BvS The Death of Superman!

[Herolee10]

I rather them get the death out the way, now. So we know they won't try it again later on.

As some say in life, timing everything/crucial. They shouldn't do a story like that now, imho, just to simply get it out of the way.

Plus, it needs to be earned, and no matter how much I liked mos.... it hasn't gotten to the point where we should see the character die now.

Does anyone think that batman should have encountered bane and get his back broken in the second nolan film as oppposed to the third? Should anakin have turned evil in attack of the clones instead? Or should aragorn have accepted his destiney as a king of gondor in two towers as opposed to doing so in rotk?

Considering that we're in the delicate stage of further expanding the dcu by bringing in these heroes while prepping to get the justice league ready, the last thing on anyone's mind should be to play out the dos card.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I honestly feel that if they're considering the death of Superman for the second film in the series, it's purely a response to the massive casualties that have become an omnipresent part of MOS discussions since that movie came out.

The thinking seems to be, "Well, if Superman dies for humanity, there's no way we can keep blaming him for all those casualties he was essentially responsible for in MOS!"

Except of course he's not responsible for "all those casualties". Anymore than the "escalation" caused by Batman in the Nolan film's means he's responsible for The Joker's victims. And much in the way the mass audience didn't see it that way in TDK I don't think outside of the internet forum/cyber community most watchers hold anything close to such a view of MOS.

Please, whether you hate the film or like it, actually re-watch it and get back to me on how much death and destruction Clark is responsible for. The destruction at the center of Metropolis (cuz it aint the WHOLE of the city that is destroyed) is (for the millionth time) NOT FROM SUPERMAN AND ZOD'S BATTLE BUT A RESULT OF THE BLACK ZERO/WORLD ENGINE GRAVITY BEAM. Superman didn't do that if I recall.

When the actual throw down with Zod starts the one total building collapse that happens is a result of Zod's heat vision. The rest of their fight, no buildings come down (and the reason that there are plenty of buildings standing is cuz again, the GRAVITY BEAM devastates a portion of mid town Metropolis but the vast majority of the city is spared the attack) though Zod and Superman's clash does result in damage to buildings, when Zod and Superman skid one another across building exteriors, when Zod and Superman impact one another causing a large portion of building facade to be pulverized and when Zod throws Superman through buildings right before he and Superman rocket into orbit. But... The buildings, like most of the city are still standing. In fact about the only thing unclear to me is whether the parking garage at the start of the fight collapses totally, or if the damage looks worse than it is. However, unless one is being wilfully obtuse, no, Superman wasn't responsible for any of the large scale death and destruction which goes down before he even arrives in Metropolis, especially since the fight itself, which wasn't nearly as destructive as the Gravity Beam was the result of an alien warrior's promise to go on a genocidal kill crazy rampage.

 

[dhandler01]

Actually Anakin should have turned evil in Attack of the Clones...he should have killed Dooku and become Vader. The third film should have been "Rise of the Empire" where Obiwon tries to save Anakin but Vader hunts down and destroys the Jedi. Instead of making him evil cause he killed younglings which was just stupid he should have been a force of darkness that systematically destroyed the Jedi order one by one while the emperor took control of the Republic as a whole.

Your point is true however, you dont do DOS just cause you want it out of the way. I am starting to wonder if people have actually read the story. it does not work in a new universe. It certainly will not work in a universe where the hero isnt even trusted by half the people of Metropolis.

Think about it, for it to work people are going to have to trust and mourn a hero for doing exactly the same thing he did before which is why they dont trust him. That is Michael Bay-esque style writing. It makes less than zero sense. Plus how do you even make Doomsday a threat on the level that would even possibly make that work when you have to focus part of the movie on Lex's rise to power and Batman and superman's arc. Doomsday just becomes your basic alien thug if you do DOS in this film.

 

[dhandler01]

Except of course he's not responsible for "all those casualties". Anymore than the "escalation" caused by Batman in the Nolan film's means he's responsible for The Joker's victims. And much in the way the mass audience didn't see it that way in TDK I don't think outside of the internet forum/cyber community most watchers hold anything close to such a view of MOS.

Please, whether you hate the film or like it, actually re-watch it and get back to me on how much death and destruction Clark is responsible for. The destruction at the center of Metropolis (cuz it aint the WHOLE of the city that is destroyed) is (for the millionth time) NOT FROM SUPERMAN AND ZOD'S BATTLE BUT A RESULT OF THE BLACK ZERO/WORLD ENGINE GRAVITY BEAM. Superman didn't do that if I recall.

When the actual throw down with Zod starts the one total building collapse that happens is a result of Zod's heat vision. The rest of their fight, no buildings come down (and the reason that there are plenty of buildings standing is cuz again, the GRAVITY BEAM devastates a portion of mid town Metropolis but the vast majority of the city is spared the attack) though Zod and Superman's clash does result in damage to buildings, when Zod and Superman skid one another across building exteriors, when Zod and Superman impact one another causing a large portion of building facade to be pulverized and when Zod throws Superman through buildings right before he and Superman rocket into orbit. But... The buildings, like most of the city are still standing. In fact about the only thing unclear to me is whether the parking garage at the start of the fight collapses totally, or if the damage looks worse than it is. However, unless one is being wilfully obtuse, no, Superman wasn't responsible for any of the large scale death and destruction which goes down before he even arrives in Metropolis, especially since the fight itself, which wasn't nearly as destructive as the Gravity Beam was the result of an alien warrior's promise to go on a genocidal kill crazy rampage.

I dont think he believes Supes is responsible, but that those who want this storyline and the studio might believe that.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Actually Anakin should have turned evil in Attack of the Clones...he should have killed Dooku and become Vader. The third film should have been "Rise of the Empire" where Obiwon tries to save Anakin but Vader hunts down and destroys the Jedi. Instead of making him evil cause he killed younglings which was just stupid he should have been a force of darkness that systematically destroyed the Jedi order one by one while the emperor took control of the Republic as a whole.

Your point is true however, you dont do DOS just cause you want it out of the way. I am starting to wonder if people have actually read the story. it does not work in a new universe. It certainly will not work in a universe where the hero isnt even trusted by half the people of Metropolis.

Think about it, for it to work people are going to have to trust and mourn a hero for doing exactly the same thing he did before which is why they dont trust him. That is Michael Bay-esque style writing. It makes less than zero sense. Plus how do you even make Doomsday a threat on the level that would even possibly make that work when you have to focus part of the movie on Lex's rise to power and Batman and superman's arc. Doomsday just becomes your basic alien thug if you do DOS in this film.

How do we know that, though?

A statue being built of him doesn't indicate that people don't trust him at all. It spells the opposite.

A couple of years might have passed already and he's done enough to earn everybody's trust.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I dont think he believes Supes is responsible, but that those who want this storyline and the studio might believe that.

Forgive me, but I don't think the executives at WB or the creative people on this project view things in such a way in the least. AVS was seeming to do what many here on the net do... Project big time his view onto others. I xon't think the suits at WB/DCE have done any soul searching and believe that MOS, or the version of Superman in it are guilty of "sins" that amends must be made for, and I for damn well have a hard time thinking Snyder or Goyer think so either.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Snyder and Co stand behind the choices they made and to have them concede to the negativity surrounding Zod's death and the destruction of the city, will only weaken and cheapen their views. It won't be the case. They won't think of rectifying the things we the audience think they need to make amends for. Because, in their eyes, what happened happened, it was inevitable and necessary.

Superman's death, if it comes to that, won't be in response of what happened in MOS.

 

[HaplessHenchman]

Actually Anakin should have turned evil in Attack of the Clones...he should have killed Dooku and become Vader. The third film should have been "Rise of the Empire" where Obiwon tries to save Anakin but Vader hunts down and destroys the Jedi. Instead of making him evil cause he killed younglings which was just stupid he should have been a force of darkness that systematically destroyed the Jedi order one by one while the emperor took control of the Republic as a whole.

Your point is true however, you dont do DOS just cause you want it out of the way. I am starting to wonder if people have actually read the story. it does not work in a new universe. It certainly will not work in a universe where the hero isnt even trusted by half the people of Metropolis.

Think about it, for it to work people are going to have to trust and mourn a hero for doing exactly the same thing he did before which is why they dont trust him. That is Michael Bay-esque style writing. It makes less than zero sense. Plus how do you even make Doomsday a threat on the level that would even possibly make that work when you have to focus part of the movie on Lex's rise to power and Batman and superman's arc. Doomsday just becomes your basic alien thug if you do DOS in this film.

You know, before reading this I was thinking that the DOS storyline could work if done properly.

However, now I see the problem with doing it this soon. With all the other plot lines this movie has to put out there (BM and SM meeting, rise of Luthor, rebuilding of Metropolis after MOS, Daily Planet staff, etc...) adding the DOS onto it seems a bit much.

Could they do it later after things are a bit more established? Of course, just not this early.

P.S. The flowers at the statue could mean anything. Like someone else said, it could be just the anniversary of the Metropolis attack and people put flowers there to mourn Zod's victims.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Then that must mean that statue symbolises that the citizens of Metropolis trust Superman and see him as their protector. So, the case must, some time has past for him to gain their trust and admiration.

I really doubt the statue and the flowers mean an anniversary thing. Because it doesn't explain the fact that the statue is in pieces when the flowers are being laid, and doesn't explain why every emergency and news crew is present.

People's distaste of the possibility of him dying, doesn't take away the fact that it might be a possibility.
I'm hearing theories that contradicts facts and rumours that Doomsday may be present and the DOS is featured in the storyline. Visual evidence as well. Whatever the circumstances of those things are, of course. I'm simply applying the most obvious form of logic to what I'm seeing, hearing and theorising about those pics and the storyline.

There's no confirmation or denial of either thing at the moment, so I'm keeping an open mind about what MAY or MAY NOT, happen.

 

[Majik1387]

As some say in life, timing everything/crucial. They shouldn't do a story like that now, imho, just to simply get it out of the way.

Plus, it needs to be earned, and no matter how much I liked mos.... it hasn't gotten to the point where we should see the character die now.

Does anyone think that batman should have encountered bane and get his back broken in the second nolan film as oppposed to the third? Should anakin have turned evil in attack of the clones instead? Or should aragorn have accepted his destiney as a king of gondor in two towers as opposed to doing so in rotk?

Considering that we're in the delicate stage of further expanding the dcu by bringing in these heroes while prepping to get the justice league ready, the last thing on anyone's mind should be to play out the dos card.

This. So much this.

 

[Herolee10]

Then that must mean that statue symbolises that the citizens of Metropolis trust Superman and see him as their protector. So, the case must, some time has past for him to gain their trust and admiration.

I really doubt the statue and the flowers mean an anniversary thing. Because it doesn't explain the fact that the statue is in pieces when the flowers are being laid, and doesn't explain why every emergency and news crew is present.

People's distaste of the possibility of him dying, doesn't take away the fact that it might be a possibility.
I'm hearing theories that contradicts facts and rumours that Doomsday may be present and the DOS is featured in the storyline. Visual evidence as well. Whatever the circumstances of those things are, of course. I'm simply applying the most obvious form of logic to what I'm seeing, hearing and theorising about those pics and the storyline.

There's no confirmation or denial of either thing at the moment, so I'm keeping an open mind about what MAY or MAY NOT, happen.

Didn't someone report on saying that a scene involving vandals coming about and causing trouble to the statue and ppl at it were filmed? Maybe it's possible that something bad happened at the statue involving civilians and ppl are there to mourn for that. Plus, I'm willing to believe in the sites that reported that the statue is there to honor superman for the events of mos as opposed to the rumors that latino review is throwing around.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Didn't someone report on saying that a scene involving vandals coming about and causing trouble to the statue and ppl at it were filmed? Maybe it's possible that something bad happened at the statue involving civilians and ppl are there to mourn for that. Plus, I'm willing to believe in the sites that reported that the statue is there to honor superman for the events of mos as opposed to the rumors that latino review is throwing around.

...Why didn't anybody tell me that before?
I agree. I believe the statue is there to honour Superman for all his hardships. They wouldn't do that if wasn't to be trusted I don't think.

But what must he of done to cause people to decimate his statue I wonder? The mystery thickens

 

[Majik1387]

Maybe some of Metropolis still doesn't find him heroic after MoS, and vandalizing the statue is their way of retaliating.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Yeah

There might be people that think it's disgusting to give him a statue and blame him for what happened in the previous film.

 

[Herolee10]

If we go on real world reaction basis, then it shouldn't be hard for groups of people to think of reasons, as dumb as they may be, to hate superman since the hype seemingly does that on a regular basis.lol

 

[MrsKent26]

Some people would definitely have reasons to hate him and Lex Luthor would certainly fan the flames.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Very true

But it's the old saying, "mud sticks"

An example I can use is Michael Jackson.
He was vindicated in court, but you still see people call him a pedophile, despite the Not Guilty verdict.
It's like, no matter what you do, you still have ignorant people believe the worst about you.

So I'm guessing, there'll be a bunch of people who think Superman was to blame for what happened and they hate a statue of him being built.
Haters, they are.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Except of course he's not responsible for "all those casualties". Anymore than the "escalation" caused by Batman in the Nolan film's means he's responsible for The Joker's victims. And much in the way the mass audience didn't see it that way in TDK I don't think outside of the internet forum/cyber community most watchers hold anything close to such a view of MOS.

Please, whether you hate the film or like it, actually re-watch it and get back to me on how much death and destruction Clark is responsible for. The destruction at the center of Metropolis (cuz it aint the WHOLE of the city that is destroyed) is (for the millionth time) NOT FROM SUPERMAN AND ZOD'S BATTLE BUT A RESULT OF THE BLACK ZERO/WORLD ENGINE GRAVITY BEAM. Superman didn't do that if I recall.

When the actual throw down with Zod starts the one total building collapse that happens is a result of Zod's heat vision. The rest of their fight, no buildings come down (and the reason that there are plenty of buildings standing is cuz again, the GRAVITY BEAM devastates a portion of mid town Metropolis but the vast majority of the city is spared the attack) though Zod and Superman's clash does result in damage to buildings, when Zod and Superman skid one another across building exteriors, when Zod and Superman impact one another causing a large portion of building facade to be pulverized and when Zod throws Superman through buildings right before he and Superman rocket into orbit. But... The buildings, like most of the city are still standing. In fact about the only thing unclear to me is whether the parking garage at the start of the fight collapses totally, or if the damage looks worse than it is. However, unless one is being wilfully obtuse, no, Superman wasn't responsible for any of the large scale death and destruction which goes down before he even arrives in Metropolis, especially since the fight itself, which wasn't nearly as destructive as the Gravity Beam was the result of an alien warrior's promise to go on a genocidal kill crazy rampage.

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?

 

[Bathead]

[never mind}

 

[John-An]

Again with that discussion?
Superman didn't have a choice with Zod. No matter which "theories" some could make up, the result would be the same or worst for humanity.
Superman is "responsible" for Zod appearence as Batman is for Joker. the difference is that Superman is a global hero, which Batman (for now) is Gotham hero. the casualties, the consequences were bigger cause the threat was bigger and dangerous, it wasn't about the hero, it was about the villain that the hero had to defeat.

I repeat... in some cases, some confuse flaws with something people wanted different.

And some just confuse that cause the point is that being a child not genetically enginnering, is THAT SUPERMAN CHOOSE HIS DESTINY (along with the teaching of Jor-el, Martha and Johnathan) he choose helping people as the explanation of Clark wanting to work at the DP to help people, he wasn't predestinated as that or enginnering created. HE CHOOSED THAT WAY as he always was doing heroics. He was different and of course some guys apparently didn't see that.

Superman was responsible for stopping the mass destruction and casualties from Metropolis, cause he stopped the WE.
Even when his powers were decreasing he choose the humanity over his race, also in other ocassions as when he surrender to Zod at the beginning, he was saving people at the beginning, saving Lois and the aircraft from Zod and destroying the scout ship, giving the military his ship to stop the kryptonians, stopping Faora and Nam-ek on Smallville, those things pals are the traits of the symbol of hope, never giving up, always looking out for the weak, always overcome the mistakes of the past and look after the humans. That's the building of "hope" that the movie treated.

 

[Majik1387]

Again with that discussion?
Superman didn't have a choice with Zod. No matter which "theories" some could make up, the result would be the same or worst for humanity.
Superman is "responsible" for Zod appearence as Batman is for Joker. the difference is that Superman is a global hero, which Batman (for now) is Gotham hero.

I repeat... in some cases, some confuse flaws with something people wanted different.

And some just confuse, Superman was responsible for stopping the mass destruction and casualties from Metropolis, cause he stopped the WE.
Even his powers were decreasing he choose the humanity over his race, also in other ocassions as when he surrender to Zod at the beginning, he was saving people at the beginning, stopping Faora and Nam-ek.

This.

 

[John-An]

TDOS is not happening here. things are not as we first see them. The statue may refered to some attack on the statue opening causing some casualties (that explain the honors)

And the thing I agree is that we don't need the DOS for now, we need to see the stablished hero that is 2 years from MOS and has done some heroics that cause the statue homage.

 

[Bathead]

Exactly.
Just exercise your imaginations a little and you can find tons of logical reasons for these pics other than the DoS and Doomsday.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Well, had we have known there were to be vandals in this thing...

In the perfect Christopher Reeve world, there would be no such thing. In the realistic Cavill world of Superman, not matter how many cats he rescues out of trees, he's still to be hated

 

[John-An]

Exactly.
Just exercise your imaginations a little and you can find tons of logical reasons for these pics other than the DoS and Doomsday.

Yep. I'm basing on the scene that a pal who's an extra that a scene from some anti-superman and a weird guy comes from that multitude with a symbol on his head. Obviously the most probable scenario is an attack that Superman couldn't save everybody on there. Probably planned by Luthor.