BvS The Death of Superman!

[Rodrigo90]

I actually like Man of Steel, but I think it's partly because I'm such a big Superman fan that I'm able to overlook some of its flaws.

My reference to Superman being responsible for heavy civilian casualties wasn't so much related to any one specific act of destruction, but rather to the whole. It's explicitly stated that the Kryptonians only came to Earth after Clark sent out a signal while investigating the ship in the Arctic. That means that everything that happens after that would not have occurred if Kal had never been sent to Earth.

No, it wasn't his fault or anything he did on purpose. Regardless, the very first appearance of Superman in this world will be associated with a cataclysmic attack that destroyed much of a major city -- the city Superman will consider home -- and which would not have occurred had it not been for his presence on Earth (and the sheer number of casualties puts it on a different scale than, say, Batman being responsible for the creation of The Joker). There's something incongruous about the juxtaposition of that with the message that Superman is supposed to represent a symbol of "hope".

It's an example of how the script undercuts its own message. Similarly, there was also a lot of buildup about how Kal, as Krypton's first natural birth in centuries, is able to choose his own destiny. Then at the end of the film, after Zod says "This only ends one of two ways, Kal -- either you die or I do," Superman kills him.

In other words, Superman proves the villain right. When defenders of MOS (again, I consider myself one) address this point, they typically ask, "But what was is supposed to do? Zod was going to keep killing everyone! Superman didn't have a choice!" But I thought he did, and that was the whole point of his existence and the message the movie was trying to send us?

But that was the point of the film. Superman and everyone around him believed he would able to choose and forge any destiny he so desired.
But that's the optimism of the comics. Snyder's brutal kick in the teeth was deliberate and he stated it.
"Sometimes, we have no choice"

Up until the end of the film, Superman made his own choices and decisions with his life. But it was through a great evil that put a fork in the road and that was the point. It's not like the message of Spider-Man 3, we can always choose to do what's right. That's a fairytale belief. Because you can often be put in a place where you have no choice.
Superman can be clearly seen throughout the movie trying to forge freedom in his life, but someone out there is often trying to control him and suppress his freedom of choice. Both his father's installed him with a sense of freedom and choice to forge his destiny, Jonathan's was shaky, but that came from his human concept of worry for the son who was living a normal human life. Jor-El's lack of concern was due to his confidence on his son's invincibility and Messiah-like status he would surely gain. But if you notice, these to men are telling Clark how to live his life. They're presenting him with choice, and it's THEIR choice for him to become this bright symbol for humanity. They're telling him his destiny for him. Not one of them asks Clark what he wants to do, they tell him what he's going to do and become. Jonathan WANTED Clark to wait til the time was ready for him to become the man he is destined to be. Jor-El WANTED Kal-El to become the symbol upon meeting him in the Fortress.
So, both father's eliminated the choice of freedom in their son, in order for him to do the right thing in order to be accepted. And the only way for him to be accepted in this world, was by becoming a beacon of hope and a force for good.
Superman was constantly without freedom of choice, because he's been brought up a distorted view of destiny and choice. Jor-El's explanation was for Kal to forge a new destiny away from Krypton and be the opposite of what they were, which caused the destruction of their planet.
He had a choice to turn his back on what was pre-chosen for him by both fathers. But he couldn't, because that's not how he was raised. Every choice he made was to do the right thing...so in the end, he was always without the freedom of choice and the freedom to forge his own destiny. Because the three most influential people told him to do the right thing for humanity, because THAT was the ONLY choice for him. Zod was proved right and that was the point. Because Superman's constant decision to do the right thing, hence his lack of freedom to forge choice and destiny, was contradictory to what Jor-El told him about his son at the beginning. If Kal had real choice, he might not have been what Jor-El envisioned for his son on Earth. It was he who handed his son the suit to become thst symbol. Clark became what Jor-El wanted. Infusing the codex into him, eliminating further choice of destiny and burdening him with the decision Jor-El made 10 minutes after his birth.
He was like a machine in the end. He was programmed, like Christ, without the freedom of choice. The only freedom he possessed was to carry out the father's pre-chosen destiny for him...
If Kal-El was installed with more freedom of choice, he would of surely of tried to bring evil to good and struggle with what was best for the two groups, in order to give things a chance. But, no. Thanks to Jonathan and Jor-El, he carried out what they wanted him to carry out without more than a seconds hesitation due to his conscience - eliminate a second choice in order to do the right thing for humanity and be accepted, in order to save them (Jonathan = Acceptance, Jor-El = Saviour)
Superman didn't lose like fans claim...he'd won. He did what he was raised and influenced to do, but at a price. The death of Zod hurt him, but as the next few scenes showed, he did what he had to do and there's no point on him dwelling on it. Because he's used to the concept of there being no choice in things that he'll come across, because that's the way his life has always been when doing the right thing. If if were the opposite, more like the comics, he would be mulling over the thoughts of choice and what he could of done different, causing conflict within himself. That Superman hasn't been raised like that. He's not the Donner Superman of choosing to disobey Jor-El's orders in order to save Lois...but you never know, things might change .

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Rodrigo, and I always appreciate people who defend some of the more controversial aspects of MOS. But isn't that kind of a depressing message to send that contradicts the whole focus of Superman as a symbol of "hope"? That is, poor naive Clark thinks he can be a symbol of hope, but then it turns out that brutal violence is the only solution.

I know many people will defend this as a complex interpretation of the character with shades of grey, different from the less ambiguous Superman we traditionally think of. But as a historical materialist, I can't help but see this portrayal of Superman in terms of post-9/11 America.

The whole presentation of Superman as "having no choice" but to kill Zod echoes the arguments of people like Dick Cheney (or Barack Obama, or Stephen Harper, for that matter) where they present a "ticking time bomb" scenario in which the only alternative to mass murder is to kill the person threatening to murder people. And I know the mods have told me not to bring politics into threads like this, but the fact that this is the kind of Superman produced by Hollywood in 2013 kind of echoes the apologetics for mass surveillance in The Dark Knight (Batman has to monitor the entire population of Gotham to catch the Joker, don't you see? It's for our own protection).

 

[Tobias]

Superman needs to be a founding member of the JL. Not "the" founding but "a" founding member.

 

[BH/HHH]

Hands down NO! Killing Superman at this point would be stupid, it needs to be an emotional connection and Cavill hasn't been Superman long enough yet.

I also doubt they are gonna kill him when JL is next.

 

[BH/HHH]

Ran across one of your posts and it is spot on. I've posted this myself. Superman needs to be a founding member of the JL. Not "the" founding but "a" founding member.

Per IMDB Cavill is signed for JL1 but using part of JL1 to do the "return" of Superman is a waste of JL1 screentime.

Batman has become the glue of the DCEU and Supes is an afterthought it seems. WB has put more Superman on permanent hold. So he becomes the Hulk of the DCEU.

Its frustrating as a Superman fan.

If WB did not intend to use him anymore why did they spend years and millions to keep the rights? All the heirs wanted to do was get the rights back and exploit them. As in make films featuring Superman.

Snyder seems to have revealed his Bat-love. Which is fine but he should not have pretended to be a huge Supes fan when he seemingly is not.

I empathize with what you've posted about this.

Snyder was not pretending to be a Superman fan, he is a Superman fan.

Go back and read the press stuff before the Dark Knight or the Dark Knight rises all the talk is about The Joker, Catwoman and Bane. That's what happens in sequels they talk about the new characters. Amy Adams is also returning and they haven't said much about her all the talk has been about Batman, Wonder Woman and Lex as any sequel.

Batman is the glue? That's news to me BvS is full of Superman characters and Batman/Wonder Woman. How does that make Batman the glue? After that there's SS which does have Batman characters but it's also got Boomerang (a Flash villain) aswell as Rick Flagg and Amanda Waller who is associated as a nemesis sometimes ally of the JL. Then it's Wonder Woman which has no association to Batman.

Also they have said that solo Superman and solo Batman films will be coming out with the slate. Those are in the same boat, honestly stop been so paranoid.

 

[Gu3ree]

They do that then, honestly, their movies will never be taken seriously again because they are rushing things. It would also ruin the whole premise of Batman v Superman. Death of Superman only would have been successful if Superman had not been around for 54 years at that point. Justice League or the Avengers would not have been successful team-ups if its individual comic book characters had not been around long enough to establish themselves.

That is the only reputation they will get from the audience if they do the Death of Superman arc this soon. May not be happening though, if Snyder did confirm more plans for Doomsday in the future and said that he was evolving.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

1. You have Doomsday.
2. You need to bring together a divided world on Superman.
3. You need to form the Justice League.
4. You need to prove to all members of the Justice League, like the world, that Superman will make the ultimate sacrifice. You must prove that he is the hero we hope him to be.

For those reasons, I have no problem if the movie ends with Superman dead.

 

[Gu3ree]

Snyder was not pretending to be a Superman fan, he is a Superman fan.

Go back and read the press stuff before the Dark Knight or the Dark Knight rises all the talk is about The Joker, Catwoman and Bane. That's what happens in sequels they talk about the new characters. Amy Adams is also returning and they haven't said much about her all the talk has been about Batman, Wonder Woman and Lex as any sequel.

Batman is the glue? That's news to me BvS is full of Superman characters and Batman/Wonder Woman. How does that make Batman the glue? After that there's SS which does have Batman characters but it's also got Boomerang (a Flash villain) aswell as Rick Flagg and Amanda Waller who is associated as a nemesis sometimes ally of the JL. Then it's Wonder Woman which has no association to Batman.

Also they have said that solo Superman and solo Batman films will be coming out with the slate. Those are in the same boat, honestly stop been so paranoid.

I think when it comes to combining the two characters, Snyder won't consider Batman a superhero. I think Snyder says that so he won't get in trouble. It was Snyder's idea after all to bring Batman, and he's a huge fan of The Dark Knight Returns. It still seems to me that he prefers Batman to Superman. Regardless, I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing Batman win the fight, nor Superman.

Snyder can of course agree that Batman is more "relatable" than Superman, when I think there is plenty more to relate to Superman than Snyder realizes. Not just from the flashbacks where Clark is bullied as a kid.

What I have still been bothered by is the fact that a few years before he directed Man of Steel, to which by the way, Snyder said he was reluctant to do at first, he said in an interview, I think when promoting Watchmen, on whether he would be interested in directing a Superman movie and said, "The guy is too ernest. I don't know how to make that relevant to a modern audience."

 

[BH/HHH]

I think when it comes to combining the two characters, Snyder won't consider Batman a superhero. I think Snyder says that so he won't get in trouble. It was Snyder's idea after all to bring Batman, and he's a huge fan of The Dark Knight Returns. It still seems to me that he prefers Batman to Superman. Regardless, I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing Batman win the fight, nor Superman.

Snyder can of course agree that Batman is more "relatable" than Superman, when I think there is plenty more to relate to Superman than Snyder realizes. Not just from the flashbacks where Clark is bullied as a kid.

What I have still been bothered by is the fact that a few years before he directed Man of Steel, to which by the way, Snyder said he was reluctant to do at first, he said in an interview, I think when promoting Watchmen, on whether he would be interested in directing a Superman movie and said, "The guy is too ernest. I don't know how to make that relevant to a modern audience."

Ive not heard Snyder say Batman is relatable.

Also it's been very much made clear that Batman is the antagonist of this movie.

The whole point I was making is that the new characters always get the attention in a sequel and there's a few who are way to paranoid about stuff like that.

Yeah and he said that when he got MOS. that's doesn't mean he wasn't a fan of the characater simply that he was unsure how to do the character today. He even said that Nolan had to convince him of this new modern version.

 

[Tobias]

Ive not heard Snyder say Batman is relatable.

Also it's been very much made clear that Batman is the antagonist of this movie.

The whole point I was making is that the new characters always get the attention in a sequel and there's a few who are way to paranoid about stuff like that.

Yeah and he said that when he got MOS. that's doesn't mean he wasn't a fan of the characater simply that he was unsure how to do the character today. He even said that Nolan had to convince him of this new modern version.

If Snyder needed convincing, this is the first I've heard that, then IMO he is not right for the job.

The Superman director has to absolutely believe in the character and believe a great story can be done.

Its like with Miller. Before WB put the quash on MOS2 and Miller was rumored to possibly direct it Miller said Superman can be kind of a boring character. Unlike Batman.

Miller fell off my list of desired directors for a Superman film after I read that..

 

[lukebrodyg]

Henry Cavill should direct the next Superman film.

I'm being cheeky, obviously, but the dude gets the character and always speaks highly of the potential in telling his stories.

 

[BH/HHH]

If Snyder needed convincing, this is the first I've heard that, then IMO he is not right for the job.

The Superman director has to absolutely believe in the character and believe a great story can be done.

Its like with Miller. Before WB put the quash on MOS2 and Miller was rumored to possibly direct it Miller said Superman can be kind of a boring character. Unlike Batman.

Miller fell off my list of desired directors for a Superman film after I read that..

Why isnit? The most recnt version of Superman before that was Superman Returns which tried to take a version of Superman from a different era and do him now. It didn't work.

When I say Nolan convinced him that doesn't mean he didn't understand or disliked Superman it just means he didn't feel he could bring Superman to the modern age but Nolan and Goyers take is what led him to believe he could lead a new Superman. That is where he believed he had a good story and such and made the film as a result.

Again you pick the bits out you want and ignore the rest your against Snyder anyway.

I don't remember Miller saying unlike Batman and you're talking about a man whose knowledge of Superman is probably the movies and what he hears from others. Not everyone especially directors are steeped in the comics. If you think any directors gonna be that then you're been ridiculously stupid.

 

[Tobias]

Why isnit? The most recnt version of Superman before that was Superman Returns which tried to take a version of Superman from a different era and do him now. It didn't work.

When I say Nolan convinced him that doesn't mean he didn't understand or disliked Superman it just means he didn't feel he could bring Superman to the modern age but Nolan and Goyers take is what led him to believe he could lead a new Superman. That is where he believed he had a good story and such and made the film as a result.

Again you pick the bits out you want and ignore the rest your against Snyder anyway.

I don't remember Miller saying unlike Batman and you're talking about a man whose knowledge of Superman is probably the movies and what he hears from others. Not everyone especially directors are steeped in the comics. If you think any directors gonna be that then you're been ridiculously stupid.

A director need not be steeped in the comics or even a Superman fan.

What I think they need to be is naturally excited about a character like Supes and what they can do with him on film.

Miller did say Batman was a very interesting character in the same quote where he said Superman can be boring. To me that is not the foundation one wants to build on.

 

[BH/HHH]

A director need not be steeped in the comics or even a Superman fan.

What I think they need to be is naturally excited about a character like Supes and what they can do with him on film.

Miller did say Batman was a very interesting character in the same quote where he said Superman can be boring. To me that is not the foundation one wants to build on.

Snyder was excited about Superman just because he wasn't sure how to do it without the idea from Goyer/Nolan does not mean he wasn't.

Since when has saying something can be boring the same as saying it is boring? They're filmmakers paid to make films they don't have to be huge fans of the characters to make a good film.

 

[Tobias]

Snyder was excited about Superman just because he wasn't sure how to do it without the idea from Goyer/Nolan does not mean he wasn't.

Since when has saying something can be boring the same as saying it is boring? They're filmmakers paid to make films they don't have to be huge fans of the characters to make a good film.

Its not the same, but a bit dubious IMO.

I like some of Snyder's films and Singer's films. Love his X-Men. Saying that doesn't mean they are right for Superman.

BvS will tell as regards Snyder on that score. I believe.

 

[Nemeres]

If they're going for organic, I don't know if there's a more meaningful moment for a Superman death than in BVS. It does so many things. Nothing would justify the forming of the JL - the need for that, and the need for other heroes to come out of hiding - more than losing a figure like Superman... and it would provide singularity to a film already in danger of being seen as simply a connective piece towards JL. After Supes and Bats kiss and make up mid-film and WW comes in, I think that's how it could feel. And by bringing in Doomsday in a no-death context, they'd be setting this up to be such a hollow final fight.

People saying it would be "too soon" obviously have a point, but they're missing the bigger picture... in one of the instances where observing "the bigger picture" would ALSO mean not neglecting individual films, because it would also serve this one, and allow it to stand out even more. It could definitely work.

 

[Randompatterns]

I personally hope they don't do that story line simply because I don't think the audience (or at least the general audience) is emotionally invested enough in the character (or at least this version of him) yet.

 

[Tobias]

If they're going for organic, I don't know if there's a more meaningful moment for a Superman death than in BVS. It does so many things. Nothing would justify the forming of the JL - the need for that, and the need for other heroes to come out of hiding - more than losing a figure like Superman... and it would provide singularity to a film already in danger of being seen as simply a connective piece towards JL. After Supes and Bats kiss and make up mid-film and WW comes in, I think that's how it could feel. And by bringing in Doomsday in a no-death context, they'd be setting this up to be such a hollow final fight.

People saying it would be "too soon" obviously have a point, but they're missing the bigger picture... in one of the instances where observing "the bigger picture" would ALSO mean not neglecting individual films, because it would also serve this one, and allow it to stand out even more. It could definitely work.

The bigger picture includes JL1. And fitting a return subplot into the film introducing the JL will make that film crowded even moreso.

Beyond that how do they handle the return? Just have him pop up suddenly in JL1? Or make it feel "real" with an explanation. Superman in stasis at the Fortress with servors and such.

Point is to do the return justice JL1 gets way too busy in terms of plot. I think so anyway.

 

[Nemeres]

The bigger picture includes JL1. And fitting a return subplot into the film introducing the JL will make that film crowded even moreso.

Not at all. Every character would need an arc, that alone could be Superman's. Base the story on that premise -- the absence/return of Superman and whatever the new threat is, then mesh those two threads together. Thus putting Supes at the forefront of the story right from the get-go.

 

[Tobias]

Not at all. Every character would need an arc, that alone could be Superman's. Base the story on that premise -- the absence/return of Superman and whatever the new threat is, then mesh those two threads together. Thus putting Supes at the forefront of the story right from the get-go.

A return arc for Supes in JL1 might start out in the initial shooting script as getting appropriate focus/time. But things evolve and if something has to be cut back it'd probably be that arc. Given the nature of the film.

To do it right it needs focus and screen-time - I think. Not confident it would get that.

 

[RadioSha]

I think more importantly, if he does die in this movie (which I personally don't think will happen), how do you bring him back?

 

[Tobias]

I think more importantly, if he does die in this movie (which I personally don't think will happen), how do you bring him back?

Exposition. To do it right takes screen-time and a thought out arc.which JL1 probably can't afford to devote time to.

For that reason I hope it does not happen. Better to do it between JL1 and JL2.

The worst thing would be to have him suddenly walk out of the Fortress and that is it. He is back.

Instead you bring him back is a logical and real way.

Starting with Kryptonians are not Gods. They do not rise from the dead.

Even in DOS wasn't it left vague. Like he had been in a stasis state all along. Didn't his wounds from the fight heal even though he was 'dead".

So for starters he is not really dead, but just in a stasis state. A heartbeat once every day which no one noticed. That kind of thing.

 

[BH/HHH]

The Death of Superman should be saved for an inevitable rebooted Superman universe someday

 

[Batsfan1]

Up until the end of the film, Superman made his own choices and decisions with his life. But it was through a great evil that put a fork in the road and that was the point. It's not like the message of Spider-Man 3, we can always choose to do what's right. That's a fairytale belief. Because you can often be put in a place where you have no choice.

That's not true. We do always have a choice.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

[wnjcwjkk]

I thought the Death storyline worked well in the comics because they had that whole World Without A Superman arc and then the arc of The Return before his actual return. You really felt his absence, so it made it that much more dramatically satisfying when he came back.


This is another reason I wish DC was doing similar to Marvel, TV series that tie into the world of the movies, Gotham Central for example, or lower tiered heroes like Nightwing. Like, in Daredevil, how you at least get a sense of the repercussions of the big NYC battle from Avengers.


Not exactly a World Without A Superman series, but they could tell the story of another hero, maybe even Steel, and include the impact of the loss of Superman into the story.


I think it's a little too early for that at this point, they need to develop Superman's relationship to the rest of the world a little more. But maybe in the end of the next Superman solo film, he sacrifices himself, doesn't have to be Doomsday, and they deal with the ramifications of that, leading up to his return, in Justice League 2.


Or even make the third Superman solo, if there is one, The Return Of Superman, be a lot of fun to see Cavill as The Eradicator and Cyborg (or just Cyborg if they need to trim it down).