Snyder and Goyer explain Man of Steel.

[Marvin]

Exactly. I didn't have to kill someone to learn that murder is wrong so why does Superman?

But it's really a pointless debate because we are putting more thought into this than the filmmakers did.

I think you are probably putting less
tbh.

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.

What's that?
Superman is the same person he is on day one as he is 80 years later. What's more each movie needs to restart and redo the same character arc over again like in those other guy's movies(Ironman/thor).

I actually think people were looking for more of a Captain America like approach here. No arc, fully formed, born and bread in the usa.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[KalMart]

Exactly. I didn't have to kill someone to learn that murder is wrong so why does Superman?

But it's really a pointless debate because we are putting more thought into this than the filmmakers did.

He didn't murder anyone, FYI.

 

[Eros]

He didn't murder anyone, FYI.

still snapped zods neck.

 

[KalMart]

still snapped zods neck.

As a justifiable act done in defense of innocents. It's not murder and shouldn't be called it. Whether we thought it was the right story idea is obviously the debate. But we need to be specific and accurate when using that term, even when discussing fiction. What Supes did is not an appropriate use of it.

Exactly. I didn't have to kill someone to learn that murder is wrong so why does Superman?

But it's really a pointless debate because we are putting more thought into this than the filmmakers did.

But I realize now that you may not be just referring to an act of murder on your part, so sorry that I assumed you meant an act of murder if that's not what you meant. But some people have actually called his action murder. And that shouldn't be done, even for sake of argument or exaggeration.

I agree that it shouldn't take a personal act of killing (in defense or otherwise) for one to realize the extreme and horrible weight it carries. But in being a hero who will certainly find himself in deadly conflicts, he'll most certainly be faced with those sorts of circumstances where it may have to be an option. Many of those times it may take an extra degree of effort to come up with an alternative solution...sometimes it takes an extra push to find it. The personal pain of experiencing something like this could very well be that push. It's a known convention in both fiction and real life, so the reasoning isn't unheard of.

We may know that we don't have to kill to realize that murder or killing unless given no choice is wrong. But very few of us would ever be put in that sort of a situation, and if we were, since we do't ever face that, we might not exercise the best of judgement under such duress. We might know something is wrong on a clear calm day, but may still act hastily out of panic and loss of composure. So in that respect, there is more of an unfortunate 'lesson' to be learned through such a horrible personal experience for certain individuals. We may not need the lesson for our own philosophies and generally peaceful lives. But someone else could have something to gain from it, because they'll need to exercise judgement in deadly situations under extreme pressure.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[Marvin]

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.

I assume you don't follow his books because this very issue has been the cause of this numerous updates in that book(I think he even dropped the mantle at one point).

If it's the film you're talking about, that's fine. I mean the numbers would argue otherwise(cap vs Mos) to be sure. However the world hasn't been subject to any version of Cap to the point where a change would be needed. In other words, there is no famous donner cap and then followed by a failed donner rip off named returns to prove the point even further. Cap just came out and they gave the world a taste of what he was for the first time: a man with a heart of gold that will shoot as many enemies as you can find for him to shoot, but a good, if not great man with american values that were instilled in him on american soil and an inspiration for us all...

But when boiled down to a matter of preference, I wouldn't mind seeing a more human story from that character, I could argue it's merits. It's not change I'm requesting, it's a more fleshed out examination of why he is what he is. It's not even a matter of does the character resonate with our audience, it's can he resonate more?
That's the difference between burton and nolan.

But I see your point. You would want a more traditional take.

 

[sf2]

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.

you really think superman doesn't need to update???!!!
you really think a remake of STM with nowadays technology and computer effects, the audience today will accept it with open arms???

 

[Lighthouse]

you really think superman doesn't need to update???!!!
you really think a remake of STM with nowadays technology and computer effects, the audience today will accept it with open arms???

Wow! Way to completely misread everything he said.

 

[Lencho01]

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.

Yeah, that's what I was saying in the other thread. I thought it was interesting he brought it up since Kirk much like Superman thought there's another option. So, pretty much this Superman failed his Kobayashi Maru.

 

[KalMart]

This Superman will cheat the no-win situation by rewriting the script.



**** yeah!

 

[davejames]

I love the scene, but I'm not totally sure about Snyder's justification for it.

For me the point of the scene was in showing just how hard and painful it WAS for Superman to kill somebody. It's not something he takes lightly or just shrugs off like most movie heroes we see; it's something that goes against everything he had ever been taught by his parents, and comes after a lifetime of trying to avoid confrontation and violence.

Which is what makes it so powerful and tragic, and yet oddly inspiring. Because it shows that this is a superhero who DOES take this stuff much more seriously than most.

It's a reaction and moment we don't usually see in a superhero movie, which is why I love it and think it works so damn well.

 

[sf2]

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.

exactly.

he isn't "The Superman" yet.
so far, he is just an alien in MOS, who has become a man in the end.

 

[Lencho01]

This Superman will cheat the no-win situation by rewriting the script.



**** yeah!

*Goyer writing the script at home and Superman busts in*

Superman: "Dick splash? We had a child, a boy child? People don't talk like this!"

*Superman grabs his laptop, deletes the script, and writes a new one*

Superman: You can thank me later.

*Superman flies away*

*Goyer stands there in awe*

 

[KalMart]

*Goyer writing the script at home and Superman busts in*

Superman: "Dick splash? We had a child, a boy child? People don't talk like this!"

*Superman grabs his laptop, deletes the script, and writes a new one, takes a bite out of an apple*

Superman: You can thank me later.

*Superman flies away*

*Goyer stands there in awe*

Little addition.

 

[Lencho01]

Little addition.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[KalMart]

Spiderman was essentially a modern day remake of STM in a lot of ways.

 

[sf2]

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.

to be fair, i was a traditionalist too.
when i found out that they removed away the red briefs and added in all those funny strips, i was crying a river. Read my signature you would know. i was crapping about they were not respecting the creator, destroying the image of superman, it looked terrible, and most of all, i went as far as it was an indicative of a serious lack of trust and belief in the core concept of the character.
furthermore, i was a 100% Reeve and Donner superman fan. i hated they go for a reboot and retelling the origin. i thought it was redundant and wasteful. they could do something like SR, using Donners' as a springboard to new story...

i was so dead wrong!!!

they are giving us a superman who is so much cooler and richer in his background and story; no longer the happy go lucky superman... the one dimensional illustration; disaster happened, superman saved the day, people cheered on him while he waving good bye.
worship me, as i have saved all your life...

i will never go back anymore!!!

Thanks Synder and thanks MOS!!!

 

[mohoo]

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

I didn't say that he didn't consider it a bad thing before doing it, but that now he hates it more than ever, he reached another level.

Many people hate killing, but the same people could see it as the best solution in many cases.

Superman avoids killing to a level that made a lot of people (even those who consider it a bad thing) say: "why wouldn't he just kill that guy?!"

So, what made him like that?

Snyder and Goyer decided that it's better to explain it, to be the answer whenever that question was asked.

The other way of doing it is just making him like that, without explaining. He's just like that.

Personally, I like to know the "why" behind things, and I'm happy that the went this way.

 

[mohoo]

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

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[mohoo]

Because that's how he was raised.

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.

 

[J.Howlett]

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

Completely this.

 

[J.Howlett]

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.

Completely this too.