How Superman Resolved the Issue of Zod *MEGA SPOILER*

[FlawlessVictory]

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.

Did Superman set a good example when he hurt a powerless Zod at the end of Superman 2 by crushing his hand and then throwing him. Zod was no stronger than a normal human at this point. Was it necessary for Superman to do this? Superman is supposed to be the best. Why couldn't he have just grabbed him and handed him over to the police without hurting him first? Should kids learn from how Superman handled that?

 

[Heretic]

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?

Using superior strength to kill a weaker opponent should not be something that ANYONE finds inspiring...unless you're an MMA fighter training hard to kick someone else's butt. What about people who AREN'T the stronger opponent?

Clark didn't rise to any challenge. He was the strongest person in the universe, and then used that advantage to win. He didn't outsmart the smarter man, he didn't out-strategize the better strategist. He didn't find victory in defeat (he killed a man he had down and in a headlock). He didn't find victory in a no-win situation. He did not have a strict moral code and then stick to it despite everything ad STILL win. He was the strongest guy in the room...and he killed his opponent with neck-breaking strength.

I just don't see what is so inspiring about that.

 

[KalMart]

http://superdickery.com/index.php?Itemid=45

 

[PunyGod]

Did Superman set a good example when he hurt a powerless Zod at the end of Superman 2 by crushing his hand and then throwing him. Zod was no stronger than a normal human at this point. Was it necessary for Superman to do this? Superman is supposed to be the best. Why couldn't he have just grabbed him and handed him over to the police without hurting him first? Should kids learn from how Superman handled that?

That film had a more lighthearted tone so even when Superman did that we didn't think twice about it. I think the large part of the problem with MoS is he kills Zod in the most brutal way imaginable. If it happened another way maybe we wouldn't be so upset.

And BTW there actually was a deleted scene that showed Zod and the others being taken into custody by the "arctic police" so they weren't killed after all.

 

[Heretic]

Did Superman set a good example when he hurt a powerless Zod at the end of Superman 2 by crushing his hand and then throwing him. Zod was no stronger than a normal human at this point. Was it necessary for Superman to do this? Superman is supposed to be the best. Why couldn't he have just grabbed him and handed him over to the police without hurting him first? Should kids learn from how Superman handled that?

I hate Superman 2. Bad writing in the past does not excuse bad writing in the present. In fact, you'd think we'd learn from the mistakes of the past.

The comics even stumbled around, Superman tortured women to get confessions! But eventually the comics figured out what the definitive Superman should be, and retconned the old stuff out. I understand that they recently have decided to embrace a darker Superman in preparation for this films release...but my point is that this just feels wrong for the character. EVERY OTHER character is like this...why can't the Big Blue Boy Scout actually be the shining example?

 

[FlawlessVictory]

That film had a more lighthearted tone so even when Superman did that we didn't think twice about it. I think the large part of the problem with MoS is he kills Zod in the most brutal way imaginable. If it happened another way maybe we wouldn't be so upset.

And BTW there actually was a deleted scene that showed Zod and the others being taken into custody by the "arctic police" so they weren't killed after all.

A deleted scene. So now we have to refer to deleted scenes. When Superman 2 was released that was not the case and that is what millions of people saw and no one had an issue. Oh yea because it's light hearted. It's ok for Superman to hurt powerless people if it's in a light moment.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I hate Superman 2. Bad writing in the past does not excuse bad writing in the present. In fact, you'd think we'd learn from the mistakes of the past.

The comics even stumbled around, Superman tortured women to get confessions! But eventually the comics figured out what the definitive Superman should be, and retconned the old stuff out. I understand that they recently have decided to embrace a darker Superman in preparation for this films release...but my point is that this just feels wrong for the character. EVERY OTHER character is like this...why can't the Big Blue Boy Scout actually be the shining example?

That's fair, at least you are consistent and acknowledge the fault of that movie when so many seem to gloss right over it.

 

[Drewbee87]

Action Comics Vol 1 #805.

Thank you!

 

[LostSon88]

That film had a more lighthearted tone so even when Superman did that we didn't think twice about it. I think the large part of the problem with MoS is he kills Zod in the most brutal way imaginable. If it happened another way maybe we wouldn't be so upset.

And BTW there actually was a deleted scene that showed Zod and the others being taken into custody by the "arctic police" so they weren't killed after all.

Deleted scenes don't count.

 

[PunyGod]

A deleted scene. So now we have to refer to deleted scenes. When Superman 2 was released that was not the case and that is what millions of people saw and no one had an issue. Oh yea because it's light hearted. It's ok for Superman to hurt powerless people if it's in a light moment.

Basically yes. As I said this film decided to have him kill someone with his BARE HANDS in an incredibly brutal and shocking way. It creates a knee-jerk reaction of disgust among certain people in the audience. If Superman killed him in some indirect way like having a building fall on him and break his neck or throwing him into a volcano or something maybe there wouldn't be such a visceral reaction.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Basically yes. As I said this film decided to have him kill someone with his BARE HANDS in an incredibly brutal and shocking way. It creates a knee-jerk reaction of disgust among certain people in the audience. If Superman killed him in some indirect way like having a building fall on him and break his neck or throwing him into a volcano or something maybe there wouldn't be such a visceral reaction.

I don't disagree. Zod's death was extremely jarring.

 

[LostSon88]

How would a building falling and/or throwing Zod into a volcano kill him exactly?

 

[PunyGod]

How would a building falling and/or throwing Zod into a volcano kill him exactly?

I don't know. I'm just throwing some idea out there. I didn't think that superbeings could be killed by having their neck snapped either.

 

[LostSon88]

Well when it's another superhuman being doing it, yeah it's possible.

 

[Heretic]

Part of the reason why Zod's death was so jarring is because he clearly WANTED to die...and Superman obliged with brute force.

 

[Marvin]

Basically yes. As I said this film decided to have him kill someone with his BARE HANDS in an incredibly brutal and shocking way. It creates a knee-jerk reaction of disgust among certain people in the audience. If Superman killed him in some indirect way like having a building fall on him and break his neck or throwing him into a volcano or something maybe there wouldn't be such a visceral reaction.

It's disingenuous to a fault.
The issue has always been about superman killing. "He's better than this, he's more moral than that..."

You mean to tell this whole time it's actually been about the fashion he went about it?

Please. So he can kill, just not in this particular fashion right?

 

[tomoe]

I don't know. I'm just throwing some idea out there. I didn't think that superbeings could be killed by having their neck snapped either.

Maybe he wasn't killed. Never saw what happened to his "body" afterwards.

 

[PunyGod]

It's disingenuous to a fault.
The issue has always been about superman killing. "He's better than this, he's more moral than that..."

You mean to tell this whole time it's actually been about the fashion he went about it?

Please. So he can kill, just not in this particular fashion right?

No, I still don't think he should kill at all. I'm just saying that if it happened in another way people may have overlooked it just like they did in SupermanII. And just like they overlooked it in BB when Bruce seemed to think he wasn't breaking his one rule by letting Ras die. I don't agree but it didn't seem to bother most people in the audience.

I guess what I'm saying is they could have had Superman kill someone in a way that wouldn't have caused this much controversy. But controversy is obviously what they wanted.

 

[Daybreak_st]

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 one from Herolee10 that I loved.

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.

Everything you posted is perfect. You get the character of Superman, what he stands foor whhat he believes in etc. I'm convinced that the filmmakers only understtand hhim in the most basic form a nice guy with amazing powers. Its funny because with Superman Returns we had a filmmaker who loved the character but only a veryspecific iteration of the chharacter so his film was bogged down in nostalgia. With man of steel we had a writwr who admitted to not really being into Superman who basically felt the character needed to be reinvented and changed to work in a modern context. They wanted to make him cool at any cost. Goyer loved Batman and it shhoowed in his writing of Begins. Its the mostt definitive version of the character on screen. He didnt love superman and that showed too

 

[KalMart]

It was an interesting discussion. I had a few hypothetical ideas...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=22857915&highlight=funeral#post22857915

Should this Superman kill?

- Not as a plot gimmick just to get him Super-pissed

- Not as a plot gimmick just to inject extreme emotion

- Certainly not as a reckless consequence to his actions, even if those who dies were his enemies...a la SR and the pillar.

- Not without it respecting the extreme cost of losing a life and presenting a situation where as ultimately painful as it is, we couldn't blame anyone for having to make that choice with no other available.

That said here was a story idea I had for a long time....

I always had this story idea of Brainiac in full-attack mode on Metropolis...and since he can control all earthly technology he's creating numerous disasters at the same time. So much so that even Superman can't be all places at once. As fighter planes are sent in to fight Brainiac, he takes control of one and sends it screaming towards a highly-populated building. Superman is occupied on the other side of the city holding up a skyscraper that's about to topple over with one hand, and suspending a cable-car full of passengers whose cables had snapped with the other....high above the ground. He can't let go of either one. The fighter jet is just seconds away from hitting the building on the opposite end of the city, Superman can't get there in time.....so he does the only thing he can do to save the people in the building....



....he vaporizes the fighter plane with his heat vision from miles away...including the pilot inside....mere feet away from hitting the building...saving hundreds of people from certain death, but ending the life of one. And Brainiac mocks Superman for it....which fills Superman with a nearly helpless sense of rage, horror, and guilt. Brainiac then stops and disappears...his current plan complete: break Superman's spirit.

This was before TDK came out, and I felt that the most effective thing about the Joker as a villain wasn't his murderous lunacy, but his cruelty...creating impossible choices with unthinkable outcomes on both sides. I also said to myself..."Darn...I was hoping Brainiac could do something like that."

Superman made the right choice, the only choice he could...but it doesn't make him feel any better. He wills himself to attend the funeral of the downed pilot, trying to keep his composure as he approaches the pilot's mother....but he can't. He wants to tell her he's sorry, but he can't get the words out. He doesn't have to....because she comforts him...she tells him she knows he made the right choice, just as her son made the right choice by defending his country.

Superman tells her that her son is a hero....through her tears, she replies "that means a lot coming from you." She hands Superman her son's military dog tags...which Superman wears when we see him next....looking out over the sea as Brainiac approaches over the horizon. "This isn't for revenge...", he thinks to himself as his fist clenches, "...this is for justice. This is for those who make the right choice."



Cheesy...but something along those lines.


Edit: Wait...CRAP! That's from that TAS episode when Turpin gets fried by Darkseid, right?


Never mind.

 

[Marvin]

Everything you posted is perfect. You get the character of Superman, what he stands foor whhat he believes in etc. I'm convinced that the filmmakers only understtand hhim in the most basic form a nice guy with amazing powers. Its funny because with Superman Returns we had a filmmaker who loved the character but only a veryspecific iteration of the chharacter so his film was bogged down in nostalgia. With man of steel we had a writwr who admitted to not really being into Superman who basically felt the character needed to be reinvented and changed to work in a modern context. They wanted to make him cool at any cost. Goyer loved Batman and it shhoowed in his writing of Begins. Its the mostt definitive version of the character on screen. He didnt love superman and that showed too

All this cause they(all of them) wanted to deconstruct why superman is superman in a more tangible way?

They wanted to make him cool
who knew.

Hey johnny?
-Why does tony stark have a no killing rule? Oh right he doesn't.
-Why does Wolverine have a no killing rule? Oh right he doesn't.
-Why does Cap? Oh righ....
-Why does Batman? Cause his parents were murdered and he sore to protect life. He also came face to face with the murder and felt empty at the prospect of taking his life. Any fool can see this.

-Why does superman have a no killing rule? Because his parents taught him better?

 

[PunyGod]

All this cause they(all of them) wanted to deconstruct why superman is superman in a more tangible way?

They wanted to make him cool
who knew.

Hey johnny?
-Why does tony stark have a no killing rule? Oh right he doesn't.
-Why does Wolverine have a no killing rule? Oh right he doesn't.
-Why does Cap? Oh righ....
-Why does Batman? Cause his parents were murdered and he sore to protect life. He also came face to face with the murder and felt empty at the prospect of taking his life. Any fool can see this.

-Why does superman have a no killing rule? Because his parents taught him better?

Correct

 

[Marvin]

No, I still don't think he should kill at all. I'm just saying that if it happened in another way people may have overlooked it just like they did in SupermanII. And just like they overlooked it in BB when Bruce seemed to think he wasn't breaking his one rule by letting Ras die. I don't agree but it didn't seem to bother most people in the audience.

I guess what I'm saying is they could have had Superman kill someone in a way that wouldn't have caused this much controversy. But controversy is obviously what they wanted.

Getting people talking about the character is what they wanted. That's not the same as "they wanted controversy".

So if they killed off zod in a playful way with light hearted music playing and people smiling and cracking jokes like a marvel movie, or rather superman 2 then we wouldn't be having this discussion?

if that's so I praise them for having the guts to give the scene and the matter the gravitas it deserved.

 

[Marvin]

Correct

yea i thought so.
care to explain why that's objectively(if possible) better than this alternative?

And how the change destroys the character(if you think it does).

 

[Eros]

All this cause they(all of them) wanted to deconstruct why superman is superman in a more tangible way?

They wanted to make him cool
who knew.

Hey johnny?
-Why does tony stark have a no killing rule? Oh right he doesn't.
-Why does Wolverine have a no killing rule? Oh right he doesn't.
-Why does Cap? Oh righ....
-Why does Batman? Cause his parents were murdered and he sore to protect life. He also came face to face with the murder and felt empty at the prospect of taking his life. Any fool can see this.

-Why does superman have a no killing rule? Because his parents taught him better?

I always figured supes new as powerful as he was, He could never afford to cross that line, could you imagine if superman tried to force a tyrannical brand of justice on his enemies, killing bad guys he deems to dangerous......doesn't that make him a god? Killing is easy, finding away to stop is hard.