How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[Tanin]

There are Martians on Mars.

 

[Heretic]

I don't know about you guys...but I am THRILLED to hear the rumors that the new Batman movie is going to throw out the boring, cliche "I'm sad because my parents are dead" dark knight-era stuff!

From what I hear...this will bring back the Batman from the 40's...he is openly racist, his parents aren't mentioned, and he works for the US government!

This has happened before...so therefore...many in this thread MUST agree that it can happen again. This is a part of Batman, and I think it is awesome that they are getting rid of the so-called "definitive" Batman and bringing us another side of him.

But again, this is just a rumor...started by me.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't know about you guys...but I am THRILLED to hear the rumors that the new Batman movie is going to throw out the boring, cliche "I'm sad because my parents are dead" dark knight-era stuff!

From what I hear...this will bring back the Batman from the 40's...he is openly racist, his parents aren't mentioned, and he works for the US government!

This has happened before...so therefore...many in this thread MUST agree that it can happen again. This is a part of Batman, and I think it is awesome that they are getting rid of the so-called "definitive" Batman and bringing us another side of him.

But again, this is just a rumor...started by me.

I can't wait for the "Papa spank" reference in the new film.

 

[KalMart]

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.

Was it explained why the first attempt on Earth failed? I don't remember the estimated age of the ship, but it wasn't from like proto-Earth billions of years back, right?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

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.

Yup.

I mean, I guess I always thought that his aversion to killing came from his upbringing by the Kents, as well as having spent an entire life being aware of how fragile life is, having been surrounded by other people's mortality and sort of being an observer of that.

Not to mention understanding the effect that taking a life has on a person, especially one with powers such as his, and the risk being that it could lead to a slippery slope in terms of one person ever having the power to decide who gets to live or die. Because who is ever going to be able to keep an eye on that now grey line for him?

And funnily enough, you'd think someone who spent time handling Watchmen's material, and the very questions of what happens when a hero believes themselves above certain moralities for the sake of the greater good, would have respected the need to include those kinds of ideas.

Again i'll say - including it I could have dealt with. It would have still made me sad that in this day and age we seemingly can't avoid it and just have a fictional character represent an ideal, but I would have dealt with it.

IF they had actually bothered to include any minute amount of conversation on the topic.

It's no good saying it in interviews afterwards. Say it in the actual movie!

Not a single member of the GA will go away knowing any of the interesting discussions that go on regarding Supes' (and other heroes within the DC universe) no kill rule, and the WHY of it.

 

[X Knight]

I really don't see how the MOS Superman is that much of a deviation from the "traditional" Superman.

 

[gdw]

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.

Really? If you read it, you clearly ignored most of it.

In NO way was it because 'it would be cool.' It was EXPLICITLY done as a character defining moment.

Nolan WAS against it, adamantly so, to the extent that he didn't even want them to TRY writing it; UNTIL he read it.

The scene is truly a shocking moment.

Don't get me wrong, MOS is no TDK, and I usually hate when they kill off a villain after they've used him (or her) in a movie, but this was my absolute favourite execution (pardon me) of it in any superhero film.

Not just that I liked how it was done, but I felt it actually worked, and made sense within the film. It has FAR more weight than if he was just sucked into the Zone with everyone else.

It wasn't just to get rid of the villain, or give him an ending, but it was used as a truly character defining moment.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

That's news to me.

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.

Okay yeah, I walked into that one

Obviously it wasn't perfectly handled in TDK trilogy either. But at least it was THERE. They talked about it. They talked about the why of it, how he felt about it, how the villain used it to their advantage etc.

And yeah, he might have been able to stop it from happening if he put his foot down. I'm not saying that he felt the same way as I do about it... just that he at least thought it should stay. And I think that's because he finds the concept interesting, and at least a little bit recognised it's importance to the character and the DC universe as a whole.

 

[Lighthouse]

Really? If you read it, you clearly ignored most of it.

In NO way was it because 'it would be cool.' It was EXPLICITLY done as a character defining moment.

Nolan WAS against it, adamantly so, to the extent that he didn't even want them to TRY writing it; UNTIL he read it.

The scene is truly a shocking moment.

Don't get me wrong, MOS is no TDK, and I usually hate when they kill off a villain after they've used him (or her) in a movie, but this was my absolute favourite execution (pardon me) of it in any superhero film.

Not just that I liked how it was done, but I felt it actually worked, and made sense within the film. It has FAR more weight than if he was just sucked into the Zone with everyone else.

It wasn't just to get rid of the villain, or give him an ending, but it was used as a truly character defining moment.

How is it character defining?

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Well you watch pro wrestling so thats not too surprising.

 

[The Guard]

This "Nolan" you speak of, this is the guy who had to be convinced Catwoman could work as a character, yes?

 

[Heretic]

I really don't see how the MOS Superman is that much of a deviation from the "traditional" Superman.

He is a morally conflicted man who is learning what is right and wrong on the job. He stole clothes, destroyed public and private property over a petty grudge, and "broke" his nonexistent no-kill policy...apparently because...as Zack Snyder confirmed...he really didn't have a no-kill policy until he briefly felt guilty for killing. The Kents got the shaft in this movie...and anyone who knows even the slightest thing about Superman knows that...while his strength comes from is Kryptonian birth, his morals, unshakeable goodness and ability to win on his own terms, even in no-win situations comes from being raised by the Kents.

Superman should be inspiring. I find nothing inspiring in killing a villian who wants to be killed with sheer brute strength you got by chance of birth.

 

[gdw]

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.

No, he was saying that, if it were an origin film, and they did NOT give an explanation, just took it as part of who Superman was, he just "always" had that "rule," that it would NOT have been good, and that they should have an "explanation."
It is also apparent that, yes, he gets his morals from his upbringing with the Kents.

However, there is a difference between "it's how I was raised" and an actual experienced moment. Something written into the dna of his life.

It' created a moment similar to Bruce's parents' murder. It cements in him the fact that he will NEVER kill.

Had Bruce's parents never died, Bruce would still likely believe killing was wrong, but there's a difference between "Killing is wrong" and "I will NEVER resort to killing."

 

[Lighthouse]

It's my hugest problem with the realistic portrayals and Nolan's approach to superheros. It's like "how can we take material that itself is inherently silly and make it not silly. I think Raimi had the perfect attitude for Spider-Man. Instead of being ashamed of those things, embrace them. You can embrace the silliness and still tell great dramatic stories. Then I see Amazing Spider-Man, which decides it needs a scene of Parker skateboarding to Coldplay.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, he was saying that, if it were an origin film, and they did NOT give an explanation, just took it as part of who Superman was, he just "always" had that "rule," that it would NOT have been good, and that they should have an "explanation."
It is also apparent that, yes, he gets his morals from his upbringing with the Kents.

However, there is a difference between "it's how I was raised" and an actual experienced moment. Something written into the dna of his life.

It' created a moment similar to Bruce's parents' murder. It cements in him the fact that he will NEVER kill.

Had Bruce's parents never died, Bruce would still likely believe killing was wrong, but there's a difference between "Killing is wrong" and "I will NEVER resort to killing."

How is it "not good" and why would it even remotely needed to be explained? And the Batman idea is a completely false analogy. By that token, you could have used the deaths of thousands that just happened as his big "I should never kill moment".

The only thing that scene tells me is "I will never kill.......unless I really have to".

 

[Heretic]

No, he was saying that, if it were an origin film, and they did NOT give an explanation, just took it as part of who Superman was, he just "always" had that "rule," that it would NOT have been good, and that they should have an "explanation."
It is also apparent that, yes, he gets his morals from his upbringing with the Kents.

However, there is a difference between "it's how I was raised" and an actual experienced moment. Something written into the dna of his life.

It' created a moment similar to Bruce's parents' murder. It cements in him the fact that he will NEVER kill.

Had Bruce's parents never died, Bruce would still likely believe killing was wrong, but there's a difference between "Killing is wrong" and "I will NEVER resort to killing."

So, you're saying that the creators of this film are incapable of subtly weaving morals into the story, and needed a cheap shock scene to kinda/sorta explain it.

Like...instead of showing Clark be an inspirational, great man...they just showed a close-up of his face next to Jesus, because...you know...its easier.

 

[Lighthouse]

By the way, MovieBob's Big Picture today talks about this exact thing. Snyder's "explanation" only proves the opposite. If Superman is in a situation in the sequel where killing Lex will clearly save lives, Snyder has just set the precedent that he's willing to do that.

 

[Heretic]

There are Martians on Mars.

Not that we know of...you'd think someone would recommend that as a peaceful alternative.

 

[Lighthouse]

If Snyder had come out and said "I added that scene because I wanted people to know that when Superman was backed to the wall with a choice like that, he would make the tough decision." I might not have liked it, but it would have made sense. This "He needs to kill to explain his no kill rule" is remarkably stupid.

 

[Max Newlander]

It's my hugest problem with the realistic portrayals and Nolan's approach to superheros. It's like "how can we take material that itself is inherently silly and make it not silly. I think Raimi had the perfect attitude for Spider-Man. Instead of being ashamed of those things, embrace them. You can embrace the silliness and still tell great dramatic stories. Then I see Amazing Spider-Man, which decides it needs a scene of Parker skateboarding to Coldplay.

I agree about this, especially for JLA to work, we really need to see closer adaptations for the sorce material for comic book movies. The 'plausibility' factor that has to run through most comic book movies now is slightly tiresome. Nolan could makes great 007 movie from his 'realistic' angle, ironically M. Campbell has already made that film thanks to Christoper's influences. However His Batman trilogy worked, but he probably ran out of villains, as I can't see how many of the other foes to the TDK could have worked in his universe.

Maybe it's time we had more Spider-Man 2002, Batman 89, Darkman even STM.. Comicbook movies. I don't understand why everything needs to be real world. As Comicbook movies are as far removed from real world as you can possibly get. It also stops criticism from people like me, who thinks, if you want to go with the 'plausibility factor' then be prepared for people to pick holes in all the stuff that doesn't work, makes sense or feels anything but plausible.

Back on topic, Superman SHOULD NOT have killed Zod, I don't know the resolution to the situ, but I'm sure a creative writer could have come up with something. As for what been said in a previous post about 'character defining moment'... Eh? Defiining as in 'hey human race, I'm Superman and I'm a killer'. It might be a character effecting moment but not defining.

 

[Marvin]

Okay yeah, I walked into that one

Obviously it wasn't perfectly handled in TDK trilogy either. But at least it was THERE. They talked about it. They talked about the why of it, how he felt about it, how the villain used it to their advantage etc.

And yeah, he might have been able to stop it from happening if he put his foot down. I'm not saying that he felt the same way as I do about it... just that he at least thought it should stay. And I think that's because he finds the concept interesting, and at least a little bit recognised it's importance to the character and the DC universe as a whole.

Care to explain why that can't still happen?

I mean the ongoing superman you know of in the books(before this new 52 retcon that I'm sure you are not referring too), never shuts up about the no killing rule and he does so after having done almost the exact same thing to the original Zod(and two of Zods best friends). I don't see why your passionate wish about a debate amongst the heroes can't still exist. If anything they can't avoid the debate now. It's going to be pretty epic I think.
More to the point, he killed in the donner movie and that didn't seem to bring any such debate to a front.

I just say give it some time. Maybe in a month you'll feel differently. I know I might.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

By the way, MovieBob's Big Picture today talks about this exact thing. Snyder's "explanation" only proves the opposite. If Superman is in a situation in the sequel where killing Lex will clearly save lives, Snyder has just set the precedent that he's willing to do that.

Except at least there would be prisons on Earth that could hold Lex. Can't say the same for someone like Zod.

 

[Lighthouse]

Except at least there would be prisons on Earth that could hold Lex. Can't say the same for someone like Zod.

I just used Lex as an example, but lets try it for others; Bizarro, Darkseid, Parasite, Brainiac etc, etc. The logic does not hold.

 

[KalMart]

There are Martians on Mars.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I just used Lex as an example, but lets try it for others; Bizarro, Darkseid, Parasite, Brainiac etc, etc. The logic does not hold.

Well, if put in that situation where there is a super being that cannot be contained with anything on Earth and it's either this super being's life or the lives of innocent people, what do you think he should do? Let the innocent people die so he won't kill? Chances are if these other beings come into existence then he will come across some alien tech as well that will be able to hold off these new threats.