The Broken Neck: Yea or Nay? *SPOILERS*

[EssayM]

(Just a heads up: There will, obviously, be spoilers to follow, though I'm pretty sure everyone knows about this by now. Just though I'd warn everyone so I don't get in trouble later on.)

Can't find another thread on this, and we desperately need a thread for this whole debate so it stops spilling into other forums, so here we go.

Simply put: What do you think of the infamous scene of Superman breaking Zod's neck, and why? Do you think it was justified? Are you okay with Superman killing in general? Do you think it could have been handled better? How?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Don't care.

Unlike like a lot of people I understand why Snyder put it in the movie. At the same time, it's kind of unnecessary. You really don't need to show why Superman doesn't kill (which was the purpose of the neck snap as Zack has stated); it's just something you kind of accept.

 

[teagone]

It was fine. While it's not completely necessary to show or explain why Superman doesn't kill, you have to remember that Man of Steel depicts Clark just stepping into the role of being a virtuous paragon of hope. He's not some seasoned superhero veteran in the film so he's going to make mistakes and not do things that are expected of Superman. In comparison, when The Avengers came together in their film, they were all pretty experienced heroes in their own right. Come The Battle of New York, they had more experience saving people and doing their thing compared to Clark. I mean, sure, a lot of what Clark does in Man of Steel is a bit reckless, but that's due to his inexperience and we can assume that the fights in Smallville and Metropolis was the first time Clark ever got into a brawl of any sort. With an inexperienced Clark finally unleashing his power, **** was going to inevitably break, be it towns, cities, or necks. A good argument that justifies the whole killing Zod thing is that the Superman we know from the comics doesn't really show up until just before the credits when he's chatting with the general.

 

[EssayM]

It was fine. While it's not completely necessary to show or explain why Superman doesn't kill, you have to remember that Man of Steel depicts Clark just stepping into the role of being a virtuous paragon of hope. He's not some seasoned superhero veteran in the film so he's going to make mistakes and not do things that are expected of Superman. In comparison, when The Avengers came together in their film, they were all pretty experienced heroes in their own right. Come The Battle of New York, they had more experience saving people and doing their thing compared to Clark. I mean, sure, a lot of what Clark does in Man of Steel is a bit reckless, but that's due to his inexperience and we can assume that the fights in Smallville and Metropolis was the first time Clark ever got into a brawl of any sort. With an inexperienced Clark finally unleashing his power, **** was going to inevitably break, be it towns, cities, or necks. A good argument that justifies the whole killing Zod thing is that the Superman we know from the comics doesn't really show up until just before the credits when he's chatting with the general.

But the individual members of the Avengers (particularly Cap and Iron Man) started off pretty inexperienced in their respective solo films, and none of them made mistakes that disastrously bad. Yet I still believed they were "new to this".

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I've debated it enough so I won't say much.

All I will say, is that no matter how many times I watch it, it never gets any easier to deal with... every time that neck snaps, it cuts right to my heart.

And I don't like feeling that way when it comes to Superman. I don't wanna feel devastated... I wanna feel uplifted.

 

[teagone]

But the individual members of the Avengers (particularly Cap and Iron Man) started off pretty inexperienced in their respective solo films, and none of them made mistakes that disastrously bad. Yet I still believed they were "new to this".

Breaking Zod's neck wasn't a mistake though? It was a thorough and deliberate decision. Clark had no other way to stop a Kryptonian from achieving mass genocide of the human race except to kill him. Or are you talking about the collateral damage? That said, you could argue that the power levels and scope of conflict that Clark was dealing with was on a much larger scale than what was present in all the MCU origin films. Pretty heavy situation to deal with for just a farm boy.

 

[EssayM]

Breaking Zod's neck wasn't a mistake though? It was a thorough and deliberate decision. Clark had no other way to stop a Kryptonian from achieving mass genocide of the human race except to kill him. Or are you talking about the collateral damage? That said, you could argue that the power levels and scope of conflict that Clark was dealing with was on a much larger scale than what was present in all the MCU origin films. Pretty heavy situation to deal with for just a farm boy.

As a side note, that is something that bothers me about the film; when you're just doing the first movie, do you really need your action on such a large scale? Maybe they could've saved some of that chaos for the sequel? If they did that, they might've had a little more time to deal with the impact it's having on Clark.

 

[teagone]

As a side note, that is something that bothers me about the film; when you're just doing the first movie, do you really need your action on such a large scale? Maybe they could've saved some of that chaos for the sequel? If they did that, they might've had a little more time to deal with the impact it's having on Clark.

I feel like part of why Snyder chose that level of destruction in Man of Steel was to show just how destructive Clark and his ilk are. Basically its a statement that says Kryptonians are truly god-like beings with nearly limitless destructive power in this new world building exercise for DC films. And having all that happen to Clark in a such a little amount of time shows just what he's made of. He dealt with everything as best as he could, and despite his best efforts, the destruction was inevitable. The film's namesake reflects upon that part of Clark's character arc.

 

[EssayM]

I feel like part of why Snyder chose that level of destruction in Man of Steel was to show just how destructive Clark and his ilk are. Basically its a statement that says Kryptonians are truly god-like beings with nearly limitless destructive power in this new world building exercise for DC films. And having all that happen to Clark in a such a little amount of time shows just what he's made of. He dealt with everything as best as he could, and despite his best efforts, the destruction was inevitable. The film's namesake reflects upon that part of Clark's character arc.

I don't know...I feel like they could've cut back a little and still gotten that across. I'm currently studying video editing, and there are more than a few scenes that could've been trimmed or cut all together.

 

[Harley2004]

Batman and Lex, will not cared he killed Zod. Not sure why anybody would. The fact that he leveled a city is the problem.

He should have killed him sooner.

 

[EssayM]

Batman and Lex, will not cared he killed Zod. Not sure why anybody would. The fact that he leveled a city is the problem.

He should have killed him sooner.

Yeah, that's another thing...if all Supes needed to bring him to kill was civilians in danger of dying, I would think he would've snapped Zod's neck waaaay before then. Thousands dead/injured in both Metropolis and Smallville don't drive him to murder, but one random family does? WTF?

 

[teagone]

Yeah, that's another thing...if all Supes needed to bring him to kill was civilians in danger of dying, I would think he would've snapped Zod's neck waaaay before then. Thousands dead/injured in both Metropolis and Smallville don't drive him to murder, but one random family does? WTF?

The family wasn't the reason why Clark finally killed Zod. The whole entire fight was Zod retaliating; he was bent on destroying the human race. Pretty sure Clark was doing his best to find a way to stop Zod throughout the entire sequence. He ended up pinning Zod at a pivotal moment during their fight. That took significant effort. I mean, it's not like Zod would willingly let Clark put him in a headlock. The guy was genetically created to be a soldier. Some farm boy who's never been in a real fight his whole life isn't going to drop him in like 10 minutes. Especially not against someone of equal power.

 

[teagone]

I don't know...I feel like they could've cut back a little and still gotten that across. I'm currently studying video editing, and there are more than a few scenes that could've been trimmed or cut all together.

I agree. There was excess, but I'm personally ok with the amount of action. I can understand it being too much for some though.

 

[InJustice]

Yeah, that's another thing...if all Supes needed to bring him to kill was civilians in danger of dying, I would think he would've snapped Zod's neck waaaay before then. Thousands dead/injured in both Metropolis and Smallville don't drive him to murder, but one random family does? WTF?

The point is Superman was not looking to kill Zod. In fact, killing was the last thing he wanted to do. He wanted to contain Zod and show that co-existence is possible, the only problem is that Zod is stuck to his old ideals.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I just don't think Superman needs to deal with this kind of conflict, especially not this early in his career. Snyder and Goyer haven't provided a particularly satisfactory answer as to why this scene needed to be included.

I feel like Superman destroying the World Engine was a more satisfying climax than the Superman/Zod fight which actually ends up in a very anti-climatic way (the audience gets some kind of release in the next scene when the surveillance drone crashes tough).

Anyway, it's like the movie ended with the destruction of the World Engine, but Snyder still had another fight scene in him. "I know the movie just ended but I have this other fight scene I want to show you. I don't know if you guys still wanna see it but anyways here's the f***ing Superman/Zod fight scene."

 

[teagone]

I just don't think Superman needs to deal with this kind of conflict, especially not this early in his career. Snyder and Goyer haven't provided a particularly satisfactory answer as to why this scene needed to be included.

How about Cavill's take? (He talks moreso about the amount of destruction, not the neck break explicitly)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btKEKrbMSHo&feature=youtu.be&t=1m17s

I found Goyer's explanation satisfactory, personally. For those who haven't read it: http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/ne...zod-controversy-spoilers.html#~oC20XVIiHuXhTc. Snyder's Kobayashi Maru scenario explanation is good enough for me too. But again, I can understand why its controversial.

 

[Harley2004]

I don't know anybody outside of a few posters in place like this that cared about the death of Zod, maybe it's as Snyder said, the 1978 movie?

I do think the destruction of the city will be an issue in BvS, though.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I thought it was fine, personally. Without Kryptonite, or the Phantom Zone, there weren't many alternatives.

I don't mind Superman killing if he has absolutely no other choice.

 

[-Arya-]

Personally I was okay with it; provided that it doesn't go completely unacknowledged in
B vs. S

 

[smallville fan]

The family wasn't the reason why Clark finally killed Zod. The whole entire fight was Zod retaliating; he was bent on destroying the human race. Pretty sure Clark was doing his best to find a way to stop Zod throughout the entire sequence. He ended up pinning Zod at a pivotal moment during their fight. That took significant effort. I mean, it's not like Zod would willingly let Clark put him in a headlock. The guy was genetically created to be a soldier. Some farm boy who's never been in a real fight his whole life isn't going to drop him in like 10 minutes. Especially not against someone of equal power.

This.

That fight would not have lasted that long if Clark wasn't looking for a way out.

Regarding the neck break, I actually found out about it before I saw the film(stupid me for being on the internet 24/7) I had mixed feelings at first, wondering why they would do such a thing, then my friend(who's a DC fan too) who saw the movie before me said that scene was good, then I ended up watching it and after reading up on some comics and watching Superman: Doomsday, I felt adding that in was very much justified and well within Superman's character.

 

[I Am The Knight]

How about Cavill's take? (He talks moreso about the amount of destruction, not the neck break explicitly)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btKEKrbMSHo&feature=youtu.be&t=1m17s

I found Goyer's explanation satisfactory, personally. For those who haven't read it: http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/ne...zod-controversy-spoilers.html#~oC20XVIiHuXhTc. Snyder's Kobayashi Maru scenario explanation is good enough for me too. But again, I can understand why its controversial.

I warched the Cavill video but I couldn't understand what was being said.

Yeah I've read Goyers's explanation but I think this is a case of over complicating a character. Superman should deal with moral scenarios but the Zod kill is too much. Part of the appeal of the character is that he is a bit more "pure" than other heroes, and the ending of MOS taints that. Not to mention that there was no way for Goyer to know for sure that they would get to make sequels so that they could explore the issue, and frankly, I have no interest in seeing that. I know I sound like a Superman fan who simply doesn't like change, but I just don't think this change was necessary, at all.

 

[smallville fan]

Part of the appeal of the character is that he is a bit more "pure" than other heroes, and the ending of MOS taints that.

But now you could see the fun part of how he builds himself up from that and becomes a better hero. That makes an interesting journey.

 

[teagone]

But now you could see the fun part of how he builds himself up from that and becomes a better hero. That makes an interesting journey.

Exactly. Seeing the process of a god-like being who's not infallible rise up and become a virtuous paragon through trials and tribulations makes for a much more dynamic narrative than a god-like being who's just perfect right from the start.

[edit]

I warched the Cavill video but I couldn't understand what was being said.

The question the person asked was basically: "There's been a lot of discussion in Man of Steel about the amount of destruction, like Metropolis and stuff like that. What's your response to people saying 'why would Superman destroy so much of city when he's suppose to try and protect them'". Henry responded with something to the effect of: "It wasn't intentional. If two god-like beings were to do battle, that's what would inevitably happen. When given the chance to take Zod down or leave him be, he'll destroy the entire planet, not just parts of Metropolis. It's about minimizing as much damage as possible by choosing the lesser of two evils (which is killing Zod)".

 

[sportjames23]

But the individual members of the Avengers (particularly Cap and Iron Man) started off pretty inexperienced in their respective solo films, and none of them made mistakes that disastrously bad. Yet I still believed they were "new to this".

Yet, they still tore up NYC as much as Superman and Zod (and really, it was mostly Zod's World Engine) did Metropolis. That was Superman's first day on the job. The Avengers were experienced by the time they fought the Chitauri.

 

[sportjames23]

Batman and Lex, will not cared he killed Zod. Not sure why anybody would. The fact that he leveled a city is the problem.

He should have killed him sooner.

Again, why does Superman get the blame for Zod doing most of the damage to Metropolis?

And how could Superman kill Zod sooner when Zod had the upper hand most of the fight?