Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

[Superherofan123]

Thanks J Howlett. I thought I was going crazy.

 

[Lencho01]

Nice, but I think he needs something more than that.

I think most of us are raised to the same principles, yet many will still ask "why don't he just kill that guy?!"

I like MoS reasoning better.

He doesn't kill because he was raised on those principles by the Kents, believes all life is precious, and that there's always a way outside of killing to solve problems. That's just who he is, but some people seem to have a problem with that.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[J.Howlett]

Thanks J Howlett. I thought I was going crazy.

Your not. I saw the film for a fourth time and this nonsense about Superman not helping people during the Metropolis siege is ridiculous.

I mean, wasn't he slightly preoccupied during the siege? Sheesh.

 

[blumatic]

I can honestly say.... yes I was. And I'm glad you brought up Cap because its a perfect example of sticking to the character's roots and still resonating with today's audience.

Superman is supposed to represent hope and the ideal character that we all want to strive for. As I said in another thread he is the ONE superhero that doesn't need to be updated. I didn't like what the Dark Knight movies did to Batman but I wasn't too upset because its a character that lends itself to a darker interpretation. Superman however does not. If our society can't accept him for what he is then its our society that needs fixing, not Superman.

This is Captain America 's first major flick. No real interpretations for him. The film may not have done well without the anticipation of the Avengers.

Superman has a long and rich history on the screen. If they want the old Superman, they won't pay for it since they have it already. And Man of Steel is clearly part of a 2 or 3 part series. His growth Is incomplete.

 

[blumatic]

They were shocked to see it in a SUPERMAN movie. Which is what this was supposed to be. I guess it's fitting that they didn't use that title.

But they kept the shield come on. A Superman movie can't have destruction?

 

[KingKane88]

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.

You hit it on the head. I never believed in Sups Killling, but the ending of MOS was something we would all do if we where in Superman's shoes!! And thats what I loved about it!

He is human after all, in more ways then one, and it just showed his compassion for life in itself by saving many lives over one life. Majorly justified!!!!!

WE WOULD HAVE ALL DONE THE SAME IN SUPS SHOES PEOPLE!!!

 

[J.Howlett]

You hit it on the head. I never believed in Sups Killling, but the ending of MOS was something we would all do if we where in Superman's shoes!! And thats what I loved about it!

He is human after all, in more ways then one, and it just showed his compassion for life in it's self by saving many lives over one life. Majorly justified!!!!!

WE WOULD HAVE ALL DONE THE SAME IN SUPS SHOES PEOPLE!!!

Amen.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

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.

Thank you. I love how people compare how one superhero handled an alien attack versus a team of superheroes. Yes, he's Superman but he was completely preoccupied trying to stop another super powered being. Had he had a team with him, I assure you the way the attack would have been handled would have been different. This comparison is completely unfair.

 

[Sundancer]

Snyder's explanation is not convincing. I don't buy it.

 

[mohoo]

He doesn't kill because he was raised on those principles by the Kents, believes all life is precious, and that there's always a way outside of killing to solve problems. That's just who he is, but some people seem to have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with that,

I just think that for him to avoid killing to a questionable level, it's better to give him reasons more than the reasons most humans have and familiar with.

 

[Metallo]

Despite what I said yes I do think today's audience would accept it if it was done right. You only need look at the success of The Avengers for proof of that. It could easily be accused of being corny but it still worked.

And lets clear something up about the first film. It was absolutely NOT "campy". In fact it had to constantly fight this reputation to get made. It was considered the first real serious take on a superhero at the time. And it still serves as a template for superhero movies. Obviously tastes change over time so it may not have the same impact on today's audience just like many kids today think the original Star Wars is boring.

Amen. It really irks me when people call STM campy. I don't think they have a clue what camp humor REALLY is. it's such a dead concept in this day in age that some people see something light silly or comedic and assume its camp. They aren't synonymous. A lot of the work of John Waters is camp. Flash Gordon is closer to being a camp comic strip movie. Probably because Lorenzo Semple wrote it. STM is silly and comedic at times but its not camp. There was a bit of that before Donner came on board because of David Newman and Robert Benton but it ended up being take out. Some of their comedic tone remains in bit but not the camp elements.

 

[Lencho01]

I don't have a problem with that,

I just think that for him to avoid killing to a questionable level, it's better to give him reasons more than the reasons most humans have and familiar with.

If some need a reason outside of him just not wanting to kill because he came to that conclusion long ago, they could've used the ideas from Birthright or All-Star to literally show his view of the world.

 

[KingKane88]

Edit

 

[mohoo]

That's the character's origin. If you are going to change it then don't even call it Superman.

Imagine if Bruce Wayne's parents didn't die. Or if Uncle Ben didn't die. That's what we're talking about here.

Imagine if Superman didn't have the red underwear

I don't think that Superman is defined by "he doesn't kill because his parents raised him this way" or "he doesn't kill because that's the way he is"

Even if it was stated in the comics, I always welcome the change for the better.

 

[gdw]

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]?

As I said on another thread, there's a difference between "I believe killing is wrong" and "I will NEVER kill."

Spoiler

I think it's pretty clear in the film that Superman was against resorting to killing PRIOR to that moment, but being FORCED into that situation takes it to another level. It TRULY tests Superman, and will define him for the future.

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.

ONLY if you consider what happened to be a "win." How CAN one consider that to be a "win?"

In fact, that was kind of the entire point of it, Superman really WAS placed in a NO win situation with that choice, and there's no way he considered how it ended to have been a "win."

 

[mohoo]

If some need a reason outside of him just not wanting to kill because he came to that conclusion long ago, they could've used the ideas from Birthright or All-Star to literally show his view of the world.

What are the reasons mentioned there?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

So what do you guys think made Superman avoid killing to this level?

1. He has spent his entire life being an outsider looking in on mortality, recognising how fragile life is. It's given him a different kind of perspective on it than we can really imagine.

You can see this in how Birthright with how he sees life in general, as well as during his speech to Darkseid in Justice League about how careful he usually always has to be with his powers. (World of cardboard)

2. Killing changes you. Superman understands this. It can be a justified kill, or even an accidental kill, but (as is often addressed in fiction) taking a life has an effect on you. And that effect could very possibly be a slippery slope into turning to that resolution more quickly than you would have each way. Kind of like a gateway drug, the more you do it, the less bad it seems, and the more other things that are worse start seeming okay too.

This is what we see in Superman vs The Elite.

3. He's trying to set an example. Representing an ideal. Not one that he even thinks all people should live by stricly (because he wouldn't berate a policeman for firing his weapon if threatened).

Just something he thinks HE should rigidly stick to if he is to gain any real trust from the people of earth. Because the minute his principals waver, people start to question whether he can be trusted.

That is not to say he would NEVER kill. But as we saw in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, if he does, he believes he has crossed a line he can never cross again. And so he strips himself of his powers.

Those are a few reasons as I understand them anyway.

 

[blumatic]

Lets revist Superman 2. Because many believe that Superman handle the situation better.

Superman gets his powers back. Ask Zod to step outside. They fight, they fight, they fight. Then they completely stop fighting. And they see that Superman cares about the people so they decide to break things off buildings so it would fall on the people on the streets. Superman catches them.

More damage happens. Superman punches Non through a building, he throws Zod into Coke sign. After SUpes gets hit by a bus he leaves without saying anything. He takes a huge leap of faith that Lex Luthor will bring the to the Fortress of Solitude so he can use the chamber to take away the powers of Zod and others.


Number 1, how irresponsible of Superman to not lure Zod away immediately if he indeed had the plan to use the chamber. Why waste time? People got injured, cars and building were damaged. Why waste time fighting if that was your plan?

And what a major plothole. How the hell would Superman know, they would follow him if he did not affirmatively lead them to follow him. If Lex wasnt there Zod would have continued to reign terror, while Supes is sitting on his hands waiting for them to come. And how did Lex know he would retreat there? Supes could have retreated anywhere in the world.

The Reeve Superman was very irresponsible there. If you had a plan do it immediately, slap Zod in the face and run north.

Cavill's Superman had no choice. He had to chase down Zod and take care of him or else there would have been more damage. Cavill had no chamber, he had not fortress of Solitude. We honor the Donner Reeve so much because he showed concern and saved people. But he wasted time there.

But do you know why Donner allowed Reeve to waste time? He had to show a battle in the city as opposed to a battle in the north. Same with Snyder, you fight in the city. There was a lot of damage but like Donner, Snyder took an artistic decision.

 

[gdw]

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, and if we were talking about Batman, that likely would have been closer to how it would have been handled, however, this is Superman, who has not plotted out virtually every conceivable scenario, and multiple approaches to each, AND this is his first time facing ANYONE. It's made very clear in the film that he is, as Faora said, "unsure of himself."

Apologies in advance if I missed any spoiler tags. I tried to cover them as best I could while writing.

In fact, If Batman was in a similar situation that early on, which would be, for him, even before he put on the cowl, probably even while travelling still, I could see him taking an action which would have, perhaps inadvertently, resulted in [BLACKOUT]killing,[/BLACKOUT] and that would cement his drive to prevent it at all costs in the future even more so.

This is NOT like having Batman, [BLACKOUT]say, start out with a gun, and actually take out more serious vengeance on a person, then out of remorse, vowing against guns all together.[/BLACKOUT]

This is NOT Superman starting with [BLACKOUT]killing[/BLACKOUT] as an option in general, as one of his potential tools in his arsenal belt.

Hell, he wasn't even preparing to face anything beyond a human, accident, or natural disaster level threat, he wasn't planning to be a combatant, so he wouldn't have even begun to consider how to deal with such threats, and then he suddenly faces an alien invasion of people just as powerful as him, AND with training. THEN, on top of that, he is forced into a position where he simply has no choice, nothing he can do, by someone who WANTS [BLACKOUT]death.[/BLACKOUT]

I think people are underestimating the scene.

On top of everything, he did it in the comics, [BLACKOUT]and under different, much less threatening circumstances. In fact, he killed three depowered, and imprissoned, Kryptonians, including Zod, because of the POSSIBILITY that they MIGHT escape and had threatened to find Superman and kill him.
Yes, they pretty much killed everyone on Earth, but they were stopped, and imprisoned, and had no powers, which makes it a punitive execution.
Killing as PUNISHMENT, rather than a situation where it was the ONLY option for him, or let people be immediately killed, and immediate threat, makes this far WORSE, yet MOS is the one people are outraged about?[/BLACKOUT]

 

[mohoo]

1. He has spent his entire life being an outsider looking in on mortality, recognising how fragile life is. It's given him a different kind of perspective on it than we can really imagine.

You can see this in how Birthright with how he sees life in general, as well as during his speech to Darkseid in Justice League about how careful he usually always has to be with his powers. (World of cardboard)

2. Killing changes you. Superman understands this. It can be a justified kill, or even an accidental kill, but (as is often addressed in fiction) taking a life has an effect on you. And that effect could very possibly be a slippery slope into turning to that resolution more quickly than you would have each way. Kind of like a gateway drug, the more you do it, the less bad it seems, and the more other things that are worse start seeming okay too.

This is what we see in Superman vs The Elite.

3. He's trying to set an example. Representing an ideal. Not one that he even thinks all people should live by stricly (because he wouldn't berate a policeman for firing his weapon if threatened).

Just something he thinks HE should rigidly stick to if he is to gain any real trust from the people of earth. Because the minute his principals waver, people start to question whether he can be trusted.

That is not to say he would NEVER kill. But as we saw in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, if he does, he believes he has crossed a line he can never cross again. And so he strips himself of his powers.

Those are a few reasons as I understand them anyway.

A very good post.

Thanks!

 

[gdw]

1. He has spent his entire life being an outsider looking in on mortality, recognising how fragile life is. It's given him a different kind of perspective on it than we can really imagine.

You can see this in how Birthright with how he sees life in general, as well as during his speech to Darkseid in Justice League about how careful he usually always has to be with his powers. (World of cardboard)

2. Killing changes you. Superman understands this. It can be a justified kill, or even an accidental kill, but (as is often addressed in fiction) taking a life has an effect on you. And that effect could very possibly be a slippery slope into turning to that resolution more quickly than you would have each way. Kind of like a gateway drug, the more you do it, the less bad it seems, and the more other things that are worse start seeming okay too.

This is what we see in Superman vs The Elite.

3. He's trying to set an example. Representing an ideal. Not one that he even thinks all people should live by stricly (because he wouldn't berate a policeman for firing his weapon if threatened).

Just something he thinks HE should rigidly stick to if he is to gain any real trust from the people of earth. Because the minute his principals waver, people start to question whether he can be trusted.

That is not to say he would NEVER kill. But as we saw in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, if he does, he believes he has crossed a line he can never cross again. And so he strips himself of his powers.

Those are a few reasons as I understand them anyway.

And yet, in the comics, he executed Zod and two other depowered, and imprisoned, kryptonians, as punishment, and the fact that the threatened to escape and kill him.

FAR less justifiable than killing in direct defence of imminent death, with no other options.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Lets revist Superman 2. Because many believe that Superman handle the situation better.

Superman gets his powers back. Ask Zod to step outside. They fight, they fight, they fight. Then they completely stop fighting. And they see that Superman cares about the people so they decide to break things off buildings so it would fall on the people on the streets. Superman catches them.

More damage happens. Superman punches Non through a building, he throws Zod into Coke sign. After SUpes gets hit by a bus he leaves without saying anything. He takes a huge leap of faith that Lex Luthor will bring the to the Fortress of Solitude so he can use the chamber to take away the powers of Zod and others.


Number 1, how irresponsible of Superman to not lure Zod away immediately if he indeed had the plan to use the chamber. Why waste time? People got injured, cars and building were damaged. Why waste time fighting if that was your plan?

And what a major plothole. How the hell would Superman know, they would follow him if he did not affirmatively lead them to follow him. If Lex wasnt there Zod would have continued to reign terror, while Supes is sitting on his hands waiting for them to come. And how did Lex know he would retreat there? Supes could have retreated anywhere in the world.

The Reeve Superman was very irresponsible there. If you had a plan do it immediately, slap Zod in the face and run north.

Cavill's Superman had no choice. He had to chase down Zod and take care of him or else there would have been more damage. Cavill had no chamber, he had not fortress of Solitude. We honor the Donner Reeve so much because he showed concern and saved people. But he wasted time there.

But do you know why Donner allowed Reeve to waste time? He had to show a battle in the city as opposed to a battle in the north. Same with Snyder, you fight in the city. There was a lot of damage but like Donner, Snyder took an artistic decision.

Not to mention that people like to bring up the idea of Superman drawing Zod away from Metroplis to fight in an open abandoned area. Ideally, yes that would be best. However, right before they fight Zod says that he is going to kill the humans because he saw much Kal valued them after destroying the scout ship and choosing humans over a new Krypton. Superman can't fly away and hope Zod chases him after he says something like that. Just imagine he did that and Zod starts decimating scores of innocent people because Superman hoped he would chase him.

If a gunman threatened to kill your family in your house and you had a gun, would you run out of the house hoping the gunman would follow you or would you attack the gunman right there.

 

[gdw]

Lets revist Superman 2. Because many believe that Superman handle the situation better.

Superman gets his powers back. Ask Zod to step outside. They fight, they fight, they fight. Then they completely stop fighting. And they see that Superman cares about the people so they decide to break things off buildings so it would fall on the people on the streets. Superman catches them.

More damage happens. Superman punches Non through a building, he throws Zod into Coke sign. After SUpes gets hit by a bus he leaves without saying anything. He takes a huge leap of faith that Lex Luthor will bring the to the Fortress of Solitude so he can use the chamber to take away the powers of Zod and others.


Number 1, how irresponsible of Superman to not lure Zod away immediately if he indeed had the plan to use the chamber. Why waste time? People got injured, cars and building were damaged. Why waste time fighting if that was your plan?

And what a major plothole. How the hell would Superman know, they would follow him if he did not affirmatively lead them to follow him. If Lex wasnt there Zod would have continued to reign terror, while Supes is sitting on his hands waiting for them to come. And how did Lex know he would retreat there? Supes could have retreated anywhere in the world.

The Reeve Superman was very irresponsible there. If you had a plan do it immediately, slap Zod in the face and run north.

Cavill's Superman had no choice. He had to chase down Zod and take care of him or else there would have been more damage. Cavill had no chamber, he had not fortress of Solitude. We honor the Donner Reeve so much because he showed concern and saved people. But he wasted time there.

But do you know why Donner allowed Reeve to waste time? He had to show a battle in the city as opposed to a battle in the north. Same with Snyder, you fight in the city. There was a lot of damage but like Donner, Snyder took an artistic decision.

So VERY true. Not to mention how nonchalant he is after all three Kryptonians are kill at the end of that movie.

 

[gdw]

Imagine if Superman didn't have the red underwear

I don't think that Superman is defined by "he doesn't kill because his parents raised him this way" or "he doesn't kill because that's the way he is"

Even if it was stated in the comics, I always welcome the change for the better.

And yet, that IS still arguably in the movie. [BLACKOUT]Why do you think he was begging Zod to not make him do it? He CLEARLY was against killing BEFORE that moment, and cemented even more by his reaction.[/BLACKOUT]