And maybe leave Lois out of it, leave him alone on his knees crying and taking it all in."

I actually agree on Pony Boy with this one. I think they went the Hollywood happy route which is understandable, but flawed. By focusing in on the two characters, the wreckage and destruction of Metropolis is an afterthought? But how do we know if he is hearing screams and ignoring them? That's pretty presumptuous. Also, just because the film doesn't SHOW him helping relief efforts, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Yes, I believe in "off-screen character development." Don't judge me.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I actually feel kinda sorry for those who haven't seen MOS yet and have visited the MOS forum.

I'm pretty just from the thread titles here they know what superman does to Zod.

 

[Heretic]

Not a tactic or hyperbole or anything. Tis my serious opinion as a trait that can go either way. I forgo the flying as people will never want to change that. Though I think it silly.

But a no kill policy should be dependent on the story being told. Kal-El/Clark isn't Superman yet. He is just an alien who lives on Earth who did his best growing up and stopped an alien invasion. He will become Superman in the sequel if we are lucky enough to get one. Hopefully with all the mortals and convictions of the comic character.

I see no reason why he should have a no kill policy at this point in his career. He is raised American and we are violence incarnate. He is fighting a General who becomes a madman with the loss of his genetic purpose for life and basically chooses to commit suicide. The only way to contain Zod was destroyed... and with how fast Zod was growing in strength the probability of not being able to stop him for much longer.

They did not show Kal going through anything profound enough in his life to warrant a no kill policy. I hope that Zod's death is what makes him decide one way or the other what kind of a beacon he wishes to be for the people of Earth.

Though to say on a personal level.... I was shocked at his death even though I knew it was coming. It was well acted and well written in the context of this film. I've lost quite a bit of sleep over this scene so I think it worked well.

You're right in that the movie gave us no reason to think he wouldn't kill. That is a shame, and not in keeping with the Superman from the past several decades.

Superman is more than just an American...he's THE American. Remember, he is not the Man of Today, he is the Man of Tomorrow. America claims to be about peace, yet we bomb people constantly...Superman really is about peace. Superman really is humble. He embodies all of the great things that we claim to be or wish we could be. He is not like that through trial and error. He is like that because of the Kents (though, clearly, we saw nothing like this in Man of Steel).

If we are going to encourage and support changes to characters...then please show me the support for the Deadpool character from Wolverine. Why did comic fans reject him??? After all...the merc with no mouth who teleports and has swords in his arms was just a new, bold take on the character. Why did people complain??? Why does it ever matter to have ANY consistency or faithfulness to the comics? Superman was RADICALLY changed in this new origin story. An entire generation of people will now view him incorrectly...and we are likely to see the comic character altered to fit this new viewpoint. The Superman that I want to read believes that no one has the right to decide who dies and he ESPECIALLY does not have that right, since he has the power to kill at will.

 

[Poni_Boy]

the thing is, the Man of Tomorrow angle doesn't hold up in this film. From what I remember in the comics, Krypton was a peaceful planet where killing was forbidden. That's part of the whole Man of Tomorrow mythology. Earth is supposed to use Superman's example of no death penalty tactics to eventually become more like Krypton. But by removing it from the film's mythology, it's a mute point.

 

[Heretic]

the thing is, the Man of Tomorrow angle doesn't hold up in this film. From what I remember in the comics, Krypton was a peaceful planet where killing was forbidden. That's part of the whole Man of Tomorrow mythology. Earth is supposed to use Superman's example of no death penalty tactics to eventually become more like Krypton. But by removing it from the film's mythology, it's a mute point.

Yes...this movie pretty much removed most of what makes Superman so super.

It is no different than having Uncle Ben tell Peter Parker "with great power, comes no responsibility...sometimes, just let people die" and then telling a Spider-Man movie based on that concept. It is an insult to the character.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Superman is the Man of Tomorrow...not the Man of Today. He is supposed to embody the things that we WISH we could be...he has no ego...he would die to save others who probably don't deserve it. The movie paid some cheap lip service to this...quoting from the comic directly...about how people will stumble behind him, but will be inspired by him and someday join him. For now, you aren't really supposed to like him or identify with him...you are to stand in awe of him.

Batman is the guy that you wish you could be as a teenager...Superman is more the guy you want your daughter to marry.

I want my daughter to marry Batman. He's rich and won't kill her trying to impregnate her.

Id much rather be Superman. He has super powers.

 

[bullets]

I think so. Like when Batman stood over the carnage after Rachel's death in TDK. It helped define his solidarity and added gravitas to the scene. Action -> consequence. Now think of Supes in the same situation but on a massive scale. Adding Lois there to comfort him I think would have stopped him from him taking it all in. Crying over having killed is one thing, crying over seeing his failure to protect the people of Metropolis is another. He won the battle but lost the war.

I've only seen it once and can't recall if they even addressed the aftermath. Something with him looking at the devastation in horror or sadness would of sufficed. Although he cries in Lois's arms we don't know the entirety of his grief. Even though I really enjoy the film I think it would of been better to let the audience mourn or mull over the destruction.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yes...this movie pretty much removed most of what makes Superman so super.

It is no different than having Uncle Ben tell Peter Parker "with great power, comes no responsibility...sometimes, just let people die" and then telling a Spider-Man movie based on that concept. It is an insult to the character.

I get what you're saying, I just try to judge the believably of a movie only by the parameters presented in it. Superman, as a well known character, has a no-kill rule for all intents and purposes. In this movie, he doesn't. Not saying which is right or wrong, it just is.

And I never liked that Raimi put that line in Spider-Man, personally. I don't like expository dialogue if it can be avoided.

 

[Lencho01]

Zod and co. were actually arrested in Donner cut, so Superman didn't kill them...

[YT]mA5d66AnT7s[/YT]

the thing is, the Man of Tomorrow angle doesn't hold up in this film. From what I remember in the comics, Krypton was a peaceful planet where killing was forbidden. That's part of the whole Man of Tomorrow mythology. Earth is supposed to use Superman's example of no death penalty tactics to eventually become more like Krypton. But by removing it from the film's mythology, it's a mute point.

If you look beyond that, Krypton is what Earth could be like in the future except for becoming so full of pride, they'd ignore the warnings of one their greatest scientists. Superman as the Man of Tomorrow shows this example and Earth becomes what you see in Legion times: like Krypton, but without the pride.

 

[Tanin]

If we are going to encourage and support changes to characters...then please show me the support for the Deadpool character from Wolverine. Why did comic fans reject him??? After all...the merc with no mouth who teleports and has swords in his arms was just a new, bold take on the character. Why did people complain??? Why does it ever matter to have ANY consistency or faithfulness to the comics? Superman was RADICALLY changed in this new origin story. An entire generation of people will now view him incorrectly...and we are likely to see the comic character altered to fit this new viewpoint. The Superman that I want to read believes that no one has the right to decide who dies and he ESPECIALLY does not have that right, since he has the power to kill at will.

I support the changes made to Blade. They (Goyer) improved on the character in every single aspect.
The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were changed for the better imo due to the cartoons and movies.
Superman was changed for the better.
Batman has changed for the better.

Using one horrific example to try and justify never changing anything is not helping your cause. Just because YOU think Superman should remain as he is now in the comics doesn't make it right anymore then me wanting him to stay like he was in the Golden Era. Stagnating the character will do nothing but kill him off.

 

[Poni_Boy]

If you look beyond that, Krypton is what Earth could be like in the future except for becoming so full of pride, they'd ignore the warnings of one their greatest scientists. Superman as the Man of Tomorrow shows this example and Earth becomes what you see in Legion times: like Krypton, but without the pride.

Oh I know the extent of it (environmental what-not) I was just specifically referring to the "no-kill" part of the mythology and how it doesn't apply to the Man of Tomorrow thing. There was a freaking civil war going on on Krypton and Jor didn't have a problem killing

 

[bullets]

Yes...this movie pretty much removed most of what makes Superman so super.

It is no different than having Uncle Ben tell Peter Parker "with great power, comes no responsibility...sometimes, just let people die" and then telling a Spider-Man movie based on that concept. It is an insult to the character.

It's entirely realistic. I doubt Superman could show up tomorrow and be universally loved. It would freak a lot people out. I didn't have an issue with Clark being told to lay low until he was ready to face the world.

 

[Heretic]

I support the changes made to Blade. They (Goyer) improved on the character in every single aspect.
The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were changed for the better imo due to the cartoons and movies.
Superman was changed for the better.
Batman has changed for the better.

Using one horrific example to try and justify never changing anything is not helping your cause. Just because YOU think Superman should remain as he is now in the comics doesn't make it right anymore then me wanting him to stay like he was in the Golden Era. Stagnating the character will do nothing but kill him off.

I have said many times that character do change...but once you find thats sweet spot, there is no reason to completely alter it.

Was there a definitive Blade that was worth a damn before the movies???

Punisher was changed...given demon powers. But we all knew that this was not The Punisher...it was offensive to the character as he had been defined in his definitive take. Had there never been a definitive take, then no one would have cared when he got demon powers and maybe THAT would be the definitive Punisher.

Completely changing a character may keep him alive, but it makes him worthless. Should we bring back Flash Gordon as a cannibal serial killer? Hey...it might make him cool again and keep him alive! I know, some might say "Flash Gordon doesn't eat people" but those people are stuck in the past, man! Serial killers are hot right now!

 

[Heretic]

It's entirely realistic. I doubt Superman could show up tomorrow and be universally loved. It would freak a lot people out. I didn't have an issue with Clark being told to lay low until he was ready to face the world.

I'm fine with Clark laying low...I hate Superboy.

 

[Lencho01]

Oh I know the extent of it (environmental what-not) I was just specifically referring to the "no-kill" part of the mythology and how it doesn't apply to the Man of Tomorrow thing. There was a freaking civil war going on on Krypton and Jor didn't have a problem killing

Yeah, this Krypton was kinda weird to watch since they're generally depicted as a "shining" example of society in which their pride got the best of them. Though going off the prequel comic, I guess that's how Krypton was thousands of years ago and then their pride was around for just as long.

Them essentially being invaders (if they went to inhabited planets during that space age period thousands of years ago) was weird too.

And Jor-El being able to take on Zod and his men pretty well was weird too when you take into account that he was genetically engineered to be a scientist and Zod a warrior (maybe even Krypton's best).

 

[bullets]

I was never a fan of Superboy either. ..

 

[Smashlilman]

You're right in that the movie gave us no reason to think he wouldn't kill. That is a shame, and not in keeping with the Superman from the past several decades.

Superman is more than just an American...he's THE American. Remember, he is not the Man of Today, he is the Man of Tomorrow. America claims to be about peace, yet we bomb people constantly...Superman really is about peace. Superman really is humble. He embodies all of the great things that we claim to be or wish we could be. He is not like that through trial and error. He is like that because of the Kents (though, clearly, we saw nothing like this in Man of Steel).

If we are going to encourage and support changes to characters...then please show me the support for the Deadpool character from Wolverine. Why did comic fans reject him??? After all...the merc with no mouth who teleports and has swords in his arms was just a new, bold take on the character. Why did people complain??? Why does it ever matter to have ANY consistency or faithfulness to the comics? Superman was RADICALLY changed in this new origin story. An entire generation of people will now view him incorrectly...and we are likely to see the comic character altered to fit this new viewpoint. The Superman that I want to read believes that no one has the right to decide who dies and he ESPECIALLY does not have that right, since he has the power to kill at will.

Donner's superman killed Zod and he didn't bat an eye also Lois Lane killed Ursa.
Greatest Superman Moment Ever
[YT]jUORL-bvwA0[/YT]

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It's entirely realistic. I doubt Superman could show up tomorrow and be universally loved. It would freak a lot people out. I didn't have an issue with Clark being told to lay low until he was ready to face the world.

That's the part I loved about MOS, the alien nature of Superman's impact on people. The bad part was that this impact only affected a limited group of people. The world was only worried about Zod and company. We didn't get to see the whole world astonished at Superman. That's big part of what makes the Superman story, super.

 

[Heretic]

Donner's superman killed Zod and Lois Lane kill Ursa.

First, no he didn't. Deleted scenes show them alive and in custody. The film as it was released communicated this very, VERY poorly. Not surprising, as that movie absolutely sucked as well, aside from Eurotrash Zod.

Superman has killed in the comics...he killed Zod AFTER taking away his powers forever. It was John Byrne (who I normally defend til the end) who wrote that. This was a MASSIVE mistake that DC regretted, and they spent a decade trying to atone for that mistake and showing how Superman regretted it, realized he was wrong and would not do it again.

I do not want a Man of Steel 2 that is that much of a downer. I want his goodness to inspire me.

 

[Lencho01]

Donner's superman killed Zod and he didn't bat an eye also Lois Lane kill Ursa.
Greatest Superman Moment Ever
[YT]jUORL-bvwA0[/YT]

They were arrested in Donner's version of the film...

[YT]mA5d66AnT7s[/YT]

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's the part I loved about MOS, the alien nature of Superman's impact on people. The bad part was that this impact only affected a limited group of people. The world was only worried about Zod and company. We didn't get to see the whole world astonished at Superman. That's big part of what makes the Superman story, super.

Yep. Considering he had no distinct interaction with anyone outside the military I really don't know how they'll just have him immediately show up a hero in a sequel when he'd be preceived as just "one of the aliens that busted up the city." He has yet to be introduced to the world. If anyone other than Goyer were writing the script, I would have faith this would be addressed

 

[Lencho01]

First, no he didn't. Deleted scenes show them alive and in custody. The film as it was released communicated this very, VERY poorly. Not surprising, as that movie absolutely sucked as well, aside from Eurotrash Zod.

Superman has killed in the comics...he killed Zod AFTER taking away his powers forever. It was John Byrne (who I normally defend til the end) who wrote that. This was a MASSIVE mistake that DC regretted, and they spent a decade trying to atone for that mistake and showing how Superman regretted it, realized he was wrong and would not do it again.

I do not want a Man of Steel 2 that is that much of a downer. I want his goodness to inspire me.

Yeah, Superman can killing a powerless person is the worst.

 

[Tanin]

First, no he didn't. Deleted scenes show them alive and in custody.

Deleted scenes mean nothing. The movie was cut so that Zod and Urza die. The final product is all that matters. Just admit it. Superman just seems to love killing Zod.