Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

[PunyGod]

...

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I bet the critics would have been more forgiving of this film if Snyder and Goyer went with their original plan of sending Zod with the others back to the Phantom Zone.

 

[Hero 1]

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!

 

[FlawlessVictory]

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!

How does the PZ even work? Do you age there? Could being sent there theoretically be a death sentence if there was no way to get you back out?

 

[blumatic]

I bet the critics would have been more forgiving of this film if Snyder and Goyer went with their original plan of sending Zod with the others back to the Phantom Zone.

That would have been so wack though. They would have solved the issue the exact same way as the Avengers did. Just put it in another dimension.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

That would have been so wack though. They would have solved the issue the exact same way as the Avengers did. Just put it in another dimension.

I agree, and Goyer felt underwhelmed by that as well. It would anti-climactic.

 

[blumatic]

I agree, and Goyer felt underwhelmed by that as well. It would anti-climactic.

What I like in the interview with Goyer was that Nolan said to them that in changing things you must be prepared for backlash. Change is necessary but be prepared.

It means that they put a lot of thought into this film. Even if Zack's reasoning is stupid, they all really thought about challenging the mythos. Especially on screen.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^True, they even consulted DC about the ending they were changing it to. I do appreciate they put a lot of thought into it.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I think what Snyder getting at isn't one of US having to kill to learn not to do it again. But a cop having to kill to save a life, seeing the burden that causes for him and then vowing to always find a way around that from then on. Snyder seems to be going in the whole cop metaphor route here.

 

[X Knight]

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.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I think what Snyder getting at isn't one of US having to kill to learn not to do it again. But a cop having to kill to save a life, seeing the burden that causes for him and then vowing to always find a way around that from then on. Snyder seems to be going in the whole cop metaphor route here.

The problem is Snyder put him in an impossible situation where he had no choice but to kill. What can Superman take from that if put in another impossible situation where he has to kill again? Not kill and let innocents die? He would have to kill again. Nothing would change.

 

[Ultimatehero]

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.

Exactly. I don't know why people act like that was easy for him. It was beyond difficult for him to do and one of the most emotional things you could watch him having to do. And even kids get it, there was a kid in my theater who was sniffling during that scene. They didn't go "cool, now we kill someone!" It was showing how devastating that act can actually be on someone.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

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 this. It's just that Snyder is wacky with his explanation, like he had to kill so that he would feel like he didn't want to kill again. But how you framed makes much more sense then the words from its own director.

 

[X Knight]

I think what Snyder getting at isn't one of US having to kill to learn not to do it again. But a cop having to kill to save a life, seeing the burden that causes for him and then vowing to always find a way around that from then on. Snyder seems to be going in the whole cop metaphor route here.

agreed.

like I posted in another thread.

imagine you have a school shooting. the gunman's going on a rampage and dozens of kids and teachers have been killed. he's now in a classroom with kids cowering in the corner. he's spraying bullets randomly, spouting crazy talk that he's going to kill all the kids. he's moving closer to the kids, aiming closer to them.

you're a cop with a gun. you yell at him to drop the weapon and surrender. he shouts Never and keeps moving closer to the kids. it's only a matter of time before he kills them.

now let's say you're a rookie cop. fresh on the job. you've never had to kill someone before. you don't like killing people. but, in this situation, are you going to just let the kids get killed??

no.

you're going to shoot the gunman dead. to save lives.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean you enjoyed killing the gunman. and the act of killing disgusted you so much that from that point on, you vow you will not kill again. you will try to find another way.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I agree with this. It's just that Snyder is wacky with his explanation, like he had to kill so that he would feel like he didn't want to kill again. But how you framed makes much more sense then the words from its own director.

I think Snyder ist just stumbling over words. One thing that stuck out was the whole cop metaphor he was running after. Not that he would never kill again. I'm even trying to explain his cop metaphor and don't know how lol. Just a cop who was never in that situation before would have a different outlook than the cop who's been there and saw the devastation it can cause. Both are against it, but one has seen what it can do and the emotional scar it can leave first hand. Honestly, I think he just stumbled over the whole trying to present it in terms of law enforcement or soldier metaphor.

I know someone who has always been against taking another life. But, one time he was thrust into a situation where he almost had to take a life in order to save someone. Luckily he didn't, but coming that close - he's still getting over that and being there. It's still the same guy with the same moral code. But somehow being there, you just view the act as A LOT worse than if you've never been in that situation before. It's the difference between the soldier going off to war and the soldier coming back.

 

[mohoo]

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.

 

[sf2]

I thought they should have hinted about the sequel; how the event in MOS paving a story in MOS2 and push the hype further.

 

[Superherofan123]

I really don't understand why him killing Zod has some people losing their minds. He had no other choice. Plus it's going to add to his character arc over the course of possible sequels and a JL movie. I thought the scene was wonderfully done. Cavill was especially awesome in that scene.

 

[blumatic]

I really don't understand why him killing Zod has some people losing their minds. He had no other choice. Plus it's going to add to his character arc over the course of possible sequels and a JL movie. I thought the scene was wonderfully done. Cavill was especially awesome in that scene.

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.

 

[Octavias]

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....

 

[X Knight]

but Superman has killed before.

in the comics. in the movies.

it's not exactly an ironclad rule.

I can see where if it has always been an ironclad rule, where Superman NEVER EVER KILLS, not in the comics or movies or any other media, and THEN Snyder had Superman kill in MOS........THAT would be more of an uproar.

that would feel more like a director putting his stamp on the character to make it cool or different.

 

[blumatic]

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....

Well we all have too remeber that this is art. Everyone, even you and me have access to write our Superman story.

I like what Goyer said, you gotta change or else you become irrelevant.

MOS may not be the movie we deserved, but its the movie that we needed.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[Superherofan123]

What other part of the mythos were they trying to change?? Eeryhing is pretty much the same IMO.

 

[Supercajun]

How does the PZ even work? Do you age there? Could being sent there theoretically be a death sentence if there was no way to get you back out?

Well we could look at the Phantom Zone basically like the 'Nexus' in Star Trek Generations. Captain Kirk was supposedly killed on the Enterprise B when the bow exploded by being hit by the energy ribbon wave but he was actually sucked in it and trapped in the Nexus. I still think could have been revived in the Nexus on Veridian 3. Picard jumped around in time three times in it. Guinan said time had no meaning there.