You or I would save children drowning in a bus if we could. That doesn't require a rare outsiders veiw of human mortality, it just requires a bit of compassion.
Out of 100 kids that age, how many do you think would save that bus? Especially if they had a secret to keep or like Pete Ross, a bone to pick. Right off the bat we are getting pivotal characterization. With power comes responsibility, and he didn’t even need his dead uncle to tell him that from beyond the grave. He was simply raised to be good nature'd. Guess that makes him more moral than peter freaking parker him self at half the age....lol
But I suppose that was a throwaway save, if you want.
But Superman has more than just the compassion you or I would have. He HAS a rare outsiders view of mortality and the taking of life.
And like I said, he views life in a way we don't even understand because of that.
An outsiders view of mortality? You mean like a god’s view of mortality? That doesn’t seem the best most consistent description of compassion imo. I could easily use that to describe all the characters from twilight to the same end. Moreover you watch movies like clash of the titans and it explains immortals have trouble with compassion.
Stilll,
I get what you are suggesting, and I think it was here in the film. I just don’t think it means all you think it does. And I don’t think it’s all that definitive. Feeling like an outsider and being immortal is one approach to designing a compassion archetype. There are others, that I think are better.
Not best he could at all. Could have easily saved that specific family without killing Zod.
Whether he could have stopped Zod in the end without killing him is another thing. But in that one moment, there most definitely was another way of stopping him from killing that family.
No, at no point in the battle had zod fully turned his attention onto the innocent. At this point Superman is dealing with a more skilled enemy that can kill kids with a look and is hell bent on doing so. If you think superman could have saved that family some other way, that’s your prerogative but I think Zod, and by extension the story makes a fair point that it’s him or them. And yes, Superman releases that head lock and he’s pretty much saying goodbye to his one time advantage. I wish him luck getting another before it’s too late.
When did I say it was?
You keep mentioning BirthRight. That’s a very specific approach to superman. Figured I should mention there are other approaches.
For example
Earth One vol1.
Superman kills this guy at the end an I don’t remember two words about him feeling stupid about it afterwards. Pretty sure this novel is celebrated and ongoing, and else worlds just like this movie is. Given who wrote it I’m not surprised.
I was just commenting on the fact he has spent his entire life training himself to have self restraint. To never let go completely, because he knows how dangerously powerful he is.
Not using lethal force is something that he is conditioned to do.
I only saw superman use lethal force once in this film, and it happened towards the end. And after he was pushed to do it by a suicidal, homicidal, genocidal, father killer with his finger on the trigger and the world in his sights. Just cause he didn’t make a big speech about it like he did to darkseid before hand doesn’t mean it didn’t happen here. Funny enough that was the first time he said he was going to stop someone before he actually fought them.
Because it doesn't once mention it?
He kills, he's sad for a moment, then he's fine in the next scene. Absolutely fine. No hint of giving two hoots about Zod. No mention of it to his mother in the scene after that either.
Curious when’s the last time you saw a super hero break down and cry in a womans arms?
Plz say spiderman for the lolls.
They addressed it in a very strong way, and I would hope that wouldn’t be brushed off as nothing just cause you think there should me more conversation later. This is an inner conflict for the character to struggle with for the time being. He has other big important things he can talk to his mother about, stuff he doesn’t have an personal inner turmoil about, mayhaps finding that destiny he and his family would always talk about at the diner table, maybe talk about saving the world, maybe talk about saving his mom…
I'm just glad you are not suggesting he was crying for some other reason like a few of our board mates.
Well that's the point though. Any story in which Superman kills (or is thought to have killed) SHOULD have that moment be at it's core.
It should be a huge character defining moment. It should be something that they discussed in scenes before (like the church scene), and in scenes in after.
At the very LEAST you should dedicate a few lines of freaking dialogue to it.
What they did, was dismiss all of the reasons i've listed cause they didn't WANT to deal with them. They just wanted to do away with it in this film, so that they could do something 'cool'.
All of those things that are incredibly important to me, and have been important to so many Superman stories.
Just couldn't be bothered to touch them.
It could, but it doesn't have to. Not every story is written whilst framed around one big character moment. It's not the author's job to hold our hands and set up everything in an obvious manner....
but if I may:
The School Bus goes down into water full of kids, clark decides to save them even though fate wanted them dead and who is he to interfere? He goes home asks his dad about the value of a small group of human lives vs exposing himself and changing the world.
What was he supposed to do, let them live or die? His dad tells him he's going to have to decide what kinda man he wants to be, good or bad....his choice will change the world..etc
He later asks a priest if he should pull a jesus and sacrifice himself for the lives of a planet full of bad men. Priest has no answers but clark says he believes in humanity and perhaps that's what he's fighting for.
Lastly Clark learns a big lesson by his dads self sacrificing death, sometimes the
greater good is more important than the life of one man be he your father or your kin as much as it pains you to bear.
Three key moments. Leading up to the big decision. To kill or not to kill for the sake of a group of humans(and the world). Clark letting his father die is paralleled in him taking the life of his last Kryptonian relative. This is bookmarked by the passionate yet powerless scream Clark lets out seeing has has made the same dire choice twice and it was for the greater good. Killing for the greater good or saving lives for the greater good Clark it all comes down to clarks choice. Something he was born to do the minute his parents decided he was going to be all natural. He struggles to make peace with this theme for the entire film. The choice to end life.
whew.
I know I'm satisfied, but that’s my viewing experience, I understand yours is different. There is a whole audience full of people that see what they see. It’s there if you are open to something different.
Now, let's examine some other films that deal with big character defining moments. Namely, Batman(my favorite), let's use the last one just for the sake of it. We all know batman has a firm no kill rule in place, one he never shuts up about though hasn't once mentioned it in this particular film(strange you would think it's so big a theme that it would be mentioned in every film of his). One thing leads to another and he shoots and kills Talia in order to save the city. Where's the thematic lead up, where's the crying and mourning over his inner torment? All I get is a kill and some spectacle, no one mentions the killing and bruce is living the real playboy live in France somewhere. Rack up yet another death for batman to ignore and no one in the audience is any the wiser.
You see, as big a character theme as killing is to batman(his biggest), that film has about 5 other big themes that it want's to explore as well. And despite the character assassination committed by Goye.....sorry, he didn't write that one, Nolan, no one mentions it, definitely not in the reviews anyways. Who knows why either, I mean it's so poorly handled and clearly an after thought.
Doesn't seem right is all.
But we are all entitled to our opinions.
Which from the sounds of it is how Goyer felt about the glasses issue too. Just glad he 'got to avoid it this time'.
Not every decision we don't like is goyers...
This was just a discussion about why Supes would have a no kill rule if he'd never killed before.
And I think there is plenty in his life and upbringing and understanding of the world that explains it, without needing to have killed in order to feel that way.
Superman doesn't need to kill to have a no kill rule. I can agree with that. But is that the best possible approach or is there a way to convey that characterization stronger and to the general audience full of poeple that doesn't have loyalties or even recognition to "their" superman?
As much as superman may be about inspiration, he's also about relatability. He was just a kid that grew up in the mid west, raised by good parents and decided to be a great leader and hero. If you want to talk about how to tell that story the best you have a few options, you have the path of a 2D character cut out and you have the path of a growing personality and all-too human flaws and then you have everything in between. I'm not saying it's one or the other but with that being said, what I'm seeing in this film is a far more human approach to the issue than the former. And that is what I consider stronger story telling.
...especially when looking at what came before.
