How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[Marvin]

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.

You saw nothing really? I saw maybe one or two things. But I see the best in heroes. I saw one of two inspiring things in spiderman and cap and even batman. I'm sure you can find a few here.

All those good deeds this guy did in this movie, who pray tell do you think instilled them into him? That one guy that pushed him out of the way maybe?

 

[Lighthouse]

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.

You are changing the subject. I'm talking about Snyder's reason for specifically adding that scene to explain Clark's no kill rule. You are making the argument that Superman should kill in these situations, and therefore completely disposing of the "no kill" rule, and you know what, that's fine. That position has merit. Snyder's reasoning is completely backwards though.

 

[Marvin]

Speaking of which, how interesting that he let that guy push him but not the guy in the bar...

snyder should have been more on top of that..oh wait this isn't the complaint thread.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

You are changing the subject. I'm talking about Snyder's reason for specifically adding that scene to explain Clark's no kill rule.

So Snyder's reasoning is what is ruining it for you? Snyder isn't narrating the movie while you watch it. Just analyze what is in front of you in the movie.

I do agree Snyder's reasoning is flawed. One shouldn't have to kill to know you don't want to kill again. That's stupid.

 

[Marvin]

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.

To be fair, in the books they would have some lab guy enter screen right and explain that they can open the phantom zone or some odd thing. Superman would smile and walk zod off panel with his head down.

It's better writing.

 

[Lighthouse]

So Snyder's reasoning is what is ruining it for you? Snyder isn't narrating the movie while you watch it. Just analyze what is in front of you in the movie.

Except that if he brings this up in future films, he's going to use that scene as Superman's reason for not killing, and it's a really stupid reason.

 

[Mysteryman]

See I just can't do that. Fellowship was established to be the first in a trilogy. You know that going in, you can forgive open plot threads for it. But a solo movie should be able to stand completely on its own and not lean on sequels, tie-in comics or whatever else to fill in stuff the writer wasn't creative enough to do himself.

Look at Batman Begins. Of course they wanted a sequel, but the film was a complete story all on its own. So was TDK. those stories didn't HAVE to continue to make sense.

I totally agree with this .

 

[Mikelus]

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...

You should be aware that in his earliest adventures, Superman was very grim and not afraid to take the life of criminals. What!? Yes, he even tossed gangsters in ways that never explicitly showed death, but were clearly violence that could lead to it. I guess that was not Superman either right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_history_of_Superman

And no, they didn't shaft the Kents, that's why he's used his powers to save others since he was a kid. He's still inspiring because he saves people and tries to do the right thing, not because he's a perfect boy scout.

 

[scifiwolf]

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.

Actually, he's shown the exact opposite. Especially moving forward, he won't be willing to do it.

 

[Lighthouse]

You should be aware that in his earliest adventures, Superman was very grim and not afraid to take the life of criminals. What!? Yes, he even tossed gangsters in ways that never explicitly showed death, but were clearly violence that could lead to it. I guess that was not Superman either right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_history_of_Superman

And no, they didn't shaft the Kents, that's why he's used his powers to save others since he was a kid. He's still inspiring because he saves people and tries to do the right thing, not because he's a perfect boy scout.

First of all, you putting words in his mouth. Second, if that's the type of Superman Zach Snyder wanted to go with, a Superman who has no "no kill" rule, then he should be open about that. That would be a valid position for him to come from, even if people didn't like it.

 

[Lighthouse]

Actually, he's shown the exact opposite. Especially moving forward, he won't be willing to do it.

So you are saying all of the arguments of where "He had no choice in that situation" are false, and that when put in that same situation in the future he will do something different?

 

[KalMart]

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Lighthouse, I actually agree with you that Snyder's reasoning makes no sense. If Superman has to kill, with absolutely no other choice like in MOS, than he has to kill. I wouldn't bat an eye.

But yea, with Snyder saying he will not want to kill again because he killed already. Huh? What else could he have done in that situation and why would he have to kill to learn that? And what if an impossible situation presents itself again?

 

[scifiwolf]

So you are saying all of the arguments of where "He had no choice in that situation" are false, and that when put in that same situation in the future he will do something different?

I've been arguing that Zod's death will cause him to strive to be a better tactician and not allow himself to be in a lose-lose situation like that again. Watching this movie, it was apparent that he had no real strategy for dealing with the Kryptonians after the destruction of the world engine, or a contingent if not all of them were pulled into the singularity.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse, I actually agree with you that Snyder's reasoning makes no sense. If Superman has to kill, with absolutely no other choice like in MOS, than he has to kill. I wouldn't bat an eye.

But yea, with Snyder saying he will not want to kill again because he killed already? Huh? What else could he have done in that situation and why would he have to kill to learn that? And what if an impossible situation presents itself again?

And that's my problem. The whole motivation to change the script and put that scene in is based on terrible logic.

 

[Vid Electricz]

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.

How about the writers exercise their imaginations a little? How about devising some creative solutions and alternatives to killing?

I'm sick of hearing about how killing was the only choice. The writers put him in that spot. They could very well have changed the conditions or had Superman devise some alternative to killing Zod (Trap him in the Phantom zone, incapacitate him in some other way...) That's the writer's job- to be creative.

 

[Lighthouse]

I've been arguing that Zod's death will cause him to strive to be a better tactician and not allow himself to be in a lose-lose situation like that again. Watching this movie, it was apparent that he had no real strategy for dealing with the Kryptonians after the destruction of the world engine, or a contingent if not all of them were pulled into the singularity.

The reasoning still doesn't work. Even if he gets better tactically, he can still find himself in a lose/lose situation. The only thing that scene shows is that, if he is caught in that situation, he will kill. If that's what Snyder is going for, fine, but his current reasoning still doesn't work.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Actually, he's shown the exact opposite. Especially moving forward, he won't be willing to do it.

Why not? It solved the problem the first time. If he's in an "impossible situation" again, he has the option of killing his enemy at his disposal. It's a slippery slope.

 

[Marvin]

Lighthouse, I actually agree with you that Snyder's reasoning makes no sense. If Superman has to kill, with absolutely no other choice like in MOS, than he has to kill. I wouldn't bat an eye.

But yea, with Snyder saying he will not want to kill again because he killed already. Huh? What else could he have done in that situation and why would he have to kill to learn that? And what if an impossible situation presents itself again?

A cops first day at work(let's call him Alex Murphy) you ask him how he feels about killing(he was raised on a farm) he said he doesn't know but he's not looking forward to taking anyone's life if that's what you are asking.

That same day(how fitting) he ends up saving a small family in a hostage situation at the carnival. A mad man shot up the whole place and was threatening to kill them next. Murphy kills this man with a head shot, blood everywhere.

You ask Murphy the same question at the end of the day. How do you feel about killing?

Murphy spends the rest of his career having not killed a single criminal but having shot many, many times. This scenario set's up a character that ends up having a very tangible catalyst for being a certain way. "A No Kill Rule"

Show vs Tell.

 

[Lighthouse]

A cops first day at work(let's call him Alex Murphy) you ask him how he feels about killing(he was raised on a farm) he said he doesn't know but he's not looking forward to taking anyone's life if that's what you are asking.

That same day(how fitting) he ends up saving a small family in a hostage situation at the carnival. A mad man shot up the whole place and was threatening to kill them. Murphy kills this man with a head shot, blood everywhere.

You ask Murphy the same question at the end of the day. How do you feel about killing.

Murphy spends the rest of his career having not killed a single criminal but having shot many, many times.
Show vs Tell.

This doesn't work at all, and is pure fantasy. You are basically saying that he was put into an impossible situation, made the right call, then never encountered a situation like that again. That's all it is. When in fact, if he was put into that situation, he most certainly would shoot the guy.

 

[Marvin]

This doesn't work at all, and is pure fantasy. You are basically saying that he was put into an impossible situation, made the right call, then never encountered a situation like that again. That's all it is. When in fact, if he was put into that situation, he most certainly would shoot the guy.

Pretty sure if Superman is put in the same situation again he would do the same. Just like in the comics.

The point is now he has a very tangible and narrative reason to not look for head shots.
How many head shots did Murphy avoid in his long career after the fact? Maybe none, Maybe Lots, but at least you know now that he tried.

 

[Lighthouse]

Pretty sure if Superman is put in the same situation again he would do the same. Just like in the comics.

The point is now he has a very tangible and narrative reason to not look for head shots.

It's totally unneeded.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Decided to have a look back through the old 'Should this Superman kill' discussions, which was really interesting to read.

Here were a couple of my posts from back then that I wanted to repeat:

And there really is no 'straight jacket'. At the end of the day, as all the old Superman films and now this Snyder film is proving, they can do what they want.

They can have Superman push Zod into a pit in the fortress, they can have him kill Nuclear Man, they can take away the trunks, they can change Amy's hair colour.

All my opinion counts for is hope.

I HOPE that Superman doesn't kill Zod or Faora or any other villain in this film. I HOPE there is no plot line revolving around him feeling guilty or responsible for someones death. I HOPE that the only sacrifices they have him dealing with, are the sacrifices he makes within his own life, and not the sacrifice of one life over others.

I have no idea why anyone would specifically be rallying FOR these things, as a fan of Superman.

The funny thing is, people keep applying real world 'if the situation happened, he'd have to' scenarios to a STORY.

Those situations in which Superman might HAVE to kill someone? They don't HAVE to be in the film. They don't HAVE to be in the story.

They are not good stories for a Superman film, as they do nothing to further the whole image, symbol and point of him as a character. They only serve to deconstruct the character and all that he stands for...

...which works wonderfully in AU stories. But you know what always happens in those AU stories? You learn that a Superman that kills, never ends well.

I don't want an AU story about what would happen if Superman had to kill in order to save a bunch of people, and how much that might screw him up.

I just want an origin story that sets up Superman in modern cinema, with all his principals in tact.

That's why we have fiction. That's why we have comic books. So we can read stories where good always triumphs over evil, where the hero is inspirational without having to be realistic, and where death is something that CAN be avoided at all costs.

Real life being hard, and full of gray areas and death, is precisely WHY I desperately don't want to loose the optimism of superhero stories like Superman's.

That's the kind of character that gives people hope.

Even if everyone in the whole audience is thinking 'There is no way he'd not have killed him in real life by now', we KNOW he's not going to. Cause that's half the magic. We are watching, comforted by the knowledge that he IS going to win, that the villain IS going to loose. But no one wants to see the Superman beat the villain to death in order to win. Or hit him with a lethal blast of heat vision. Or throw him so hard into a wall that his spine cracks.

Who would leave the cinema feeling uplifted and buzzing after that?

Why would you want to send a message out to any kids in the audience that no matter how hard you try, sometimes it's not enough. That even the most incredible moral superheroes have to kill people. That no one is capable of sticking to their virtues when put under pressure, and that you shouldn't even aspire to that. Just give up now, kids. It's not worth even trying.

Sounds great!

And one from Herolee10 that I loved.

In Superman's case, the first of all heroes, who is the traditional hero; I honestly don't think that having him killing would help his character get over.

While I agree that certain elements could be tweaked in order for modernization to take place, there are just certain things that need to remain the same, otherwise, the character will no longer have the characteristics that made him unique in the first place.

I mean if the notion is that Superman needs to kill enemies in order to be "cool", then that's just depressing to think that the only way a hero can be labeled as cool is if he kills his enemies.

I might dig through more at a later date. I know that Kurosawa had a lot to say on the matter, and since he can't be here to make those points in person, it might be interesting to revisit his POV in this debate.

 

[Heretic]

You saw nothing really? I saw maybe one or two things. But I see the best in heroes. I saw one of two inspiring things in spiderman and cap and even batman. I'm sure you can find a few here.

All those good deeds this guy did in this movie, who pray tell do you think instilled them into him? That one guy that pushed him out of the way maybe?

Not sure...maybe, as Snyder said its "in his DNA."

The only reason why you THINK the Kents did is because you saw OTHER Superman stories. The Kents were clearly morally confused and let him make up his own mind. It appears from statements by the director and the movie itself that Clark got everything either through chance of birthplace or he will have to learn on the job.

 

[Mikelus]

Of course Superman could kill again if he has no choice, like he has done in the past. Villains like Doomsday or Darkseid (if they're used in sequels) could present that type of situation.