Neck Snap or Turning back time: Which Superman final resolution do you prefer ?

[Grommers]

Maybe, I don't even know if fanboy was a word back in 1978.

I agree that it didn't bother my dad at all (who took me to the film), but by then I was reading Superman comics, and to me it just seemed silly - the rest of the movie was awesome, but that was silly.

I guess for my dad, if Superman can fly and lift Western California, why can't he turn back time.

Tell you what though, if I watch youtube clips of the opening credits of Superman the Movie, or Reeve's first appearance as Supes....man it gives me chills (takes me back to being a kid in the cinema !)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCLi3_-iXHk


Cheers

I find this interesting and wonder how much portrays into movies, when I watch the superman movies (reeves) I don't get a feeling of nostalgia or anything from them, they come off as quite boring for me, but I never grew up with them, I hadn't seen them till after man of steel, and they were just so dated by then it's hard too see the performances from the actors.

What scares me about this - people eventually will look at the TDK universe, or even man of steel, and not see this epic symbol of hope that I see, and will look at those as being dated movies...god it sucks getting old.

Now, as for the discussion - I hate the time travel bit - I forget the terminology and maybe someone can remind me, but it just reminds me too much of the same problem I had with Harry Potter - anytime they ran into trouble they shouldn't be able too deal with, they magically learn a spell that solves there issue, that they could have used in a bunch of different situations previously, but decided for this one particular moment too use that spell.

I feel that's the issue with the turning back time, and why I prefer the neck snap, we all know superman always had the power to do that - and he did it.

That's why the neck snap is 100% better for me.

 

[Breogan]

Maybe, I don't even know if fanboy was a word back in 1978.

Word was already circulating in a general use and specifically as self deprecating reference in comic culture.
Intresting blog post trying to track the word in print- http://potrzebie.blogspot.com/2009/01/origin-of-word-fanboy.html
Indicating it was already part of the comic culture zeitgeist.
R.Crumb 1976

Official Underground and Newave comics Price Guide 1982

The idea of Superman turning back time was probably not too outside the conception of the character that they had. It's we, the later fan generation after them that makes and issue of this.

It and all the baggage (plot, motive, visual, implications, etc...) that came with it, was an "issue" back then.
And it was discussed, It didn't stop many from loving the movie though.

As pointed out the emotional impact of the scene in a way overrode any "logic" to the scene- In the end the question that mattered wan't what was that crazy power? What was being asked was would you do it? if you had the power, would you break every rule to save someone you loved.

 

[Batmannerism]

Word was already circulating in a general use and specifically as self deprecating reference in comic culture.
Intresting blog post trying to track the word in print- http://potrzebie.blogspot.com/2009/01/origin-of-word-fanboy.html
Indicating it was already part of the comic culture zeitgeist.
R.Crumb 1976

Official Underground and Newave comics Price Guide 1982

It and all the baggage (plot, motive, visual, implications, etc...) that came with it, was an "issue" back then.
And it was discussed, It didn't stop many from loving the movie though.

As pointed out the emotional impact of the scene in a way overrode any "logic" to the scene- In the end the question that mattered wan't what was that crazy power? What was being asked was would you do it? if you had the power, would you break every rule to save someone you loved.[/QUOTE]

Well, now we know that fanboy was a word in the late 70's, who'd have thunk it ?

As for the rule breaking thing, yeah I get that but I still think the way it was done was stupid - thought it in 1978, and equally now. That still didn't ruin the movie for me.

I find this interesting and wonder how much portrays into movies, when I watch the superman movies (reeves) I don't get a feeling of nostalgia or anything from them, they come off as quite boring for me, but I never grew up with them, I hadn't seen them till after man of steel, and they were just so dated by then it's hard too see the performances from the actors.

What scares me about this - people eventually will look at the TDK universe, or even man of steel, and not see this epic symbol of hope that I see, and will look at those as being dated movies...god it sucks getting old.

Actually getting old isn't so bad, because it means you're still alive. I know plenty of people who didn't get old, and I suspect they would have liked to.

Anyway, you might be right. I mean how many movies from the 1940's were we watching in 1980 ? Not many. True, some timeless classics from that era survive today (Casablanca, made in 1942) but otherwise not many.

The Godfather still hangs around, and while I grew up with it, I don't think any gangster film has exceeded it (although Scorsese has come close with Goodfellas ). Still, that's 40 years.


Who really knows. I suspect TDK will be relevant for a long long time, because it's not just a good superhero movie, but a good movie full stop.
Batman and Superman have been cultural icons for a long time (both have been around over 75 years) so I suspect their films will survive a long time.

As for the Chris Reeve Superman movies, well if you didn't grow up with them you can't get a sense of nostalgia - you are right though that a lot of the effects are a bit dated - still it is possible to enjoy those films, but I suspect that has more to do with liking Chris Reeve as Superman.

If you can watch this scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCLi3_-iXHk

and enjoy it, then (nostalgia aside) I don't think there's anything to worry about in terms of people completely forgetting about it.

But movies do date, sadly if they are built totally on effects they date real fast. I think Guardians of the Galaxy is one of the best sci-fi space-opera films since 1977 Star Wars (now there's a film that seems to remain current no matter how good the effects of subsequent films are).
I think Guardians will stick around for a while, because while the effects are great, its the characters we care about.

Cheers.

 

[MrsKent26]

Here's a sentence I never thought I'd type: I prefer the neck-snap.

Before MOS, I thought the idea of superman killing in the film was a terrible one, but after seeing it (both the build-up and superman's reaction immediately after), I changed my mind. I thought that superman killing worked in this context. I do wish they hadn't cut to a cheerful scene after that emotional moment with Lois and instead showed superman pulling people out of the rubble, but the actual neck-snap was fine with me.

The turning back time was a huge flaw for me. It basically undid most of what came before it and I just dislike superman having that sort of power in any situation. It's just too much and removes all the tension in the ending. I'm aware that superman has a myriad of odd powers in some comics, but I don't like it there, either. Too easy and too wacky for my tastes.

 

[Dr.]

“Hero kills villain” is a very common narrative device. Typically, this occurs during a final, climactic duel. And therefore, it’s often framed as a self-defense (kill or be killed) situation. (Less common: the hero executes the villain as a righteous act. E.g., “You killed my father. Prepare to die.”) Of course, the appropriateness of this device can be debated for a given story (as is the case with MOS ). And there are creative ways to bypass the moral implications. For instance, the villain might accidently die “by his own sword” (as happened with Green Goblin in Spider-Man.) But “hero kills villain” is not a new phenomenon - designed to make characters more “modern” or “dark” or “edgy.” It’s as old as storytelling. As such, it’s hard to claim that the slaying of Zod represents some egregious violation of narrative convention.

Deus ex machina, on the other hand, is often criticized as lazy writing, a narrative “cheat.” Usually, it’s a surprising and implausible “solution” to a problem that comes out of nowhere (one that’s never been established - or even alluded to - in prior scenes). Moreover, deus ex machina tends to open a logical can-of-worms - inasmuch as this “solution” now has precedent and is now (seemingly) available for future problems. STM’s “turning back time” is a classic deus ex machina - and is fundamentally problematic in a way that “hero kills villain” is not.

 

[Rowsdower!]

“Hero kills villain” is a very common narrative device. Typically, this occurs during a final, climactic duel. And therefore, it’s often framed as a self-defense (kill or be killed) situation. (Less common: the hero executes the villain as a righteous act. E.g., “You killed my father. Prepare to die.&#8221 Of course, the appropriateness of this device can be debated for a given story (as is the case with MOS ). And there are creative ways to bypass the moral implications. For instance, the villain might accidently die “by his own sword” (as happened with Green Goblin in Spider-Man.) But “hero kills villain” is not a new phenomenon - designed to make characters more “modern” or “dark” or “edgy.” It’s as old as storytelling. As such, it’s hard to claim that the slaying of Zod represents some egregious violation of narrative convention.

Deus ex machina, on the other hand, is often criticized as lazy writing, a narrative “cheat.” Usually, it’s a surprising and implausible “solution” to a problem that comes out of nowhere (one that’s never been established - or even alluded to - in prior scenes). Moreover, deus ex machina tends to open a logical can-of-worms - inasmuch as this “solution” now has precedent and is now (seemingly) available for future problems. STM’s “turning back time” is a classic deus ex machina - and is fundamentally problematic in a way that “hero kills villain” is not.

Yeah, but... but... Donner's Superman smiled more and rescued kittens so it's better.

 

[Parker Wayne]

I don't think this question's that simple because the answer depends on what Superman you're using. If you're using Silver Age Superman, then turning back time is the answer. If you're using modern age, then neck snapping it is.

 

[ernesth100]

Neck snap, hell if I was Superman I wouldn't let people who are evil and have no regard for others lives but theirown go on living. Especially if they have already killed several people and/or are as strong as me.

 

[Fincher]

The neck snap scene was really good.

My problem with the time travel is that there was one point in that movie with an actual hero's struggle, where Superman had to work to overcome something, and it was the race against time at the end. When he mucked it up, he just got a time travel do-over, which means he could have sleepwalked through the ending of the film and still won. It's boring. Plus it needs to be ignored in future movies. When he gets his powers back in Superman II, why not just travel back in time right then to when the villains were in the phantom zone? Why not travel back to before Lex Luthor made a solar-powered man? Why not travel back to before he left Lois and she hooked up with another guy?

Or, for that matter, why not travel back to before Lex Luthor launched the missiles and instead of opening the kryptonite box, karate chop him in the throat? Superman wins again!

 

[The Batman]

I don't think this question's that simple because the answer depends on what Superman you're using. If you're using Silver Age Superman, then turning back time is the answer. If you're using modern age, then neck snapping it is.

Its why I think the hate for both options is overblown. I don't hate the turning back time thing...because Donner Superman is based off a version of Superman that could virtually do anything. My only actual problem with the scene is that there's no repercussions for what Superman did.

I don't hate Superman snapping Zod's neck...because Snyder Superman is based off a version of Superman that could kill his enemies when backed into a corner. My only actual problem with the scene is that we there's no set up to it. IMO, We're never really told or shown what Clark's stance is regarding taking a life. For me, the scene would've had more impact if we established that Clark hates the idea of killing anyone, criminal or not, with his powers.

 

[spider-neil]

Neck snap.

Superman 1 is held up a great movie but the turning back time is the worst deux ex machina ever.

 

[Lencho01]

Its why I think the hate for both options is overblown. I don't hate the turning back time thing...because Donner Superman is based off a version of Superman that could virtually do anything. My only actual problem with the scene is that there's no repercussions for what Superman did.

I don't hate Superman snapping Zod's neck...because Snyder Superman is based off a version of Superman that could kill his enemies when backed into a corner. My only actual problem with the scene is that we there's no set up to it. IMO, We're never really told or shown what Clark's stance is regarding taking a life. For me, the scene would've had more impact if we established that Clark hates the idea of killing anyone, criminal or not, with his powers.

Yep.

They even had the whole Jor-El voice over and everything. But, in the end it was like no big deal. Maybe we were supposed to look at the PZ criminal release as a consequence, but it just felt like a coincidence.

Beyond the bad set up, the neck snap ties into how the film had a disjointed ending. They easily could've pulled a Batman Begins and hint at how it affected Clark and the world, making a nice transition to the next film, but allowing the story to feel overall complete.

So, I think both endings don't work for their respective films.

 

[Batmannerism]

Neck snap.

Superman 1 is held up a great movie but the turning back time is the worst deux ex machina ever.

I think a good indication of how great a movie Superman is, is that the "worst deus ex machina ever" doesn't ruin the film. It's still really enjoyable. ( I agree its the worst deus ex machina ever, the only thing worse would have been if Superman woke up and it was all a dream).

But the film is still great and fun and Reeve is still wonderful as Superman.
Well, that's how I see it. Somehow that cheesy ending manages to
fly, much Superman, off into the sunrise.

 

[Flint Marko]

The neck snap. I have no problem with Superman killing.
Him turning back time is ridiculous though. I've never liked that at all.

 

[godisawesome]

And you see, to me, any use of a blatant deus ex machina in a Superman story automatically fails whatever conflict it's tied to, making me feel that my time was wasted. Since Superman is already so powerful, having the story take a short cut at the end feels like chicanery to me; you could have shown Superman using his incredible powers and intelligence to overcome a problem, but instead you got lazy and missed the point of Superman.

And that ties into my feelings on the various Superman films I've seen. As much as I can objectively evaluate STM as a well directed and gorgeous film, the ending to me is a major failing of the film. S4QFP is a bad movie overall, but it also comes with a deus ex machina in the form of the crystal used to regain his powers. Both of those films resolved their main conflict with cheats. SR may qualify as well, if you consider the inconsistency of the kryptonite weakness.

S2 didn't use one on its main conflict, and I like that a lot, but it still pulls one out to make a huge subplot a pointless waste of our time: the amnesia kiss. Don't tease actual *gasp* progression and development on the romance front if your going to snap back to status quo without even a half-@$$ed excuse: it's like having Iris find out Barry's the Flash right before the time traveling reveal, but worse, because at least the Flash had to deal with the consequences of his action.

Only S3 stands in the original films as avoiding a DEM, which might be why for all the film's faults, the Superman vs Clark fight in the junkyard is arguably the best climax in the Reeves series.

And MOS stands with S3 and the animated films as resolving the main conflict in a satisfying way: MOS Supes has to make a painful choice in a battle against a foe who's as strong as he is, Superman vs The Elite has Supes use his baseline powers to utterly destroy the Elits's argument, and All Star Superman extrapolates little details about the Super-Senses to help Superman finally break through to Luthor. Those 4 films show how much better a Supeman film can be if you don't cheat the audience out of an ending, and it's backed up by S2; how many people live that movie but still whine about the stupid frikkin' amnesia kiss?

Any and all Deus Ex Machina usage in a Superman movie is a bad move.

 

[Grievous]

I've never been a fan of time travel in any plot. I like actions to carry weight, not be something that can be undone easily.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Neck snap works.
Spinning back in time is...ehh, leaves too many questions.

 

[I Am The Knight]

My heart prefers "Superman turning back time".
My mind "prefers" "Superman snaps Zod's neck".