Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

[blumatic]

First time posting a thread here. Didnt see this anywhere.

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/man-steel-ending-superman-kills-zod

Interesting.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

So they felt the needed to explain [BLACKOUT]why Superman does not kill[/BLACKOUT]??? How about because [BLACKOUT]like a normal compassionate rational being he just prefers life before death[/BLACKOUT]?

 

[Lighthouse]

I cannot help but laugh that he used Kobiyashi Maru as an example, as that situation actually states the opposite of what he did there.

 

[Lighthouse]

So they felt the needed to explain [BLACKOUT]why Superman does not kill[/BLACKOUT]??? How about because [BLACKOUT]like a normal compassionate rational being he just prefers life before death[/BLACKOUT]?

I found his explanation to be truly weird and rambling. That last sentence feels like something said by a 10 year old.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I cannot help but laugh that he used Kobiyashi Maru as an example, as that situation actually states the opposite of what he did there.

kobayashi maru is a no win scenario.

 

[godisawesome]

Snyder seems to be embracing it as an action that will be brought up again and again throughout the series. And he's confirmed it's suicide by cop for Zod. I like that.

And I also think its very interesting that Goyer and Snyder had to write the scene specifically to sell it to Nolan. It does show the three worked to improve each other, and that's a very symbiotic movie-making relationship.

 

[Lighthouse]

kobayashi maru is a no win scenario.

It is, but the whole point of that scene was Captain Kirk changed the programming because he didn't believe in no-win scenarios. He believed there was always a way.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I am fine with Superman killing Zod considering the circumstance. Synder's reasoning is dumb. Should have just said what Goyer did, that they were unsatisfied with Zod being sucked back into the Phantom Zone.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

It is, but the whole point of that scene was Captain Kirk changed the programming because he didn't believe in no-win scenarios. He believed there was always a way.

Superman broke/changed the rules to defeat Zod. It's an apt comparison.

 

[Hero 1]

It is, but the whole point of that scene was Captain Kirk changed the programming because he didn't believe in no-win scenarios. He believed there was always a way.

Yes, but that was written so Kirk could also be proven wrong, after all Star Trek 2 ended with Spock dying because of the no win scenario they were put in by Khan, forcing Kirk to face death and deal with its consequences.

 

[Lighthouse]

Superman broke/changed the rules to defeat Zod. It's an apt comparison.

......what?? That makes no sense.

 

[blumatic]

So they felt the needed to explain [BLACKOUT]why Superman does not kill[/BLACKOUT]??? How about because [BLACKOUT]like a normal compassionate rational being he just prefers life before death[/BLACKOUT]?

Its not weird. As we know Superman always battles to protect us. Some are easy some are very difficult. There may be a time where you kill.

Here is a more simpler example.............You do something one way over and over and over the same way, no issues. One day you do it another way because you think it might be better....but once you do it you have some regrets by not doing the way you've done it before. You learned something.

What if a MMA fighter had a terrific move that usually knocks out an opponent cold. But everytime its fine. One day he tweaks that technique for more effectiveness but ends up killing his opponent. Now there is a reason why he wont do it again.

And Supes didnt do it in cold blood.

 

[blumatic]

I am fine with Superman killing Zod considering the circumstance. Synder's reasoning is dumb. Should have just said what Goyer did, that they were unsatisfied with Zod being sucked back into the Phantom Zone.

There reason's were similar. We know why Batman doesnt use guns. His parens were shot by them.

Captain America uses a gun just fine. He was in the Army.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, but that was written so Kirk could also be proven wrong, after all Star Trek 2 ended with Spock dying because of the no win scenario they were put in by Khan, forcing Kirk to face death and deal with its consequences.

You have a point, but I don't think he was proven wrong. Kirk has already faced death and it's consequences many times. If Kirk had actually made the decision to sacrifice Spock, I think you might be on to something, but I felt it was more about Kirk's attitude in all situations.

 

[Lighthouse]

Its not weird. As we know Superman always battles to protect us. Some are easy some are very difficult. There may be a time where you kill.

Here is a more simpler example.............You do something one way over and over and over the same way, no issues. One day you do it another way because you think it might be better....but once you do it you have some regrets by not doing the way you've done it before. You learned something.

What if a MMA fighter had a terrific move that usually knocks out an opponent cold. But everytime its fine. One day he tweaks that technique for more effectiveness but ends up killing his opponent. Now there is a reason why he wont do it again.

And Supes didnt do it in cold blood.

I quite honestly do not understand how this even remotely compares to the situation in MOS.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[psylockolussus]

Snyder is such a voice of reason.

 

[Hero 1]

You have a point, but I don't think he was proven wrong. Kirk has already faced death and it's consequences many times. If Kirk had actually made the decision to sacrifice Spock, I think you might be on to something, but I felt it was more about Kirk's attitude in all situations.

True, Spock did make the decision for him, probably knowing that Kirk would eventually either do it himself and wouldn't tell one of his officers to go kill themselves. But how long would he have waited until that happened? It was already a slim escape when Spock did it, and the end result would have been everyone died in the Genesis explosion. Kirk's hesitation to make the chioce almost resulted in more people dying because he wouldn't make the call.

It's telling that by the time of TNG there's a specific test that command track officers need to take before they can pass; it involves ordering one under your command to save the ship but die in the process: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Bridge_Officer%27s_Test

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Its not weird. As we know Superman always battles to protect us. Some are easy some are very difficult. There may be a time where you kill.

Here is a more simpler example.............You do something one way over and over and over the same way, no issues. One day you do it another way because you think it might be better....but once you do it you have some regrets by not doing the way you've done it before. You learned something.

What if a MMA fighter had a terrific move that usually knocks out an opponent cold. But everytime its fine. One day he tweaks that technique for more effectiveness but ends up killing his opponent. Now there is a reason why he wont do it again.

And Supes didnt do it in cold blood.

No problem there. But I thought it would have been better if, in any movie Superman is forced to kill, Superman has this non-killing policy in advance so we know the conflict inside him. I thought it was absurd to say Superman needed to kill first to learn that he doesn't want to kill. Anyone feels like they had to kill in order to decide not doing it again?

I don't think killing could fit in any category under the name "one thing done one way" or "a different way to do" something.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

There reason's were similar. We know why Batman doesnt use guns. His parens were shot by them.

Captain America uses a gun just fine. He was in the Army.

Did it take Batman having to use a gun to know he shouldn't use one? The problem is making Superman kill to learn he shouldn't want to kill again. Snyder's reasoning makes no sense. And I'm fine with Superman killing in that situation.

 

[blumatic]

I quite honestly do not understand how this even remotely compares to the situation in MOS.

My point is whether now in MOS or in his long career of fighting evil doers a killing may happen by Superman's hands. Once that death or killing happens it will affect him. A killing may occur how it happend to Zod 20 years from now.

Superman may have a thought in his head one day in his long career, that he needs to kill this fool before it gets bad. He does it and then regrets it.

Next time he may want to use diplomacy or have a plan next time he is in a tough spot again.

 

[blumatic]

Did it take Batman having to use a gun to know he shouldn't use one? The problem is making Superman kill to learn he shouldn't want to kill again. Snyder's reasoning makes no sense. And I'm fine with Superman killing in that situation.

I guess your right.

 

[Lighthouse]

My point is whether now in MOS or in his long career of fighting evil doers a killing may happen by Superman's hands. Once that death or killing happens it will affect him. A killing may occur how it happend to Zod 20 years from now.

Superman may have a thought in his head one day in his long career, that he needs to kill this fool before it gets bad. He does it and then regrets it.

Next time he may want to use diplomacy or have a plan next time he is in a tough spot again.

That's pure speculation that is not anywhere evident in the film. It's clear till the very end that he does not want to kill Zod, but is forced to. To somehow say "That's why he doesn't kill" is not only ridiculous, but also proves the opposite. It shows that were Superman in this situation again, he would do the same thing. If that's what Snyder wants, fine, but it's the complete opposite of his reasoning.

 

[Hero 1]

I'd imagine that if they ever use Doosmday, this will be the reason Superman hesitates and doesn't kill him sooner than he really should, resulting in more collateral damage. I always wondered why that fight in the comics went on for so long, despite the writing being on the wall about midway through it.

 

[blumatic]

That's pure speculation that is not anywhere evident in the film. It's clear till the very end that he does not want to kill Zod, but is forced to. To somehow say "That's why he doesn't kill" is not only ridiculous, but also proves the opposite. It shows that were Superman in this situation again, he would do the same thing. If that's what Snyder wants, fine, but it's the complete opposite of his reasoning.

No not the film but during his career. But Im moonwalking on defendin Zack here.