How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[Heretic]

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.

1. The Golden Age was retconned out in preference for what became the definitive Superman.
2. Batman used to use a gun, didn't seem to care at all about his parents, and was very openly racist. I expect that you are open to a movie about that Batman????

Clark used his powers as a kid to save people AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE KENTS. There is nothing in this film that suggests that he learned how to be a good man through them, and in fact, Snyder says that he he HAD to kill to understand that it was wrong.

 

[Skrilla31]

I just got done listening to the Kevin Smith podcast where he and Ralph Garman discuss the film. I am actually amazed at just how many things Garman brought up in the discussion that have already been echoed on this very forum. It's like he's reading our posts lol.

But he brings up a very great point. The dramatic approach to Superman is by exploring his feelings after he fails to save innocents, not his feelings after he's just killed a man. Superman would be more distraught that he failed to save lives, not because he was put in a great moral dilemma. Because usually with Superman, there is no moral dilemma. He just does the right thing. He leads by example.

Imagine Zod had just killed that family right in front of Superman. THAT is the type of thing that would tear him apart inside. And when Superman finally does get the upper hand on Zod and he has the chance to kill him... he refuses. That sounds more like Superman to me.

 

[Marvin]

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.

The only reason I think the Superman wasn't a bully like the many kids in kansas we saw, but rather someone doing good deeds from adolescence and doing really good self sacrificing deeds in adulthood is because he had good parents.

For all the lecturing you do on how obvious and essential that is in the books I find it odd that you can't see it here for what it is. Here's a question, what kinda man goes back for a dog?

"not sure, maybe?" that's not good enough. I asked you a simple question. Where did Clark get it. And again, you may want to revisit precisely what it was that snyder said about "dna" cause I think you are getting it wrong.

What is it John Kent tells he son about bullies after seeing his Clark bullied?
Selective hearing would have one assume it was something about the proper technique for snapping a grown man's neck.

 

[Mysteryman]

Superman...

Spoiler

DOES NOT KILL!!

Except in the comics ,Which ironically, opened the door for this .

 

[Heretic]

The only reason I think the Superman wasn't a bully like the many kids in kansas we saw, but rather someone doing good deeds from adolescence and doing really good self sacrificing deeds in adulthood is because he had good parents.

For all the lecturing you do on how obvious and essential that is in the books I find it odd that you can't see it here for what it is. Here's a question, what kinda man goes back for a dog?

"not sure, maybe?" that's not good enough. I asked you a simple question. Where did Clark get it. And again, you may want to revisit precisely what it was that snyder said about "dna" cause I think you are getting it wrong.

What is it John Kent tells he son about bullies after seeing his Clark bullied?
Selective hearing would have one assume it was something about the proper technique for snapping a grown man's neck.

Clark Kent is not a bully...great...neither am I. No one is calling me the Man of Tomorrow and suggesting that the world should be awed and inspired by my goodness.

In fact, since I'm not a thief (Clark is) and since I don't destroy public and private property over a petty grudge against a stranger, I am actually a BETTER man than Clark. And my parents were both moral garbage.

 

[Heretic]

Except in the comics ,Which ironically, opened the door for this .

Comics had proper set up and fall out. This at the very least had no set up, and I hate to think that the next film will be angsty guilt-ridden Clark.

 

[Marvin]

Clark Kent is not a bully...great...neither am I. No one is calling me the Man of Tomorrow and suggesting that the world should be awed and inspired by my goodness.

In fact, since I'm not a thief (Clark is) and since I don't destroy public and private property over a petty grudge against a stranger, I am actually a BETTER man than Clark. And my parents were both moral garbage.

Did you save a bus full of bullies when you were a kid at the risk of your own life?

If you say yes, and you have super powers, I think you should get the mod's to change your name to Man of Tomorrow.

Point being, he is what he is morally because of his parents, they seem like good people. All this talk of him doing good things AGAINST their wishes..when? Is there a scene where they pull out the belts and start taking turns condemning him for saving lives I missed somewhere.

 

[Heretic]

Did you save a bus full of bullies when you were a kid at the risk of your own life?

If you say yes, and you have super powers, I think you should get the mod's to change your name to Man of Tomorrow.

Point being, he is what he is morally because of his parents, they seem like good people. All this talk of him doing good things AGAINST their wishes..when? Is there a scene where they pull out the belts and start taking turns condemning him for saving lives I missed somewhere.

Well...actually...I DID once risk my life to save a child that I happened to be walking past while on vacation...I ended up underneath a vehicle because of it (instead of her) and my leg has never been the same because of it.

Unlike Clark Kent...I can be hurt. I am a better man than Clark Kent.

After Clark saves the kids in the bus, Pa Kent gives him a talking to, suggesting that maybe he should let people die. Then...with his life on the line...Pa put his hand up to Clark saying "No...let me die rather than save me" and in fact...Pa never would have been in that situation had he let Clark save the dog. The lesson Pa was CLEARLY giving was "rather than expose yourself as having powers, let loved ones die."

 

[Marvin]

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:

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.

Interesting the way things turned out. Though it doesn't seem like you went in with an open mind.

I was like you, and it appears nolan was too. However the both of us were convinced there is a better way to tell the story of the man who would be Superman.

 

[Marvin]

Well...actually...I DID once risk my life to save a child that I happened to be walking past while on vacation...I ended up underneath a vehicle because of it (instead of her) and my leg has never been the same because of it.

Unlike Clark Kent...I can be hurt. I am a better man than Clark Kent.

Touching story, truly.
To be honest I'm of the mind that being indestructible kinda makes it easier to be brave, but that's another discussion. So you're not a bully, you saved a bus full of kids, so to speak, all you need now is powers and the title is yours.

btw superman isn't called "The man of tomorrow" simply because he's a really really nice guy.

After Clark saves the kids in the bus, Pa Kent gives him a talking to, suggesting that maybe he should let people die.

When did he condemn the act? You've been saying this for the past few days. "Maybe" isn't a condemnation. It means I don't know. And that clark needs to decide what kind of man he wants to be. If he was raised right he will make the right choice.

Clark want's to know why he has to keep his powers a secret. Jon knows it's because of a several reasons(such as the end of the world if it get's out that there are aliens living in the US that look like anyone or/and that people won't start a big parade in his honor but maybe the opposite). What Jon says, and I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet is, you have to keep this side of you a secret. Ergo, maybe not parade your powers around and perhaps practice some discretion... Notice this kid wasn't trying to cover up his acts on the bus? Or in the classroom. And after jon didn't let him expose himself during his death, Clark went on using his powers but with discretion where possible...

Am I wrong?

Then...with his life on the line...Pa put his hand up to Clark saying "No...let me die rather than save me" and in fact...Pa never would have been in that situation had he let Clark save the dog. The lesson Pa was CLEARLY giving was "rather than expose yourself as having powers, let loved ones die."

Jon never would have been in that situation if he had just let his super kid go and save the dog while he cowered under a bridge. Stupid yes, good father and moral inspiration even moreso. I wonder if Clark learned anything from this misguided coward.

The lesson there, Sacrifice yourself for the good of your boy and possibly the world. But that's my perspective.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Interesting the way things turned out. Though it doesn't seem like you went in with an open mind.

I was like you, and it appears nolan was too. However the both of us were convinced there is a better way to tell the story of the man who would be Superman.

Not about this one aspect, no.

But I really don't see that as a negative.

It just means I cared about it, and still do.

 

[Mysteryman]

well regardless of what anybody says....superman is the greatest superhero of all time!!! :d[/quote
THIS!

 

[KalMart]

Just...not so much in the movies..... t:


At least not yet, but he'll get more chances.

 

[DACrowe]

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.

It read that Snyder didn't like the ending of Superman only (eventually) sending Zod back into the Phantom Zone along with Faora and the others. It wasn't epic or big enough for him. He wanted to kill Zod off.

So, then he proposed having Superman kill him. Nolan said that is crazy. Goyer came up with the rationalization that "It will help him develop his 'no kill rule'" and Snyder got to put his overly violent conclusion in with that quid pro quo contextualized by Goyer.

So, at its most basic level: Snyder thought Superman killing Zod was cooler than Superman sending Zod to the Phantom Zone. Thus, he and Goyer came up with this excuse that allowed Snyder to have his hero snap his villain's neck. Nolan, easily the best storyteller of the three, thought it was a terrible idea.

And it is. It is lazy screenwriting. Now, whenever Superman faces a massive threat, why not kill him? Lex Luthor. Dead. Oh, only non-humans? Well, then he should kill Braniac, Darkseid, Parasite, Metallo or whoever else they throw at him in the sequel besides Luthor. If he is put in a difficult position again, he can break his rule again. And there is nothing actually in MOS that displays it changes his view of the world. He is sad that he had to kill the last Kryptonian besides himself in this dimension and feels truly alone, isolated from his alien heritage. However, there is nothing that shows he would not do this again if he is put in a difficult situation.

It is bad writing created to add on a needlessly brutal ending. Just my opinion.

 

[Marvin]

Parasite and Metallo are human. I guess that means they are safe and don't have to avoid Superman's blood lust lol.

Not sure if it's even possible to kill Brainiac though.

 

[LostSon88]

Well...actually...I DID once risk my life to save a child that I happened to be walking past while on vacation...I ended up underneath a vehicle because of it (instead of her) and my leg has never been the same because of it.

Unlike Clark Kent...I can be hurt. I am a better man than Clark Kent.

After Clark saves the kids in the bus, Pa Kent gives him

I just love how you seem to take everything at face value, not even trying to understand the motivations and actions behind the characters.

Clark trashed that truck...ignoring the fact it was a man who had not only secually harassed a woman but attempted to pick a fight with Clark for defending her. He had to understand that there are consequences for your actions, now he does.

Jonathan said, "Maybe," when asked if Clark should've let them die...ignoring the uncertainy and confused tone in his voice as he really didnt know what to say.

Jonathan dying in the tornado as Clark looks on...ignoring the fact that it was his choice and decision to sacrifice his life to protect his child. Something any good father would do in a heartbeat. You call it selfish on Clark's part, I call it selfless on Jonathan's.

 

[Sundancer]

I wish either the Kents or Jor-El instilled the sanctity of life in Kal-El. That would have worked better as a theme than Kryptonians vs. Earthpeople. It also would have made killing Zod more thematic, a stronger denoument, and I think it would have resonated more strongly with the audience.

 

[LostSon88]

I think that would've pissed people off even more, tbh.

 

[Heretic]

Touching story, truly.
To be honest I'm of the mind that being indestructible kinda makes it easier to be brave, but that's another discussion. So you're not a bully, you saved a bus full of kids, so to speak, all you need now is powers and the title is yours.

btw superman isn't called "The man of tomorrow" simply because he's a really really nice guy.


When did he condemn the act? You've been saying this for the past few days. "Maybe" isn't a condemnation. It means I don't know. And that clark needs to decide what kind of man he wants to be. If he was raised right he will make the right choice.

Clark want's to know why he has to keep his powers a secret. Jon knows it's because of a several reasons(such as the end of the world if it get's out that there are aliens living in the US that look like anyone or/and that people won't start a big parade in his honor but maybe the opposite). What Jon says, and I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet is, you have to keep this side of you a secret. Ergo, maybe not parade your powers around and perhaps practice some discretion... Notice this kid wasn't trying to cover up his acts on the bus? Or in the classroom. And after jon didn't let him expose himself during his death, Clark went on using his powers but with discretion where possible...

Am I wrong?

Jon never would have been in that situation if he had just let his super kid go and save the dog while he cowered under a bridge. Stupid yes, good father and moral inspiration even moreso. I wonder if Clark learned anything from this misguided coward.

The lesson there, Sacrifice yourself for the good of your boy and possibly the world. But that's my perspective.

Superman is called the Man of Tomorrow not because he's a good guy...but because he's the BEST guy. It has little to nothing to do with his super powers. He got half of what makes him great from Kryptonian parents, and the other half (super compassion, super goodness, a super sense of self sacrifice etc) from his Earth parents. We try to learn from his perfect example, and hopefully we can raise our kids as good as he was raised.

This movie did not reflect that at all.

By the way...as I mentioned before...my dad was in the KKK, and served many years in prison. He was the biggest scumbag I have ever met. But if I asked "people are in danger and I can save them...should I let them die?" He would have responded "No, you idiot...SAVE THEM."

What lesson did Clark learn from his dad...a human...facing down a tornado...when a guy who could withstand the wind was a few feet away??? I don't know...maybe he learned to not think things through properly and needlessly risk lives. Maybe he learned that if you're in the eat of the moment and there isn't much time to think...just make the decision that results in death.

But again...Superman is supposed to inspire hope. That means that he should make ME feel like I can be a better person and achieve more than I think I can. Regardless of morals, he has super strength thanks to just the chance of his birth...and used that super strength to break the neck of a smarter, more skilled opponent. That is not inspiring. He took the easy way out and ended up showing me that I CANT achieve more, I CANT be better...so I should probably just use whatever I have thanks to my given lot in life to get ahead as best as I can.

 

[Glassjaw]

I wouldn't be surprised if the sequel mentions nothing at all about Superman killing Zod, its only registerred immediately afterwards in the scene and gone the next, I can't see the uglyness of how he had to kill Zod being brought back up in a fresh sequel 2 years down the line.

 

[LostSon88]

By the way...as I mentioned before...my dad was in the KKK, and served many years in prison. He was the biggest scumbag I have ever met. But if I asked "people are in danger and I can save them...should I let them die?" He would have responded "No, you idiot...SAVE THEM"

Yeah, sure.

 

[Drewbee87]

What issue is this from?

 

[Marvin]

Superman is called the Man of Tomorrow not because he's a good guy...but because he's the BEST guy. It has little to nothing to do with his super powers. He got half of what makes him great from Kryptonian parents, and the other half (super compassion, super goodness, a super sense of self sacrifice etc) from his Earth parents. We try to learn from his perfect example, and hopefully we can raise our kids as good as he was raised.

This movie did not reflect that at all.

Kryptonians are an advanced humanoid race. You take apes you have them evolve for 200 thousand years you get us, you have them evolve for the length of time it takes a star to turn red(give or take), and you get advanced aliens, put him on earth and have him be an example of good old solid midwestern values and a force for good, you get in conjunction, what is referred to as the man of "tomorrow".
imo.

This idea that it's about a guy with impeccable morals is kind of obtuse. If his morals were that perfect would he even be able to punch anyone? What about eating livestock? Man of tomorrow is about superman representing where we are going as a species and community and he is the the living inspiration manifest.
quote that.

By the way...as I mentioned before...my dad was in the KKK, and served many years in prison. He was the biggest scumbag I have ever met. But if I asked "people are in danger and I can save them...should I let them die?" He would have responded "No, you idiot...SAVE THEM."

Me too. However what would I tell my son if he was something like Clark. "I don't know". Perhaps that he needs to be more careful and keep his godly side a secret. It might do more harm than good....simple stuff like that.

If I was raising jesus chirst himself and at the age of 13 he asked me if he should start healing the sick at times square, I'd say "maybe". Considering what you're destined for it might be better to let the world be, and make your presence known when the time is right...we don't know what your destiny is. And the truth is, sometimes people die(like me). Keep your gotdamn powers to yourself until the time is right....perhaps when you hit the age of say...33, you will stumble upon your destiny. But that's what I would say if I was raising Jesus Christ...not some creature that fell from heaven I named clark And sure as hell not normal son.

Hypotheticals though.

What lesson did Clark learn from his dad...a human...facing down a tornado...when a guy who could withstand the wind was a few feet away??? I don't know...maybe he learned to not think things through properly and needlessly risk lives. Maybe he learned that if you're in the eat of the moment and there isn't much time to think...just make the decision that results in death.

If you really this this and you are not joking I can see why you hate this movie. Truly, I get it now.

But again...Superman is supposed to inspire hope. That means that he should make ME feel like I can be a better person and achieve more than I think I can.

No.
It means he's supposed to inspire people. You have a specific requirement for inspiration it seems. And if that was met, there would be another Heretic out there that might say they aren't inspired enough. Just like I'm saying I personally am inspired by what I saw.

If your war is that of inspiration,
Why should we pick your measure over anyone else? Is it only your superman that can inspire?

 

[Illustrious Var]

What issue is this from?

Spoiler

Action Comics Vol 1 #805.

 

[Heretic]

I just love how you seem to take everything at face value, not even trying to understand the motivations and actions behind the characters.

Clark trashed that truck...ignoring the fact it was a man who had not only secually harassed a woman but attempted to pick a fight with Clark for defending her. He had to understand that there are consequences for your actions, now he does.

Wait...who had to learn that lesson???

Clark stranded the jerk...and he deserved it. I'm not sure he deserved to lose his job, but I wont cry for him. HOPEFULLY the man learned something from it, though he had no way of knowing WHY his truck ended up like that (and he likely acted like that often, so it isnt like he'd connect the dots).

What about his employer? They were contracted to have a driver deliver goods. Are you suggesting that they deserved this punishment as well, since they hired a jerk? Interesting...but personally, I don't think they should have been punished.

What about the company who hired the jerk's company to deliver their haul? Are you suggesting that they deserve to have their goods destroyed because they hired a company that hired a jerk?? How could they POSSIBLY learn a lesson, since they don't know why or how their goods got destroyed?

What about the innocent people who lost power due to Clark tearing down their power poles? Also, what about the taxpayers who have to pay for new power poles? What did these people do to deserve Clark's wrath???

So yeah...Clark is hardly an example I hope my kids will follow.