Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

[Lighthouse]

One thing about the Phantom Zone; are there any other living beings there? I mean if you're always sending criminals, and other alien entities, there then surely that might very well be a death sentence in itself if the locals start murdering each other.

It sort of made me wonder after Superman sent Doomsday there in the JLU cartoon. I sure hope he never has to send another being there in that universe otherwise they're hosed!

The fact that Zod and company had not aged, I always attributed to the Phantom Zone, but it's pretty evident they were out after Krytpon exploded. So why do they look the same age 33 years later.

 

[X Knight]

I don't recall the Avengers causing any destruction themselves. They were only saving people. And even then there was still mistrust at the end. And yes that movie does get somewhat of a pass because it doesn't proclaim itself to be any kind of dark, gritty, realistic interpretation of superheroes. It was just a fun movie like Star Wars where incidentally Luke murders millions of innocent imperials.

Superman on the other hand starts off by plowing Zod thru grain silos and gas pumps and causing huge explosions. If you imagine that this film really happened in our real world there would be people calling for his head. No one would distinguish him as being the "good alien" vs all the bad aliens. Hes a freak who's been living among us for 33 years and led a bunch of villainous aliens to our doorstep. I don't think anyone in the general public knows what he did to save them.

and that's precisely why it's a perfect setup for Lex.

all these things, the destruction, the killing, leading the bad guys here, all of those are REAL, LEGIT arguments Lex can use to discredit Superman.

and that's what the sequel(s) are for. Superman just made his debut to the world. and it was pretty costly. now how will the world react and how will Superman ultimately win their trusts, hearts, and minds and become a symbol of hope.

if the sequels ( especially MOS 2 ) don't address any of that, or just gloss over them, then yes, we have a real problem and this first film would become meaningless.

 

[Superherofan123]

At punygod...Hulk, Thor and Iron Man taking down the giant flying things (can't remember what they were called) wasn't them directly causing destruction? Those things crashed through buildings. Hulk knocked several things through buildings if I remember correctly. Also, realistically, there should have been a LOT more damage done/shown in the avengers. There was that massive 20 minute battle and it seemed like not much even happened. I'm not trying to knock the Avengers...I loved that movie. I just feel the action and it's consequences were much more realistic in MOS.

 

[tomoe]

While I don't like that Superman had to kill Zod, I also agree that just having him sucked back into the phantom zone with the others would have been pretty anticlimactic. Kind of like how the Avengers win was kind of anticlimactic and how the breaking of the Bat was really anticlimactic.

 

[Lighthouse]

The uproar over the destruction of Metropolis and Smallville is ridiculous too. When we bring up the Avengers destruction in NEW YORK CITY, they give it a pass because the movie had jokes.

Not even remotely true. One, they keep the destruction to a few blocks. Two, Captain America actually talks about evacuation with the police officer. They are trying to spare lives, and the death toll is astronomically less than Smallville.

 

[X Knight]

Not even remotely true. One, they keep the destruction to a few blocks. Two, Captain America actually talks about evacuation with the police officer. They are trying to spare lives, and the death toll is astronomically less than Smallville.

did they specifically say how many people died in Avengers and specifically how many people died in Smallville??

cuz somehow, I find that very hard to believe........

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[Lighthouse]

did they specifically say how many people died in Avengers and specifically how many people died in Smallville??

cuz somehow, I find that very hard to believe........

Smallville? The major destruction is in Metropolis.

First off, you can't even compare the two. New York is very, very clearly in a much better state than Metropolis by the end of the film.

 

[X Knight]

Smallville? The major destruction is in Metropolis.

First off, you can't even compare the two. New York is very, very clearly in a much better state than Metropolis by the end of the film.

well, you said the death toll in Avengers was astronomically less than the death toll in Smallville. that's why I found that hard to believe.

maybe you meant the death toll in Metropolis. that's a fairer comparison.

but then, what's more realistic?

if you had an alien army invading and super power beings doing battle, I find it hard to believe that only 2 blocks of a major city would be damaged.

 

[Heretic]

When aliens attack and there is a massive battle, OF COURSE there is a lot of death. Hell...BILLIONS died in the movie 2012 from natural disasters!

I honestly think that had there been a bigger value placed on life in Man of Steel...had there been some attempts to save people...or had Zod repeatedly used people, creating victims for Superman to save as a distraction...then I really don't think we'd be having this discussion. Everyone knows that people die when a building is knocked down. This movie seemed to have a rather anti-life feel to it....from Pa Kent telling Clark that maybe he should let people die, to Clark not actively saving people in that final battle.

 

[Superherofan123]

90% of the destruction in Metropolis was caused by the world engine. It destroyed probably 2 or 3 blocks. I feel like I must have watched a different movie than some of you! Lol

 

[X Knight]

Agree 100%. If they do it right maybe the sequel will make us rethink the first film.

right.

this film put forth the question "How would the world react to a Superman."

we didn't really get that addressed. but the ending felt like that's the direction they're headed. and that is the direction they should be headed.

 

[Supercajun]

The fact that Zod and company had not aged, I always attributed to the Phantom Zone, but it's pretty evident they were out after Krytpon exploded. So why do they look the same age 33 years later.

They probably were in the Phantom Zone a week or more when Krypton exploded. Remember Zod stated that they modified their propulsion through something they got at an outpost (it showed them installing it in a flashback scene). Once they received a distress signal from the Scout ship inadvertently after Clark stuck his key into the console that activated Jor-El, they 'warped towards the location of the planet it was coming from. And they arrived pretty quick didn't they? They could bend time and space.

 

[X Knight]

When aliens attack and there is a massive battle, OF COURSE there is a lot of death. Hell...BILLIONS died in the movie 2012 from natural disasters!

I honestly think that had there been a bigger value placed on life in Man of Steel...had there been some attempts to save people...or had Zod repeatedly used people, creating victims for Superman to save as a distraction...then I really don't think we'd be having this discussion. Everyone knows that people die when a building is knocked down. This movie seemed to have a rather anti-life feel to it....from Pa Kent telling Clark that maybe he should let people die, to Clark not actively saving people in that final battle.

could they have shown Superman saving more people or using his senses to make sure people were clear? of course.

but, Superman was kind of preoccupied with fighting Zod. he was trying to save lives by stopping the primary threat. and, in the end, to save the immediate lives of that family, and the lives of many others, he made the ulimate decision to end Zod's life.

 

[tomoe]

90% of the destruction in Metropolis was caused by the world engine. It destroyed probably 2 or 3 blocks. I feel like I must have watched a different movie than some of you! Lol

I know right?! Almost none of the destruction in Metropolis was truly his fault or as a result of his 'recklessness', aside from the fact that he was the one who led Zod to Earth. But that wasn't really his fault either. The only time he was truly reckless was when he plowed into that gas station in Smallville.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I look at it this way.

Clark/Superman in MOS is averse to killing. he's averse to harming another person.

that's why he didn't punch the bullies when he was a kid. that's why he didn't punch the bully in the diner but trashed his truck instead.

That's also why he didn't just kill Faora and Nam-Ek in Smallville and end the threat their. Or kill Zod right away to cut the battle short and prevent more damage/casualties.

He only killed Zod because he felt he had no other choice. and even that he did reluctantly. and he felt pain and anguish afterwards. that's why he broke down and cried.

so that only served to reinforce his aversion to killing. now he'll be more firm in his stance that he will not kill ever again.

I don't feel like he's "learning" that he doesn't like to kill. He already felt that.

I agree with your reasoning. At least that was what I understood. And for that I thought they needed to have put more background as to Superman's opinion on killing. And now they tell me this is the way he learns killing is bad. Of course I prefer to look at it the way you do, but it puzzles me how do these guys understand the character, so they have to have him kill as a way to explain his aversion to killing. And it's when I shake my head at this all-must-be-explained way to make superhero movies.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Superman killed, and the result was a horrible experience and a huge regret, he now hates killing more than ever.

Did he need to do it in order to consider it a bad thing? Superman, of all superheroes?

Look, Nothing against the film, it was great, but this act reeked of a filmmaker trying to put his stamp on a character. it was a huge divergence from the superman mythos regardless of how they play it. there is no need to rationalize it. it was an unneeded change for the sake of change...

Earlier stories had Zod Banished to the phantom zone, they didn't want to follow earlier stories, Zod was too powerful to lock up and to invulnerable for anyone but supes to kill... They changed it to him killing a guy.

To keep any material fresh you have to make tweeks to it. You just have to be sure you don't lose too much of the core of the characters. I thought letting Lois realize who clark was before they worked together was a good tweak. We will see about how they handled Zod.

Ultimately coming from a guy who really never followed superman very closely, it turned out to be a great movie, but it felt like they were really trying to change a lot of mythos in this one... maybe to throw a curveball to fans, maybe just because they could. Its a fine line when dealing with established characters and its not always a great idea to mash everything up all the time....

I take that neither Nolan nor Snyder were very worried about keeping the basic elements of Superman as they were about making it realistic or more fashionable to a new generation that grew up with Smallville.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[Eros]

The fact that Zod and company had not aged, I always attributed to the Phantom Zone, but it's pretty evident they were out after Krytpon exploded. So why do they look the same age 33 years later.

I dunno might be the fact there aliens from a incredibly advanced culture, which freely use genetic engineering and probably live much much longer then humans.

 

[blumatic]

Not even remotely true. One, they keep the destruction to a few blocks. Two, Captain America actually talks about evacuation with the police officer. They are trying to spare lives, and the death toll is astronomically less than Smallville.

Yea Cap America helped evacuation while Thor, Iron, Hulk, Hawk Eye, and Black Widow took care of the bad guys.

Superman takes care Zod and the Batman spoke to the......Oh wait, He's by himself.

Why didnt Tony Start "lead they party to Hudson River"......Nooooooooo he has to lead the party right down Park Avenue so Hulk can punch that thing.

Define few blocks. They were all over midtown.

Listen this uproar is dumb its the dumbest thing. The Avenger could have caused same amount of damage Man of Steel did. But Whedon just didnt have buildings collapse that easily could have with those big monsters smashing into them. Smart on his part since it was in NEW YORK CITY.

Snyder wanted more destruction. Snyder could have easily kept those building up intact while Superman fought in the city.

Smallville got it bad but really who cares.

Both movies trashed their city because theyre were dealing with powerful aliens.

Its all art. Its a movie with aliens. Destruction comes with the territory.

Was Superman careless in Smallville, sure. But he only damage that one huge chimney at that factory plant and gas station after his mother was being attacked. Ive seen fight in bars happen where someone get hurt cause they were near by. A kid gets killed in a shootout between the police and some criminals. If a cop is by himself in that shoot out, should he evacuate the area first. No, you gotta stop that threat.

Anyway my post wont change no one's mind. IGN did a video where they asked experts to total the damage financially and by death tolls. They did that because people were shock to se destruction in an alien invasion movie.

 

[Lighthouse]

well, you said the death toll in Avengers was astronomically less than the death toll in Smallville. that's why I found that hard to believe.

maybe you meant the death toll in Metropolis. that's a fairer comparison.

but then, what's more realistic?

if you had an alien army invading and super power beings doing battle, I find it hard to believe that only 2 blocks of a major city would be damaged.

So what? It's about SUPERMAN! Who gives a flinging crap whether it's realistic or not? Why do people think realism is somehow better???? I am completely mystified by people making realism arguments when the movie is about superheros.

 

[X Knight]

So what? It's about SUPERMAN! Who gives a flinging crap whether it's realistic or not? Why do people think realism is somehow better????

well, the whole point of the film was to put Superman in the "real world."

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[Lighthouse]

well, the whole point of the film was to put Superman in the "real world."

Yeah, I can't wait to see the next film dealing with all of the 9/11ish aftermath of the 10s of thousands of people killed. That's gonna be a great superhero movie. I also can't wait for the writers to bend themselves into pretzels trying to explain why people don't recognize Clark Kent as Superman, because, you know, realism.

 

[X Knight]

why can't there be destruction in a Superman movie??

why can't there be serious issues in a Superman movie??

 

[Marvin]

why can't there be destruction in a Superman movie??

why can't there be serious issues in a Superman movie??

Because.