BvS should innocent people get killed in superman movie...

[sf2]

Well it's carried for a thread in MOS...
Is it against the idea of superman to save everyone?
Is it too cruel to show superman is helpless to save some innocents... like while he was engaged in a fight... he was blown away n couldn't save the people...

Will it piss off the audiences?
Is it a taboo to show people got killed in superhero movies?

 

[Rorschach2012]

yes, it ups the stakes of the threat for innocents to die

 

[NosfeRomas]

If you don't show people getting hurt then there is no threat outside of buildings that can be easily rebuilt. It's like if in the Dark Knight, Joker didn't actually kill anyone but instead of that everybody assumed he killed because he is our bad guy and he is supposed to do that.

I like the scene in MoS where the intern girl is trapped under debris and Perry tries to save her, i can feel the desperation and that Superman HAS to fight the world engine and save these people.

 

[MrsKent26]

If they're being realistic, yeah. Some people should die. It makes things real and ups the stakes. But there should be a balance. We should see people being saved as well. I want to see the failures and the pain they cause, but also see the joy that comes along with a flying man who swoops down and saves someone who thought they were dead a second ago. It's a powerful thing. Can you imagine someone is chasing you down an alley and trying to kill you and then out of nowhere someone saves you?

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I don't have a problem with The World Engine destroying so much of Metropolis.

The Imperials blew up Alderan. Nero destroyed Vulcan.

It's what villains do.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Of course, it's realistic.

 

[charl_huntress]

Will it piss off the audiences?
Is it a taboo to show people got killed in superhero movies?

I don't think so, since people usually die in superhero movies often. This issue has more to do with peoples perception of Superman.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I have no problem with innocents dying, it's just about the set up.

I want Superman's world to have some realism, and I have always found the most interesting struggle for Superman as a character (that people say is too perfect) is that he CAN'T save everyone.

But what makes that work, and what makes it more poignant, is when you actually see that struggle.

When you see him save SOME people, while not being able to save everyone.

For example, you could show him swooping in after a train has de railed or a building has blown up or an earthquake has hit a town, and show him rescueing survivors trapped in aftermath.

There could be a visible body count, and you could even show how his eyes linger on them because of how he feels about not having been able to save them, but he is still able to save all the people still alive in there who might have died otherwise.

I think the problem people had with the assumed body count in MOS isn't that there WAS innocent lives lost (because it'd be illogical to think this movie based in the real world could turn out any other way really)... It's just that it wasn't acknowledged.

And just like I feel his conflicted feelings about having to kill Zod could have done with a small amount of dialogue, I think the 'all those people died, and I couldn't save them' would have been a good addition to that.

And both of those things seem like they would have fitted PERFECTLY in the Martha and Clark scene.

Missed opportunity to drive home some of the messages the film was trying to make if you ask me.

Which was 1. Sometimes even Superman has to make the hardest choices and 2. Even Superman can't save everyone, but that doesn't mean the people he does save mean nothing!

Both of which, in a well written script, could have come directly out of Martha's mouth (which I would have loved because it would help show the encouraging influence the Kents have on him being a hero).

 

[smallville fan]

Missed opportunity to drive home some of the messages the film was trying to make if you ask me.

We have an entire sequel for that.

To answer the question, yes innocents should die, it ups the ante and raises the stakes and paints what kind of villain we are up against. It may even get the plot going for example in Kingdom Come which is Superman centric, all of Kansas gets destroyed by a nuke and it catalyzes Superman to return to action.

 

[sf2]

If they're being realistic, yeah. Some people should die. It makes things real and ups the stakes. But there should be a balance. We should see people being saved as well. I want to see the failures and the pain they cause, but also see the joy that comes along with a flying man who swoops down and saves someone who thought they were dead a second ago. It's a powerful thing. Can you imagine someone is chasing you down an alley and trying to kill you and then out of nowhere someone saves you?

Of course, saving act is most crucial.. n a must. MOS was complaint the lack of it. u know to see superman; the man in blue physically protect the people from danger.

To be more specific the question, is it ok to have people got killed, even with superman's present...

 

[sf2]

I have no problem with innocents dying, it's just about the set up.

I want Superman's world to have some realism, and I have always found the most interesting struggle for Superman as a character (that people say is too perfect) is that he CAN'T save everyone.

But what makes that work, and what makes it more poignant, is when you actually see that struggle.

When you see him save SOME people, while not being able to save everyone.

For example, you could show him swooping in after a train has de railed or a building has blown up or an earthquake has hit a town, and show him rescueing survivors trapped in aftermath.

There could be a visible body count, and you could even show how his eyes linger on them because of how he feels about not having been able to save them, but he is still able to save all the people still alive in there who might have died otherwise.

I think the problem people had with the assumed body count in MOS isn't that there WAS innocent lives lost (because it'd be illogical to think this movie based in the real world could turn out any other way really)... It's just that it wasn't acknowledged.

And just like I feel his conflicted feelings about having to kill Zod could have done with a small amount of dialogue, I think the 'all those people died, and I couldn't save them' would have been a good addition to that.

And both of those things seem like they would have fitted PERFECTLY in the Martha and Clark scene.

Missed opportunity to drive home some of the messages the film was trying to make if you ask me.

Which was 1. Sometimes even Superman has to make the hardest choices and 2. Even Superman can't save everyone, but that doesn't mean the people he does save mean nothing!

Both of which, in a well written script, could have come directly out of Martha's mouth (which I would have loved because it would help show the encouraging influence the Kents have on him being a hero).

Interesting. .. but I don't like your example. If superman saved an accident, it's better not to show the dead bodies.

So the compliant isn't about superman killing Zod but the lack of acknowledgement of the death of the innocents? So his crying is more appropriate for the people who got killed???

I think u got mixed up. Most people already got killed during the world machine attack. Superman n Lois were the survivors... therefore the kissing... n not mourning for the death.

 

[Lord]

Millions have already died in The Man of Steel, and this is Zack Snyder, of course lots of people will die.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Millions have already died in The Man of Steel, and this is Zack Snyder, of course lots of people will die.

I hope to Zod dat's sarcasm.

 

[The Sage]

I don't think it was necessary to acknowledge the body count in MOS. It was obviously implied a good deal of people died, not only because of the amount of destruction, but because in a couple of instances you saw people getting lifted in the air by the gravity beam.

And to answer the thread's question...yes, innocent people should die in a Superman movie. Innocent people should die in all superhero films.

 

[Krumm]

Any takers on how long it takes before this is an MOS/Snyder/Goyer bashing thread?

 

[Lord]

I hope to Zod dat's sarcasm.

Why would it be? Didn't you see all the people die and the level of destrucion? A good portion of the City was obliterated.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Why would it be? Didn't you see all the people die and the level of destrucion? A good portion of the City was obliterated.

Ok... MILLIONS did not die in MOS, unless you count the billion or so on Krypton. Snyder himself says that THOUSANDS of people died in the center of Metropolis that day. Thousands. To kill millions that attack would have had to take out THE ENTIRE CITY AND IT'S OUTER BOUROUGHS. That did not happen in MOS. Dislike the film. That's your right. But let's not reach stratospheric levels of hyperbole, that's all I ask from people that dislike the film.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I don't see the need to argue that there was a lower body count than people claim.

Bad guys are allowed to rack up high body counts. It's what makes them bad guys.

Again, the Imperials blew up a planet. So did Nero.

---

I do however, feel the need to argue that Superman himself did not destroy metropolis for 40 minutes or whatever.

And it's a shame that Zod destroying the city and Superman accidentally destroying a 7-11, IHOP, etc, have been mixed up by so many.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

There's no chance it would be millions. But it certainly would have been more than the 5,000 Snyder said. 3,000 died in New York in the WTC attacks even with over an hour to evacuate as many as possible. Given the Metropolis attack destroyed dozens of buildings and the streets in the space of 15 minutes, the death toll would realistically be tens of thousands.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

why does the number even matter

 

[Lord]

Let's not Forget that Superman himself caused the death of some too, not near a 100th of Zod's body count, but when he brought them all to a more crowded area in Smallville, kept pushing Zod and exploding various places along the way, including a gasoline station, and then in Metropolis also decided to fight in a crowded area that wasn't destroyed yet, passing through building and even destroying one.

The number shouldn't really matter, but there's a fast difference between killing 1-20 innocents, to leading to an event 10 times bigger than 9/11, Superman would surelly not be viewed positivelly, because of his relation to the invaders.

 

[sf2]

Any takers on how long it takes before this is an MOS/Snyder/Goyer bashing thread?

Oh boy... it isn't the intent of the thread...

 

[sf2]

I don't think it was necessary to acknowledge the body count in MOS. It was obviously implied a good deal of people died, not only because of the amount of destruction, but because in a couple of instances you saw people getting lifted in the air by the gravity beam.

And to answer the thread's question...yes, innocent people should die in a Superman movie. Innocent people should die in all superhero films.

Was there any innocent died in Rammi spidey movies... aside pete uncle.

 

[Lord]

We did see those guys from Oscorp turn into skeletons, as well as Aerospace personel, in the 3rd film some policemen were killed in the found footage of Venom.

 

[Tempest]

Innocent people die in the comics all the time. Of course people should die in a Superman film. I don't care if their deaths are acknowledged or not, because they aren't important (to the story). And I don't need to see Superman doing a lot of saving of individuals either, since he's busy trying to save you know, the whole planet.

I'm a hard-hearted person. Or maybe I'm just practical.