BvS Is Batman justified when he refuses to kill? Do you wish he was more like Superman?

[TheFlamingCoco]

So Batman is smart enough to never have accidents. I knew it!

Batman only has accidents when they put himself in danger

 

[Shikamaru]

nor is it ever legal for an ordinary, undeputized citizen to do without a fair trial, judge and jury.

That too.

Honestly, if put under a realistic situation, the fact that Gotham's Justice system wouldn't have executed the likes of the Joker and most of the dangerous criminals that Batman has sent to prison would be appalling, especially with the number of times that they've escaped from captivity and caused more havoc.

Now i know the reason why they're not killed off in the comics like that is because the writers want them to be recurring villains for the titular character, but I'm just saying that if it was real life, and they still approached it like that, then Gotham is more responsible for the deaths that occur by those villains for every time that they escape.

They legally cannot execute the Joker and most of Batman's rogues gallery because they're insane. That is on top of them having to give the death penalty to a bunch of criminals in a state where it is (most likely) viewed as unconstitutional.

I always looked at it in the following way. In the DC Universe, where Earth is larger than our Earth and the planet is constantly under the attack of aliens and other magical beings, criminals operating on the scale that the Joker does is seen as small in comparison despite it seeming very large to us here in the real world. Therefore, the Joker not getting the death penalty makes sense in the context of the universe. In the real world, the Joker would not escape from prison anywhere as much as he does in comics and Arkham Asylum would have been shut down long ago due to its poor record. He wouldn't kill as many people in real life as he does in the comics. Therefore, the Joker not getting the death penalty makes sense in the context of our universe.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Well the death penalty is slowly becoming more and more taboo. It's not even enforceable in many states (including New York as of a few years ago) and theres something like only a few dozen death sentences every year. Not to mention, no way would they ever put one of Batmans more deranged villains (Joker included) to death. Its their own damn fault for letting him escape several times a year.

But I do agree, herolee, that Joker being allowed to live while the authorities often resort to lethal force to try to bring down Batman is just nutty. It's part of what makes the story so fascinating. In my opinion...

Edit: haha Shikamaru made several of the same points as me.

 

[Herolee10]

That too.



They legally cannot execute the Joker and most of Batman's rogues gallery because they're insane. That is on top of them having to give the death penalty to a bunch of criminals in a state where it is (most likely) viewed as unconstitutional.

I always looked at it in the following way. In the DC Universe, where Earth is larger than our Earth and the planet is constantly under the attack of aliens and other magical beings, criminals operating on the scale that the Joker does is seen as small in comparison despite it seeming very large to us here in the real world. Therefore, the Joker not getting the death penalty makes sense in the context of the universe. In the real world, the Joker would not escape from prison anywhere as much as he does in comics and Arkham Asylum would have been shut down long ago due to its poor record. He wouldn't kill as many people in real life as he does in the comics. Therefore, the Joker not getting the death penalty makes sense in the context of our universe.

Well the death penalty is slowly becoming more and more taboo. It's not even enforceable in many states (including New York as of a few years ago) and theres something like only a few dozen death sentences every year. Not to mention, no way would they ever put one of Batmans more deranged villains (Joker included) to death. Its their own damn fault for letting him escape several times a year.

But I do agree, herolee, that Joker being allowed to live while the authorities often resort to lethal force to try to bring down Batman is just nutty. It's part of what makes the story so fascinating. In my opinion...

Edit: haha Shikamaru made several of the same points as me.

The Joker's been known though for doing criminal acts in the comics that have threatened people's lives on a global scale as well.

Hell, in the Injustice Games, he nuked all of Metropolis, and it was suggested that he was just going to go to prison for it only. If that act alone is not considered strong enough to give the Joker the death penalty in any medium, then I don't know what is.

Heck, the DC heroes should actually consider locking up the very dangerous criminals within the DC world, the Joker included, in the Phantom Zone or put them in permanent suspended animation.

Imho, the only people that are "insane" in all of this are the folks that say that the DC villains should be allowed to live because they're viewed as being clinically insane.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I will always have my own qualms with certain unrealistic Batman stories involving the rest of the DCU. *cough* emperor joker *cough*

You're right of course, a man who uses a nuke against his own country for little to no reason should be put to death. But for the writer that canonically kills the Joker there'll be hell to pay.

 

[Shikamaru]

I will always have my own qualms with certain unrealistic Batman stories involving the rest of the DCU. *cough* emperor joker *cough*

You're right of course, a man who uses a nuke against his own country for little to no reason should be put to death. But for the writer that canonically kills the Joker there'll be hell to pay.

Pretty much what I was going to say.

And gosh, Emperor Joker was awful.

 

[Marvin]

That is on top of them having to give the death penalty to a bunch of criminals in a state where it is (most likely) viewed as unconstitutional.

Death Penalty most definitely exists in Gotham.

 

[Marvin]

I'd have preferred it had he finished with a witty pun.

"Well, that was a snap".

I say before the snap he whispers in zods ear

"Hasta la vista Baby"
or maybe one of Arnolds lines from Predator.

And then right after, he turns to lois and say: "I need a vacation"

 

[Brother Jack]

From a character perspective, you have to remember that Bruce saw his parents murdered, with a gun no less. Clark never really had that experience and thus does not have the aversion to murder in the same way that Batman does. The irony is that Superman is so powerful that he would hardly ever have to kill anyone to save people. For Batman on the other hand, while capable and powerful in his own right, killing would theoretically be much more of a necessary measure but for the vast majority of the time he doesn't.

 

[Gianakin_]

The scenes after the attack, take place at a later time and are in relation to other things.

Just not some of the important ones.

The scene with Ma and Clark was about his father, her husband and that payoff.

Which, as I said, featured Ma touting Clark as a hero. And since we don't have any other scene addressing the aftermath of the destruction and mayhem, we're indirectly led to assume that the rest of the normal people agree with Ma's POV.

The scene at the DP was about people moving on with their lives(because the terrorists were stopped and the world and city were saved much to the chagrin of the cynics), it was also about a the thematic payoff to clarks search of his place in the world, found in the last dialogue exchange.

And since movies and scenes don't take place in real time, like you very correctly said, they chose a highly inappropriate way to do it, with Lombard being all flirty and s**t. It conveys an "everything's back to normal" feel, which is totally wrong. And goes against what Goyer said, in interviews and through his writing in MoS.

Long story short, scenes are about things. After 911 not all my conversations were about the lives lost, some were about breakfast and school work. I don't fault you for wanting some more scenes about that particular issue but I don't fault the film for simply telling it's story.

Which it didn't, since MoS was about footnotes of Superman's story. Nothing is earned in it.

The scene at the end of Begins was about Rachel and Bruce and how he has become a hero and their history. Very much in the same way Martha and Clark shared a moment about similar things. Adding to the kent scene with "but what about all the death" would be like arguing that the BB scene needed to mention all of the above as well(cause batman killed, defied his no kill rule which rachel actually helped give him and lots of lives were lost).

Yes, the thing is, Goyer tried to make it like those BB scenes (just like MoS is Goyer's attempt to replicate BB), but he failed hilariously, imo.

Just saying. Another scene with a memorial at this point seems like playing into the hands of a conditioned audience imo. Just tell the story.

I did not require a memorial scene. I wanted acknowledgement.

Don't remember MOS making any claims about anything. It was what it was.
I do think however it set a "grey area" tone in Pa Kent's responses to a few of Clarks simple conflicts.

Pa and Jor-El's lines, as well as Goyer's statements in interviews say otherwise. They were dead-serious, they were heavy and they set up lots of deep stuff that was never really explored or paid off satisfyingly. It visibly and desperately tried to be deep.

Thought so.
A hero cries after he kills someone or something and "at all" becomes hyperbole.

I'll gladly give you that 1 moment. Fine. It's not "At all" then. Great success for MoS, I guess.

 

[Gianakin_]

Sure there were. Superman killing Zod is probably the best example of the introduction of a gray area concept.

Sure, last minute intro of something that's supposed to be explored in the sequel. That's a hollow excuse of a grey area concept, not an actual one.

And you know why there was no consistency in Pa Kent's advice to Clark? Because that was one of the gray areas in the film. It's not meant to have a clear answer or morality to it.

No, it wishes it was that. Instead, Pa came off as schizo because he contradicted himself almost all the time. Since when does "blurry lines" and "unclear morality" mean inconsistency?

Not even sure what you mean by there being no choice in the movie.

He was never conflicted about his heritage, nor was he conflicted about what he'd do with his powers. The only thing he did was put on a suit (no reason, Jor-El just showed it to him) and reveal himself to the world, which is some kind of a choice, I suppose, but without real impact to the rest of the movie. Basically, things happened without real reason. Because we know Superman wears a suit, we know Superman protects Earth, we know Superman kisses Lois. So Goyer went "A to B to C", instead of "C because of B, because of C". No internal world logic.

I never said it was the best choice, or that you have to like it, but it is a valid approach to storytelling. It's valid in that its an acceptable way to structure a screenplay or a mythology. It's been done before MOS, and it will be done after it.

"Acceptable" != "It's there, it's been there and it's always been there, so deal with it".

 

[Shikamaru]

Death Penalty most definitely exists in Gotham.

It varies from writer to writer but it doesn't exist in the most incarnations of Gotham. It would also be uncommon for it to exist in the area Gotham is located and the part of the US it is based on.

 

[Shikamaru]

Death Penalty most definitely exists in Gotham.

It varies from writer to writer but it doesn't exist in the most incarnations of Gotham. It would also be uncommon for it to exist in the area Gotham is located and the part of the US it is based on.

 

[Marvin]

It varies from writer to writer but it doesn't exist in the most incarnations of Gotham. It would also be uncommon for it to exist in the area Gotham is located and the part of the US it is based on.

It doesn't strike me that these books about fictional cities follow the laws of our world on that level. Gun laws for example.
I can see how if gotham is in the New York area of the US then one could assume there is no death penalty however Gotham(the opposite of Motropolis in many ways) has it's own history and twisted governing body. I wouldn't assume anything about it the writers didn't tell me.

As for what they have told me, I personally have never seen a Batstory that conveyed the state as not having the death penalty. If anything I've often seen the rhetoric that the only think keeping Joker from it is his insanity plea. Moreover, I have read 2 stories in which our bat family has had to save someone from the chair/gas chamber.

Still, given the varying opinions on who superman is from writer to writer, I can see your point.

 

[Marvin]

Just not some of the important ones.

Supermans relationship to the gov't can be considered important, Ma and Pa Kent's thematic reward for raising and realizing Superman can be considered important, and so on. When you say important to me it seems like you mean something else.
The scenes and what they addressed were important to the story in some way.

Which, as I said, featured Ma touting Clark as a hero. And since we don't have any other scene addressing the aftermath of the destruction and mayhem, we're indirectly led to assume that the rest of the normal people agree with Ma's POV.

I said that scene was about Matha and more to the point Jon's pay off That's what that scene was about. It's serving the characters story. Her and Jon raised a boy with an uncertain destiny and having just saved the world, this scene is about that particular pay off. "Would dad have been proud mom? Yes but all that destruction...Jon was always talking about destruction.."

If you want the pay offs for the rest of the normal people the story has invested no time into, that's a different kind of film, a less focused on imo.

Martha is his ever supporting mother, she's inclined to support her child(see martha kent in 90% of her appearances). Safe bet not everyone sees things as she does. As for what the rest of the world thinks of it all, maybe we'll find out in a movie about that. Again see the evolving public opinion on batman in the TDK trilogy. I will offer to you that it seems the world is celebrating their new found hero that saved 99% of the planet from death and torture as is the Superman tradition, however it appears the military and gov't don't trust him.
The film conveyed that to me. I don't expect deep films to spoon feed me everything.

And since movies and scenes don't take place in real time, like you very correctly said, they chose a highly inappropriate way to do it, with Lombard being all flirty and s**t. It conveys an "everything's back to normal" feel, which is totally wrong. And goes against what Goyer said, in interviews and through his writing in MoS.

A grounded world implies people will continue to act like people once the danger has past. Horny lonely men will continue to pursue the opposite sex in a grounded film once the danger has passed. If lombard asked these women out to a baseball game while the buildings were falling on them, that require a level of silly I have come to expect from more lighthearted films(such as Avengers).

You are suggesting that in a grounded film(goyers words), there either is no levity in this newly relocated Daily Planet office, or simply that none of it should be featured. Considering the point of the scene in question is to celebrate what it is that superman actually did save(again, much to the chagrin), inappropriate comes down to your opinion. I for one think the presidential cabinet laughing their asses off during 911 in a docudrama would be "inappropriate".
This ain't that. So I am content with accepting that it's simply solid story telling. People move on. Lombard obviously has. Then again his dog wasn't caught in the beam.

Which it didn't, since MoS was about footnotes of Superman's story. Nothing is earned in it.

This is another obtuse opinion on which we will have to disagree. For starters, the gov't response to an alien on their soil and the latter tepid acceptance of him is wholly earned on concept alone. If you look at the 78 movie, in which he simply states this fact in a news paper interview and no one but luthor says two words about it...less earned. It only takes one look at the film E.T. to see how the gov't might treat an landed alien however benign. But that's just a conceptual thing.

I assume you are talking about emotional payoffs. An issue which is wholly subjective. Since we are on the topic of emotional/story pay off. My favorite of which, is the two grave yard scenes and how they work in relation to each other to provide emotional pay off and catharsis.

Yes, the thing is, Goyer tried to make it like those BB scenes (just like MoS is Goyer's attempt to replicate BB), but he failed hilariously, imo.

I didn't think it so funny. And yes he and Nolan premised a film in the successful mold of "...Begins." But that wasn't my point. My point was that when that film "failed" to do what you are asking here, did you(and others) express similar concerns? In relation to batman breaking his "one rule" and or all the death and destruction in a film about his no kill rule? If so, then more power to you all, keep fighting the good fight to get hollywood to cater to your style of story telling. If not, than what is it about this production that warrants unfair criticism whereas that one which is even more "guilty" does not?

Pa and Jor-El's lines, as well as Goyer's statements in interviews say otherwise. They were dead-serious, they were heavy and they set up lots of deep stuff that was never really explored or paid off satisfyingly. It visibly and desperately tried to be deep.

Everything Jon and Jor said was paid off imo. And because of that, the film was actually pretty "deep". The minute Jon suggested that heroism isn't a simple matter of black and white like it may have been in the late 70's. I figured this was the grounded post 911 world Goyer was talking about. Then Superman announced himself the military and surprisingly, they didn't simply accept him with open arms but as an uncontrollable threat(see JMS's EarthOne), then later when Superman had to literally kill to save the world(unoriginal I know, heroes kill all the time these days), I saw another pay off in that heroism may not be as black and white as it was in the late 70's or rather the silver age. Given this is the same world that is seemingly celebrating SealTeam6 for their violent exploits.... Then we have Jor el preaching choice vs society in a world of test tube babies, which leads into a story about a man choosing to use his powers for super heroics. To see this theme play out in a Superhero movie is very "satisfying" imo it takes the superhero dilemma of using your powers for good, one step further, one step deeper. Then we got the moral ambiguity of the villain, then we got Superman making two genocidal decisions in the third act, both of which come at a price. For me the choice theme was very much paid off.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion, goyer wasn't lying nor did he fail, there was substance and pay off to what Jon Kent said. MoS may not have been executed in the way you wanted but what you are claiming is obtuse imo. My point remains that, the film didn't make outright claims about what it wanted to be, such as "this is a commentary on war, or a political meditation.." Whatever it was, only comes into realization after the fact. I for one look back at it and I can understand what it "claimed to be". The claim was made just before the credits rolled, not 4 minutes into the film.

Goyer promised a film about aliens and superheros that was grounded. I look at green lantern or fantastic four2 and I see that goyer delivered on that particular promise, not that he "Hilariously failed."

I'll gladly give you that 1 moment. Fine. It's not "At all" then. Great success for MoS, I guess.

I'll gladly accept that there is one less person walking around with an absolute cynical hyperbole in their head, hopefully MOS will be seen more as another imperfect film(as most are) as opposed to an "at all" and horrible one as many of the detractors have been preaching.

That's all I've ever argued for around here. Cause it's at that point that people can finally start to discuss the film in a more fair and balanced way. Now that we are past "at all", it becomes a matter of "was it enough?" And as all things in art, the answer won't be the same for everyone.

Next it will be the people who walk around suggesting the film is humor less.

Crap, sorry for the long post.

 

[The Guard]

Can I just point out that the reason that Batman's villains haven't been executed in the comics is that they're considered insane. It's not that the death penalty doesn't exist in the DC Universe or in Gotham City, it's that they're considered mentally ill, and this is their defense against the death penalty. There have been several stories that deal with this issue.

 

[The Guard]

Which, as I said, featured Ma touting Clark as a hero. And since we don't have any other scene addressing the aftermath of the destruction and mayhem, we're indirectly led to assume that the rest of the normal people agree with Ma's POV.

We’re left, albeit in a somewhat subtle manner, with the idea that there are likely mixed feelings about Superman. Because that’s what there has been through the film. An uneasy peace of sorts, but a growing respect as he earns trust. The government certainly hasn’t entirely accepted him given his powers and the recent events, and they were the ones who had the most contact with him.

There’s not really any information at all to suggest how normal people feel, nor should there really need to be, because the film has already introduced those concepts via Lois, Jonathan and Perry's exploration of them. The film expects you to draw your own conclusions about Superman's place in the world and his actions thus far. It doesn't want you to "assume" anything based on one person's statements.

Why shouldn’t Superman have been touted as a hero, and his actions as heroic?

He stopped an alien invasion. He saved countless lives, and the Earth.

Yes, he killed someone in the process and caused some property damage. Does that mean he is any less a hero in context, given the stakes and the scenario?

Look at our society. We often idolize police officers, soldiers, etc, all of whom occasionally must take lives in the course of their duties. Many of our cinematic action heroes kill at some point or another as well.

Having Clark weighed down by guilt over what he has done would have thrown a beautiful scene about Pa recognizing his son’s ability to be a hero out of balance. Including more doubts in that sequence would have been somewhat tonally inappropriate from a writing standpoint, because that sequence exists to tie it all together and introduce the endpoint of Superman's journey to Earth's protector, not to create angst.

Besides, we had just SEEN Superman react to what he’d done. In grand fashion. There can be little doubt that he is not thrilled about what he did/had to do. Scene after scene designed to hammer this home at this point would have been redundant.

And since movies and scenes don't take place in real time, like you very correctly said, they chose a highly inappropriate way to do it, with Lombard being all flirty and s**t. It conveys an "everything's back to normal" feel, which is totally wrong. And goes against what Goyer said, in interviews and through his writing in MoS.

Why is it highly inappropriate?

That’s the way the real world works. The real world doesn’t always only dwell on disaster throughout their day to day lives.

I don’t think the scene is necessarily about “back to normal”, though to some extent, life goes on, and that’s indicated in the sequence.

But the scene is moreso about Superman’s place in the world evolving. Because that’s what the end of the movie is about. Because this movie is about Superman, its focus is on Superman, as a character, and we see events through Superman’s eyes for the most part.

Which it didn't, since MoS was about footnotes of Superman's story. Nothing is earned in it.

Earned in what sense? What wasn’t earned, precisely, that is important to the story?

Yes, the thing is, Goyer tried to make it like those BB scenes (just like MoS is Goyer's attempt to replicate BB), but he failed hilariously, imo.

Goyer wasn't trying to replicate BB. He used a similar denoument structure, but within that structure, he recognized that he was writing about a completely different kind of character with a completely different journey, not a man weighed down by duty and obligation and an inner obsession and facing uncertainty like Batman. So he wrote the scene accordingly, and gave us an inspiring few scenes that called back to Clark’s upbringing and combined the pride of his mother, and the dreams of Jor-El and Jonathan in one image and concept, and then seguewayed into the hopeful concept of Clark discovering his role as Earth's protector. Because it’s Superman, not Batman.

I did not require a memorial scene. I wanted acknowledgement.

Acknowledgement of what? The disaster? The film shows quite clearly the scope of the disaster. Anyone with common sense can tell that there will need to be some cleanup, and that the people of Metropolis will need to overcome the incident. Does the film really need to have scenes where Metropolis picks up the pieces? Could it? Yes. But they’re not narratively required to do so within the structure of this film, and given the focus of the story at this point.

Pa and Jor-El's lines, as well as Goyer's statements in interviews say otherwise. They were dead-serious, they were heavy and they set up lots of deep stuff that was never really explored or paid off satisfyingly. It visibly and desperately tried to be deep.

That’s not really true. Their statements introduced concepts that Superman would have to, and did, deal with. They introduced choices Clark would have to make, and their actions and guidance informed Clark’s decisions throughout the film. So there was payoff, but their statements work on two levels within the film. They both set up the story within MAN OF STEEL and they set up themes for the franchise itself to explore in an ongoing fashion.

The concepts that Pa and Jor-El were bringing up also weren’t necessarily about just this film or this time in Clark’s life, but Superman’s impact on the world over the longterm. They are concepts, much like some of the broader ideas that were found in BATMAN BEGINS, that are meant to bear fruit over the course of a franchise, not just a single film. They are concepts that can’t really ultimately even be appropriately resolved within a single film in which they are not the chief focus, not in any satisfying manner, at least.

Sure, last minute intro of something that's supposed to be explored in the sequel. That's a hollow excuse of a grey area concept, not an actual one.

Reducing it with the word “hollow” doesn’t make it any less a gray area concept. Because it is a gray concept. Superman killing has been a huge discussion point after the film, amidst fans, the media, the general public, and various comics creators, precisely because of the issue of its morality. This is a gray area. And it didn’t need big speeches about how killing is wrong but sometimes necessary to accomplish this element. Because it’s an issue that humans deal with and a moral conflict that most are familiar with.

No, it wishes it was that. Instead, Pa came off as schizo because he contradicted himself almost all the time. Since when does "blurry lines" and "unclear morality" mean inconsistency?

What inconsistency? How did Pa contradict himself within the film? Pa didn’t know what the right answers were. He conveyed this to Clark. He also presented the issues Clark would have to face, and introduced the gray areas therein. I’m hard pressed to find a point in the film where he somehow actually gave Clark inconsistent advice.

Blurry lines and unclear morality are pretty much inherent to the concept of “gray areas”, and yes, there is sometimes inconsistency in actions and thoughts about concepts when dealing with gray areas as well. That’s why they’re called gray. Because they’re not always clear and concise and consistent concepts.

He was never conflicted about his heritage, nor was he conflicted about what he'd do with his powers.

Why would he have been conflicted about his heritage? He grew up on Earth. His ties were to Earth, as they always have been initially. But he was conflicted about WHAT his heritage was. He didn’t know where he came from or what his purpose was, and this created clear conflict throughout the film, and informed choices he made throughout the film as well.

The only thing he did was put on a suit (no reason, Jor-El just showed it to him)

He put on the suit to honor his Kryptonian heritage, his father’s dream for what he could be, and his house’s legacy of hope. I know he didn’t come right out and say that, but…it’s called subtlety.

and reveal himself to the world, which is some kind of a choice, I suppose, but without real impact to the rest of the movie.

He didn’t just put himself out there. He put himself out there and stood up for Earth in a big way as a protector against Zod and his forces. This is not a small thing.

He saved the world. How can you say his choices had no real impact on the rest of the movie?

That’s absurd.

Basically, things happened without real reason. Because we know Superman wears a suit, we know Superman protects Earth, we know Superman kisses Lois. So Goyer went "A to B to C", instead of "C because of B, because of C". No internal world logic.

No, there are reasons these things happen…you just missed them, apparently.

What did you want, exactly? Did you really need your hand held and to be told that he saves people and protects Earth because he can given his powers, and because it’s the right thing to do?

Did you really need someone to tell you why Clark and Lois like each other in the film based on what it shows?

You talk about a lack of internal real world logic, but you don’t seem willing to logically think about or consider some fairly obvious concepts or situations yourself.

"Acceptable" != "It's there, it's been there and it's always been there, so deal with it".

“Acceptable” as in “It’s professionally acceptable” in screenwriting and storytelling structure.

 

[Tempest]

Supermans relationship to the gov't can be considered important, Ma and Pa Kent's thematic reward for raising and realizing Superman can be considered important, and so on. When you say important to me it seems like you mean something else.
The scenes and what they addressed were important to the story in some way....

We’re left, albeit in a somewhat subtle manner, with the idea that there are likely mixed feelings about Superman. Because that’s what there has been through the film. An uneasy peace of sorts, but a growing respect as he earns trust. The government certainly hasn’t entirely accepted him given his powers and the recent events, and they were the ones who had the most contact with him....

Both quotes cut for length.

Awesome posts, guys.

 

[Gianakin_]

Supermans relationship to the gov't can be considered important, Ma and Pa Kent's thematic reward for raising and realizing Superman can be considered important, and so on. When you say important to me it seems like you mean something else.
The scenes and what they addressed were important to the story in some way.

I disagree about the government scenes, I was pretty covered when Hardy said "This man is not the enemy" or sth like that. I'd agree with the Ma/Pa point if Pa wasn't such a poorly realised character with a conflicting message to Clark.
The "something else" I mean is far deeper, which was set up by Pa himself, the whole "how the world is gonna react, you'll change the world" stuff. Which they're now saying they're leaving for the sequel (and before the movie was released they said they were gonna deal with it in MoS).

I said that scene was about Matha and more to the point Jon's pay off That's what that scene was about. It's serving the characters story. Her and Jon raised a boy with an uncertain destiny and having just saved the world, this scene is about that particular pay off. "Would dad have been proud mom? Yes but all that destruction...Jon was always talking about destruction.."

Yes, the whole direction of the scene (script-wise) was wrong from its basis. The question "Was dad proud, mom" shouldn't have been asked at all, imo.

If you want the pay offs for the rest of the normal people the story has invested no time into, that's a different kind of film, a less focused on imo.

I disagree, it would actually tie everything it said it would deal with.

Martha is his ever supporting mother, she's inclined to support her child(see martha kent in 90% of her appearances). Safe bet not everyone sees things as she does.

You say bet, I say underwritten.

As for what the rest of the world thinks of it all, maybe we'll find out in a movie about that. Again see the evolving public opinion on batman in the TDK trilogy. I will offer to you that it seems the world is celebrating their new found hero that saved 99% of the planet from death and torture as is the Superman tradition, however it appears the military and gov't don't trust him.
The film conveyed that to me. I don't expect deep films to spoon feed me everything.

Thing is:
1.MoS WAS supposed to be the movie about that. Per Goyer and Snyder themselves.
2.Yes, the military doesn't trust him, it was pretty clear. But what was set up by the film wasn't implying it was just going to be the military. Plus, I wanted to see the rest of the people reacting to him (and, dare I say, I could care less about the military angle). And I got none of that. I don't think that's subtlety at all.

A grounded world implies people will continue to act like people once the danger has past. Horny lonely men will continue to pursue the opposite sex in a grounded film once the danger has passed. If lombard asked these women out to a baseball game while the buildings were falling on them, that require a level of silly I have come to expect from more lighthearted films(such as Avengers).

Yes, yes, I already covered the "life goes on thing" and I'd agree with that in principle. Heck, it's very important. Again, I'm talking execution here. Humour was misplaced, imo. I didn't want people crying all the damn time after Zod time, I hope I'm not giving that impression.

You are suggesting that in a grounded film(goyers words), there either is no levity in this newly relocated Daily Planet office, or simply that none of it should be featured. Considering the point of the scene in question is to celebrate what it is that superman actually did save(again, much to the chagrin), inappropriate comes down to your opinion. I for one think the presidential cabinet laughing their asses off during 911 in a docudrama would be "inappropriate".
This ain't that. So I am content with accepting that it's simply solid story telling. People move on. Lombard obviously has. Then again his dog wasn't caught in the beam.

First off, of course it comes down to my opinion. Everything I've been saying does.
Secondly, if they chose to show the celebration of what Superman saved through the failed comic relief of the movie, then wow. Then again, it's not like the more important roles were developed at all, so I can get that.

This is another obtuse opinion on which we will have to disagree. For starters, the gov't response to an alien on their soil and the latter tepid acceptance of him is wholly earned on concept alone. If you look at the 78 movie, in which he simply states this fact in a news paper interview and no one but luthor says two words about it...less earned. It only takes one look at the film E.T. to see how the gov't might treat an landed alien however benign. But that's just a conceptual thing.

Why would you feel the need to compare to StM or ET?
I'll repeat what I said before in our argument, the story does make logical sense. That's why you haven't seen me throw the phrase "plot holes "around. Which brings me to:

I assume you are talking about emotional payoffs. An issue which is wholly subjective. Since we are on the topic of emotional/story pay off. My favorite of which, is the two grave yard scenes and how they work in relation to each other to provide emotional pay off and catharsis.

Yes, I'm talking about emotional payoffs. The reason people feel what they feel about anything or anyone. And again, it goes without saying it's subjective.
And, as you can probably tell, both graveyard scenes left me completely detached.

I didn't think it so funny. And yes he and Nolan premised a film in the successful mold of "...Begins." But that wasn't my point. My point was that when that film "failed" to do what you are asking here, did you(and others) express similar concerns? In relation to batman breaking his "one rule" and or all the death and destruction in a film about his no kill rule? If so, then more power to you all, keep fighting the good fight to get hollywood to cater to your style of story telling. If not, than what is it about this production that warrants unfair criticism whereas that one which is even more "guilty" does not?

1.I do call out the entire TDKT when it comes to things like that.
2.Said trilogy resonated much more with me.
3.Thusly, the faults I find in it stick out less than in MoS, which to me should be taught in schools as an example of how not to write.

Everything Jon and Jor said was paid off imo. And because of that, the film was actually pretty "deep". The minute Jon suggested that heroism isn't a simple matter of black and white like it may have been in the late 70's.

See, this it vintage Goyer. He always says, he never shows/proves. This happened all the time in BB (which would've been a disaster had it not been for Nolan). So, anything that you say here:

I figured this was the grounded post 911 world Goyer was talking about. Then Superman announced himself the military and surprisingly, they didn't simply accept him with open arms but as an uncontrollable threat(see JMS's EarthOne), then later when Superman had to literally kill to save the world(unoriginal I know, heroes kill all the time these days), I saw another pay off in that heroism may not be as black and white as it was in the late 70's or rather the silver age. Given this is the same world that is seemingly celebrating SealTeam6 for their violent exploits.... Then we have Jor el preaching choice vs society in a world of test tube babies, which leads into a story about a man choosing to use his powers for super heroics. To see this theme play out in a Superhero movie is very "satisfying" imo it takes the superhero dilemma of using your powers for good, one step further, one step deeper. Then we got the moral ambiguity of the villain, then we got Superman making two genocidal decisions in the third act, both of which come at a price. For me the choice theme was very much paid off.

...is all fine in principle, but in execution... I see nothing of that. Nothing was paid off.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion, goyer wasn't lying nor did he fail, there was substance and pay off to what Jon Kent said. MoS may not have been executed in the way you wanted but what you are claiming is obtuse imo. My point remains that, the film didn't make outright claims about what it wanted to be, such as "this is a commentary on war, or a political meditation.." Whatever it was, only comes into realization after the fact. I for one look back at it and I can understand what it "claimed to be". The claim was made just before the credits rolled, not 4 minutes into the film.

Here's where we disagree. Everything Jon and Jor said was the "claims" of the film. And it was all claim, imo. Glad to see it resonated with you, but none of that clicked with me.

Goyer promised a film about aliens and superheros that was grounded. I look at green lantern or fantastic four2 and I see that goyer delivered on that particular promise, not that he "Hilariously failed."

At this point, I'd dub FF "dumb comedies" and GL "inconsequential". I'd dub MoS "harmful".

I'll gladly accept that there is one less person walking around with an absolute cynical hyperbole in their head, hopefully MOS will be seen more as another imperfect film(as most are) as opposed to an "at all" and horrible one as many of the detractors have been preaching.

I think it's got a horrible screenplay, inept editing and 2 completely ineffective performances. And since my personal tastes hinge on screenplay so much, I'm detracting lots of points from the movie. Every time I think back to it, I like it less. I'll watch it once more, but as of now, I fiercely dislike it.

 

[Gianakin_]

We’re left, albeit in a somewhat subtle manner, with the idea that there are likely mixed feelings about Superman. Because that’s what there has been through the film. An uneasy peace of sorts, but a growing respect as he earns trust. The government certainly hasn’t entirely accepted him given his powers and the recent events, and they were the ones who had the most contact with him.

So, we have: Lois kissing him, the military being lukewarm to willing to accept him and his mother thinknig he's a hero. If that's subtle and, moreover, enough for you, I'm glad. It completely misses the point, imo.

There’s not really any information at all to suggest how normal people feel, nor should there really need to be, because the film has already introduced those concepts via Lois, Jonathan and Perry's exploration of them. The film expects you to draw your own conclusions about Superman's place in the world and his actions thus far. It doesn't want you to "assume" anything based on one person's statements.

What did Perry say or do with regard to Superman?
Lois was willing to trust him for some reason (aka she's Lois and she likes Superman, you know, from the comics).
And Jonathan? Classic Goyer "tell, don't show".

Why shouldn’t Superman have been touted as a hero, and his actions as heroic?

Because if the movie really wants to explore gray areas, his actions should be considered more ambiguous, even by his own mother (since they didn't show any normal people, nor did they need to, according to you).

He stopped an alien invasion. He saved countless lives, and the Earth.

Yes, he killed someone in the process and caused some property damage. Does that mean he is any less a hero in context, given the stakes and the scenario?

Hey, gray areas, remember? Not everyone will see it that way. and I certainly didn't want to be told this via the military.

Look at our society. We often idolize police officers, soldiers, etc, all of whom occasionally must take lives in the course of their duties. Many of our cinematic action heroes kill at some point or another as well.

I don't care about Superman killing. It's the one good thing to come out of MoS, I've said it before.
And, on a completely personal note, I do not idolize cops and the army. At all. I work a day job, I live a normal life and I see rallies where normal people clash with cops all the time, especially all this time. If a "superheroic" figure came along, I'd be very dubious. And that's, more or less, what I wanted from MoS (and that's what was hinted by Goyer). Not the view of the army, who sometimes take lives in the name of duty, of a person who sometimes takes a life in the name of duty. Am I making any sense? I want the juxtaposition of normal people vs superhero, "low level" stuff (even if we have "high level" stakes).

Having Clark weighed down by guilt over what he has done would have thrown a beautiful scene about Pa recognizing his son’s ability to be a hero out of balance. Including more doubts in that sequence would have been somewhat tonally inappropriate from a writing standpoint, because that sequence exists to tie it all together and introduce the endpoint of Superman's journey to Earth's protector, not to create angst.

The last think I'd want was to see Clark feeling guilty. I would've liked him to be more skeptical and not so quick to accept the "protector of the Earth" mantle. Superman's supposed to be a beacon of hope and in this movie he's far from that. And I LIKE that, don't get me wrong. I just wish his mom didn't act like he was. Am I getting the contradiction through to you?

Besides, we had just SEEN Superman react to what he’d done. In grand fashion. There can be little doubt that he is not thrilled about what he did/had to do. Scene after scene designed to hammer this home at this point would have been redundant.

Sure, but that grand fashion (I agree, btw) was more about the fact the he burned the bridges to Krypton than anything about what happened to Metropolis and Smallville (even the Smallville aftermath was a bit touched on via Martha's house getting rebuilt, I found that satisfying enough).

Why is it highly inappropriate?

That’s the way the real world works. The real world doesn’t always only dwell on disaster throughout their day to day lives.

I don’t think the scene is necessarily about “back to normal”, though to some extent, life goes on, and that’s indicated in the sequence.

But the scene is moreso about Superman’s place in the world evolving. Because that’s what the end of the movie is about. Because this movie is about Superman, its focus is on Superman, as a character, and we see events through Superman’s eyes for the most part.

Sure, he found his place in the world as Clark Kent, reporter, but as Superman? That's where the movie fails, to me.

Earned in what sense? What wasn’t earned, precisely, that is important to the story?

Emotions. Relationships. Lois and Clark. Jonathan and Clark. Jor-El and Clark. Zod and Superman. I'll give you Martha and Clark, but that was mostly the acting that saved the script.

Goyer wasn't trying to replicate BB. He used a similar denoument structure, but within that structure, he recognized that he was writing about a completely different kind of character with a completely different journey, not a man weighed down by duty and obligation and an inner obsession and facing uncertainty like Batman. So he wrote the scene accordingly, and gave us an inspiring few scenes that called back to Clark’s upbringing and combined the pride of his mother, and the dreams of Jor-El and Jonathan in one image and concept, and then seguewayed into the hopeful concept of Clark discovering his role as Earth's protector. Because it’s Superman, not Batman.

And I saw none of that in MoS. Glad you did. All I saw was Goyer desperately trying to keep his WB employment by giving them what gave them money in 2005, even if that money came long-term. I saw a formula that failed to work again.

Acknowledgement of what? The disaster? The film shows quite clearly the scope of the disaster. Anyone with common sense can tell that there will need to be some cleanup, and that the people of Metropolis will need to overcome the incident. Does the film really need to have scenes where Metropolis picks up the pieces? Could it? Yes. But they’re not narratively required to do so within the structure of this film, and given the focus of the story at this point.

They're required to by me. If you show me people running away from disaster in Mike Bay fashion, you sure as hell should show them coming to terms with the brave new post-Superman world.

That’s not really true. Their statements introduced concepts that Superman would have to, and did, deal with. They introduced choices Clark would have to make, and their actions and guidance informed Clark’s decisions throughout the film. So there was payoff, but their statements work on two levels within the film. They both set up the story within MAN OF STEEL and they set up themes for the franchise itself to explore in an ongoing fashion.

Way I see it, they only do the latter. Which is the film's fallacy, to me.

The concepts that Pa and Jor-El were bringing up also weren’t necessarily about just this film or this time in Clark’s life, but Superman’s impact on the world over the longterm. They are concepts, much like some of the broader ideas that were found in BATMAN BEGINS, that are meant to bear fruit over the course of a franchise, not just a single film. They are concepts that can’t really ultimately even be appropriately resolved within a single film in which they are not the chief focus, not in any satisfying manner, at least.

I'd agree, if they cocepts they kept preaching about didn't take up a quarter of the screentime. Bruce mentioned he wanted to become a symbol on the plane as a direct continuation of Ra's' advice in prison. And it served (in 2 lines, no less) the story by having Bruce choosing a mask as the means to fight injustice.
In MoS, they keep saying the same thing over and over (hello "fear" in BB) and there's no real payoff.

Reducing it with the word “hollow” doesn’t make it any less a gray area concept. Because it is a gray concept. Superman killing has been a huge discussion point after the film, amidst fans, the media, the general public, and various comics creators, precisely because of the issue of its morality. This is a gray area. And it didn’t need big speeches about how killing is wrong but sometimes necessary to accomplish this element. Because it’s an issue that humans deal with and a moral conflict that most are familiar with.

Ok, it's a gray area concept.

What inconsistency? How did Pa contradict himself within the film? Pa didn’t know what the right answers were. He conveyed this to Clark. He also presented the issues Clark would have to face, and introduced the gray areas therein. I’m hard pressed to find a point in the film where he somehow actually gave Clark inconsistent advice.

Every time he nudges him to make a choice about the kind of man he'll be, he undoes it by "You have to keep this side of yourself a secret".
And, in retrospect, the only choice Clark would have to make would be whether he'd reveal himself or not (to which Pa clearly objected).
Not once was the "good or bad" part of this setup mentioned again ("good or bad" in this case implied "go with Kryptonians or save humans").

Blurry lines and unclear morality are pretty much inherent to the concept of “gray areas”, and yes, there is sometimes inconsistency in actions and thoughts about concepts when dealing with gray areas as well. That’s why they’re called gray. Because they’re not always clear and concise and consistent concepts.

Gray area, to me, is when you do something you're sure of, or that it makes sense, even though it's morally (as in: morals set by society) questionable. Clark sure as hell knew what he was doing when he killed Zod. It's quite clear, however, why it's gray area. Not so with Pa's schizo advice.

Why would he have been conflicted about his heritage? He grew up on Earth. His ties were to Earth, as they always have been initially. But he was conflicted about WHAT his heritage was. He didn’t know where he came from or what his purpose was, and this created clear conflict throughout the film, and informed choices he made throughout the film as well.

That's why it's vintage poor storytelling. Kryptonian is who he is. He found his people, the next best thing after his biological parents. If Goyer's interview claims had any weight, then Zod would have been written in a way that would have made Clark think twice about saving Earth. THAT'S gray area. THAT would make the military and real people even more suspicious and uneasy on Clark (a la STAS with Darkseid controlling Superman, but without the shotcut of mind control, you know, actual adult compelling drama). Instead, we get the "Clark, I'm Zod, I regret killing your dad, but I'm all but a robot, so are all the Kryptonians, so go ahead and fight with us". Does Clark's choice make sense within that setup? Sure. Is it compelling? No, sir, not to me. It's a nice way for Clark to solve everything with his fists, but it's not subtle, or deep in the slightest. I do applaud Goyer for finding the best shortcut to apologize for SR's actual gray areas and certainly deeper storytelling (as much as I don't really like SR), though.

He put on the suit to honor his Kryptonian heritage, his father’s dream for what he could be, and his house’s legacy of hope. I know he didn’t come right out and say that, but…it’s called subtlety.

Hm, and right before that you're asking why he should have been conflicted about his heritage. Another case of sloppy writing. Sure, let's honor the thing we don't give a s**t about.

He didn’t just put himself out there. He put himself out there and stood up for Earth in a big way as a protector against Zod and his forces. This is not a small thing.

Which is just a natural progression of what he'd been doing so far.

He saved the world. How can you say his choices had no real impact on the rest of the movie?

That’s absurd.

Well, big whoop. It's a superhero movie where the superhero saves the world. Doesnt' excuse that there's no compelling drama (as promised) in the meantime.

No, there are reasons these things happen…you just missed them, apparently.

I knew arguing with you would at some point come to that kind of comment. I'm sorry I wasn't proven wrong. I hope you can refrain from that in your next reply or replies. If not, let me know, so it can end sooner than later.

What did you want, exactly? Did you really need your hand held and to be told that he saves people and protects Earth because he can given his powers, and because it’s the right thing to do?

No, that's what the movie actually said "Save people cos it's the right thing". I wanted to be shown reasons why he chooses Earth over Krypton, why he chooses to save people, secretly or publicly. You know, because the 1st aact of the movie promised me that. It would've been ok if it hadn't, most superhero movies don't do it. That's why they get a pass from me (not that I like them), because they deliver on what they promise, even if the promise is smaller. If MoS were to be graded for its ambition, however, it'd get a 20/10 from me. Because based on what the trailer implied, combined with Goyer and Snyder's statements, it sounded not only like the one of the best CBMs ever, but also one of the worthiest scifi entries.

Did you really need someone to tell you why Clark and Lois like each other in the film based on what it shows?

No, I wanted someone to show me. Even a hint of chemistry would have done the job. Someone should tell Snyder that panting and grunting before or after a kiss is just a substitute of chemistry. Subtle, because Snyder is good at doing sexy, but a substitute nonetheless.
But yeah, what MoS showed me was at best that these 2 could be trusting friends. I know the following will make everyone want to mock me, but if it was Jimmy Olsen instead of Lois Lane in this movie (minus the kiss, obviously), everything would've been perfect about that relationship.

“Acceptable” as in “It’s professionally acceptable” in screenwriting and storytelling structure.

I'll rephrase then: "It's used by pros, so deal with it".

 

[Tempest]

So, we have: Lois kissing him, the military being lukewarm to willing to accept him and his mother thinknig he's a hero. If that's subtle and, moreover, enough for you, I'm glad. It completely misses the point, imo.

Cut a lot of your post, since most of it is subjective, and I can't debate that. You don't like the film, you don't like the film. It's a chemistry thing, and there's no way to get around that.

I would argue though, that the themes presented were realized, as was the purpose of the plot.

We were told what the film would be about: Clark's choice. What kind of person would he be? How would he use his powers? We know Jonathan wanted him to keep everything secret, but for Clark to have a kind heart, and to not abuse his powers. Jor-El wanted Clark to be a leader of Men, and to be a bridge between humans and Kryptonians. Clark wanted to make a difference in people's lives, but he wasn't sure how to.

Now we see a melding of sorts of his parents' desires: He will help save the world, but on his terms -- and yet, he isn't trying to be a leader.

So at the end of the film, the theme of choice has been laid to rest. Now, the rest of the themes, hope and inspiration...those were not fully realized in this film....and really, those themes can be touched on, but never realized until it is the absolute 100% end for Superman. So I'm not fussed that we didn't see people inspired or being led around by Superman.

No, I wanted someone to show me. Even a hint of chemistry would have done the job. Someone should tell Snyder that panting and grunting before or after a kiss is just a substitute of chemistry. Subtle, because Snyder is good at doing sexy, but a substitute nonetheless.
But yeah, what MoS showed me was at best that these 2 could be trusting friends. I know the following will make everyone want to mock me, but if it was Jimmy Olsen instead of Lois Lane in this movie (minus the kiss, obviously), everything would've been perfect about that relationship.

This is subjective too, but I have to say, Clark saved Lois's life. She tracked him down, and I think, was falling for this mysterious stranger who helped people, but remained in the shadows. And when she met Clark, I think she felt an attraction.

Clark was obviously impressed by her ability to track him down, and she was willing to protect his secret. That meant a lot to Clark.

There's more reasons in this film for Clark and Lois to hook up than there ever was in the comic books, in my opinion. I never understood how Clark could stand Lois, who was too stupid to figure out who he was.

And best of all, this Lois knows Clark, knows who he is, and she likes ALL of him. There's no need for her to like Clark but love Superman. She cares about his entire being, and that is so, so fantastic.

You are right about one thing: We didn't get a full-blown Lois/Clark relationship. What we got instead was the foundation for something wonderful for them to build on, the tenuous strands of something bigger that would grow not just from lust, but from friendship and trust.

I find that to be far more sexy than randomly tossing them together as sex partners. I think my two favorite moments between them are when he's getting ready to be turned over to Zod, they hold hands, and of course, that moment in the subway where he's crumbling, and she holds him up and holds onto him while he quietly breaks apart.

I don't need them in bed together, or to go on dates to get how they feel about each other. This was more than enough to see how they are now, and how they could be in the future.

 

[Loki882]

The problem that I've noticed with quite a few MOS detractors (but certainly not all of them) is that they aren't judging the movie on its own merits, they're judging it on what THEY EXPECTED it to be. There is a lot of "I wanted to see this" or "this is not how I expect people to at." That's not evaluating the movie on its own merits, that's judging the movie on what you THOUGHT it should be.

 

[Krumm]

The problem that I've noticed with quite a few MOS detractors (but certainly not all of them) is that they aren't judging the movie on its own merits, they're judging it on what THEY EXPECTED it to be. There is a lot of "I wanted to see this" or "this is not how I expect people to at." That's not evaluating the movie on its own merits, that's judging the movie on what you THOUGHT it should be.

I noticed the same. I've seen a lot of opinions and reviews with the word "should" in it. That just signifies walking in with a pre-determined notion.

 

[Tempest]

I noticed the same. I've seen a lot of opinions and reviews with the word "should" in it. That just signifies walking in with a pre-determined notion.

Indeed.

Er, back to the original discussion....

Isn't Batman just a tad bit of a bastard though? I don't know how 'canon' the animated films are, but I recall one where Batman let's an evil "Flash" vibrate himself to death in order to er, open a portal or something. Batman didn't let our Flash do it because he said he was too slow, but really, he knew that the vibrations would kill him, so he allowed the other Flash to do it -- without telling him the risks.

So I don't know that Batman is necessarily one who gets to lecture Clark on not killing someone. I sincerely hope we don't get that kind of nonsense in the upcoming film.

 

[Shikamaru]

Indeed.

Er, back to the original discussion....

Isn't Batman just a tad bit of a bastard though? I don't know how 'canon' the animated films are, but I recall one where Batman let's an evil "Flash" vibrate himself to death in order to er, open a portal or something. Batman didn't let our Flash do it because he said he was too slow, but really, he knew that the vibrations would kill him, so he allowed the other Flash to do it -- without telling him the risks.

So I don't know that Batman is necessarily one who gets to lecture Clark on not killing someone. I sincerely hope we don't get that kind of nonsense in the upcoming film.

He didn't make the other Flash vibrate himself to death. The other Flash just volunteered for it and Batman went along with it. I wouldn't count that as a murder.