The Double Standards Against Superman

[Skrilla31]

Actually I would argue that Superman is a character who is above no win scenarios.

If Superman can't find a way to succeed, then what hope does that give us?

 

[J.Howlett]

Actually I would argue that Superman is a character who is above no win scenarios.

If Superman can't find a way to succeed, then what hope does that give us?

You're boxing him into a narrative and creative corner is Superman is always above no win situations.

Why invest in anything Superman if we know he's above no win situations?

 

[Skrilla31]

So saving people from impossible situations since you were 13 years old doesn't show how he values human life?

What?

Not when it precedes utter annihilation and destruction at the cost of maybe over 100,000 lives. No, he was never portrayed in this movie as someone who valued human life at all costs.

Clark never went "out of his way" to save people. He didn't spend his days and nights looking to play superhero. He was portrayed as a genuinely good hearted guy who protected those around him when he could. He didn't go out looking to prevent disaster.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'm not just talking about the killing. I'm talking the destruction he caused in Smallville and Metropolis.

I find it nearly impossible to was any kind of Superman motion picture without any preconceived notions.

We don't go into a CBM film saying "This looks interesting let's take a look". It's more "I can't wait to see what I know of the character on screen".

And I understand if people may not like the film because of taste. I just don't like it when people say "That's not Superman"

Why can't Superman go through what that character went through in MOS.

I'm not calling MOS a perfect film. I have a big problem on how they killed off Jonathan Kent. Because in any movie and any situation a person with the ability to save his father would do it. Other than that anything else that Kal did, you can see anyone else doing.

The most thing you can ask for a character is that their heart is in the right place.

Again, for the record, I've already stated the only moment of destruction I personally took issue with was the fall of the scout ship, which Superman was directly resonsible for.

Also, I have never said 'it's not Superman' BECAUSE he killed.

I actually really loved Cavill's portrayal, I think they got a lot right, and all I think is really missing is him having an actual passion against injustice, which I feel has been the core of the character since his conception.

Superman killing in an impossible situation if you have written the story so that there is literally a human life at stake... That's just logical. Of course he'd do it.

My complaint has only ever been that this was the way that it was written, and that they way they handled the situation does not sit right with me for the reasons I've stated over and over again.

I can understand why a lot of Superman purists wanted to see the writers craft a different storyline where he didn't have to kill Zod.

But why? Why take the easy route? I know Superman has killed before, but the vast majority of writers over the years always put him in a situation where he finds some way to outwit the enemy without resorting to killing them.

I thought it was actually a bit of a ballsy move by Snyder to have Superman being forced into an no-win situation where ultimately, someone was going to die. And he had to make the difficult choice of whether that was going to be an innocent human(s), or Zod.

Is it against his moral code? Yes - you can see how he struggled with it.
Is it against our almost messianic image of Superman? Yes, to a certain extent.

But that messianic image has only been formed because decades of writers decided that when push came to shove, it was much easier to have Zod suddenly be dispatched to the phantom zone, or have Superman come up with a Plan B at the end, or for a third party to intervene so that he would never have to kill whoever he was fighting.

In this situation in MOS, there was no other way out, no other options, and no Plan B for Superman. A film isn't like the comics, where characters appear, disappear, die and come back to life many times over in the course of 5, 10 , 20 years. A film has to have a certain finality. He had to make a horrible decision, and I applaud the writers for actually going through with it for once.

I don't think either is the easy way.

In fact, in terms of imagining a believable way of the story ending, MOS took the easy way.

They just said 'this is what the most obvious outcome of two super beings fighting it out would be. Let's not out think it. Let's just go with that.'

The harder thing to do would have been setting up Zod and co being banished to the phantom zone, without it coming off as too cheesy.

But as myself and a few other posters have presented, there where ways of doing it that had the potential of being just as dramatic and climactic.

Im not sure is this post is serious. This is not disrespect to you, cause I think you're sincere.

But this post......

I don't know what your trying to say, but your implying my post is stupid or doesn't make sense in some way, so I guess you didn't understand it...

Isnt always the writers choice as to what happens to character.

MOS is a superhero film. Not a biopic.

I know. That was my point.

That you cannot defend a criticism of the writer's decision to include that scene with 'he had no choice', because he's a fictional character, so it's not about his choice... It's about the writers choice to put him in that positon.

Too handle the killing of Zod would need to be in another film. If Kal were to even start addressing the killing of Zod in MOS the film would need another hour for it to be addressed properly.

The Zod killing, the conversation with Swannick, and the Daily Planet scene was all done for a sequel. The topics brought up in those three things would take on another 2 hours.

I completely disagree.

As I've suggested in my earlier posts, it may have only taken a few attempts on human life (that Supes intervenes) before the final family so that it feels more like a 'last resort' moment; followed by actually mentioning it with a line or two while in the graveyard with his mother.

I'm not saying that the whole film should have been built around that moment... I'm just saying there should have been scenes acknowledging the scale of it.

I mean, the moment itself is designed to acknowledge the scale of Superman killing and how huge it is. Massive, loud crack reverberating through silence and a scream of turmoil.

They got that moment right.

But everything around it is just trivial. Especially what comes after.

So it just sits wrong.

 

[Skrilla31]

You're boxing him into a narrative and creative corner is Superman is always above no win situations.

Why invest in anything Superman if we know he's above no win situations?

Have you ever read a Superman comic, or watched a Superman cartoon, or watched a Superman movie... and ever ONCE thought to yourself that Superman wasn't going to come out on top in the end?

No matter what obstacles may appear, no matter how unlikely the odds seem stacked against him... Superman always finds a way.

 

[blumatic]

Actually I would argue that Superman is a character who is above no win scenarios.

If Superman can't find a way to succeed, then what hope does that give us?

Define success. Superman is here to prevent the Earth from being annihilated. If there is a evil power as strong as he is, there will be damage.

Even in Superman 2, Superman had to throw Kryptonians through buildings, with alot of people in them.

But I rather have Superman be in a no win scenario early and watch him grow from that, than to have that at the end of a trilogy and have no answer for it.

 

[Skrilla31]

Define success. Superman is here to prevent the Earth from being annihilated. If there is a evil power as strong as he is, there will be damage.

Even in Superman 2, Superman had to throw Kryptonians through buildings, with alot of people in them.

But I rather have Superman be in a no win scenario early and watch him grow from that, than to have that at the end of a trilogy and have no answer for it.

Well it depends. If we are to assume that Superman wanted to stop Zod at all costs but WITHOUT killing him... then Superman failed.

But once again it's not like those terms were ever spelled out for the audience or even hinted at. So the audience is just left scratching their heads.

 

[Krumm]

I know. That was my point.

That you cannot defend a criticism of the writer's decision to include that scene with 'he had no choice', because he's a fictional character, so it's not about his choice... It's about the writers choice to put him in that positon.

This becomes a bit of slippery slope. If we follow this than we can never really discuss the merits of any character because his or her choices are never their own.

 

[J.Howlett]

Have you ever read a Superman comic, or watched a Superman cartoon, or watched a Superman movie... and ever ONCE thought to yourself that Superman wasn't going to come out on top in the end?

No matter what obstacles may appear, no matter how unlikely the odds seem stacked against him... Superman always finds a way.

Didn't he find a way at the end of Man of Steel?

Not condoning killing but did he not find a way?

Considering the Kal-El we were presented in this film and the odds, did he not find a way?

 

[Skrilla31]

Didn't he find a way at the end of Man of Steel?

Not condoning killing but did he not find a way?

Considering the Kal-El we were presented in this film and the odds, did he not find a way?

Sure he found a way. I'm just not sure why it caused him to go into a mental distraught and why it took a family of four to finally motivate him.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Have you ever read a Superman comic, or watched a Superman cartoon, or watched a Superman movie... and ever ONCE thought to yourself that Superman wasn't going to come out on top in the end?

No matter what obstacles may appear, no matter how unlikely the odds seem stacked against him... Superman always finds a way.

And instead of ending up on top, we have a Superman film (the one which re introduces an entire generation of people to the character) in which the big fight ends with him on his knees, crying.

But hey, as Green Goblin said in Spider-man 1:

The one thing they love more than a hero, is to see a hero fail, fall, die trying.

 

[J.Howlett]

People seem to forget that Kal's plan to defeat Zod and his warriors was to send them back to the Phantom Zone. That's the plan from the outset, set forth by Jor-El and carried out by his son.

So, it's not like the guy went looking to kill Kryptonians in the climax. He did exactly what he said he was going to do. But, one was left. And that ONE was a superior warrior of the two, hellbent on complete destruction of Kal-El and the inhabitants of Earth, one by one.

I don't care how people spin this situation or make the case that the writers put Superman in this position to have this ending...this ending was done for character reasons. It's an ending that's structurally solid for a character that's just coming to terms with what he is, what he was meant to do, and a character just coming to full terms of his how powerful he is and what he could become.

It's a situation that truly tests Superman and he comes out victorious...with an asterisk.

I fail to really see the problem of the situation and how it's presented.

And I don't want to hear ******** about me need to read the comics to understand Superman. Forget that. It's about the film and what's in the film. I don't and shouldn't need prior knowledge to understand the film.

Man of Steel presents everything clearly. That ending feels completely earned.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

This becomes a bit of slippery slope. If we follow this than we can never really discuss the merits of any character because his or her choices are never their own.

Not in the slightest.

I'm simply saying MY ISSUE in this instance, isn't with the characters decision in the moment.

It's with the situation being written as an ending to this movie in the first place. And the fact I don't think it was written well.

It's just apparently hard for people to seperate the two.

Every time I say 'I don't like the ending because Superman killed Zod', people always immediately counter with 'he had no choice'.

I'm just trying to explain - I know he had no choice. Like Dr. Said, they made that pretty air tight.

I just don't like that this is how the film had to end.

I think they should have ended with triumph, not defeat.

And Superman on his knees, crying, is ending the film with defeat.

 

[J.Howlett]

Sure he found a way. I'm just not sure why it caused him to go into a mental distraught and why it took a family of four to finally motivate him.

It wasn't about a family of four motivating him. It's about innocents were about to get annihilated right in front of him. Like he did the entire damn film, he tried to save lives.

Does taking out the World Engine not count at saving actual lives?

 

[blumatic]

Well it depends. If we are to assume that Superman wanted to stop Zod at all costs but WITHOUT killing him... then Superman failed.

But once again it's not like those terms were ever spelled out for the audience or even hinted at. So the audience is just left scratching their heads.

The agenda of a superhero is to end the the threat. Most films have always found an out via a device or a change of heart by the villain to end the threat. In Batman Begins, Dark Knight Rises, and Man of Steel the hero by his own hands without any help ended the threat by taking the villains life, or choosing not to save it.

It was shocking to see Kal kill Zod, especially by snapping his neck. But where he was with Zod, how he had, how the just had this epic battle and lives were imminently in danger and after pleading Zod to stop. It made sense to alot of people a few seconds later.

 

[J.Howlett]

Not in the slightest.

I'm simply saying MY ISSUE in this instance, isn't with the characters decision in the moment.

It's with the situation being written as an ending to this movie in the first place. And the fact I don't think it was written well.

It's just apparently hard for people to seperate the two.

Every time I say 'I don't like the ending because Superman killed Zod', people always immediately counter with 'he had no choice'.

I'm just trying to explain - I know he had no choice. Like Dr. Said, they made that pretty air tight.

I just don't like that this is how the film had to end.

I think they should have ended with triumph, not defeat.

And Superman on his knees, crying, is ending the film with defeat.

It's not a defeat. But it's not a win either.

 

[J.Howlett]

At the end of the day, this all comes down to presentation. Prior to Man of Steel, destruction in any Superman tale was never at this level and it pisses people off from some reason.

Considering the genre Snyder and Goyer used for this film, I don't see why anyone is surprised by the level at which Snyder presents it. Some of the animated episodes of Superman had the same type of destruction. It's presented in a cartoon manner.

Not here. But, they're not that dissimilar from one another. Destruction is destruction.

 

[Skrilla31]

It wasn't about a family of four motivating him. It's about innocents were about to get annihilated right in front of him. Like he did the entire damn film, he tried to save lives.

Does taking out the World Engine not count at saving actual lives?

You mean like the innocents that were destroyed during his bombastic fist to fist showdown with General Zod? How many innocents do you think died up until that point? Why did it take THAT moment for him to finally get up and say, "Okay I guess I have to kill this guy now".

And furthermore, why did he feel so bad about it? Zod wasn't human. Zod wasn't innocent. If Kal El valued human life above all, then surely he wouldn't have felt so distraught about killing a man who was about to bring mass genocide to the human race... especially if he did his best to prevent it and there was absolutely no other option.

 

[Skrilla31]

It was shocking to see Kal kill Zod, especially by snapping his neck. But where he was with Zod, how he had, how the just had this epic battle and lives were imminently in danger and after pleading Zod to stop. It made sense to alot of people a few seconds later.

You know what didn't make sense though? Him waiting that long to kill him. And you know what made even less sense? Him crying about it moments after.

That's all we're saying.

 

[blumatic]

Not in the slightest.

I'm simply saying MY ISSUE in this instance, isn't with the characters decision in the moment.

It's with the situation being written as an ending to this movie in the first place. And the fact I don't think it was written well.

It's just apparently hard for people to seperate the two.

Every time I say 'I don't like the ending because Superman killed Zod', people always immediately counter with 'he had no choice'.

I'm just trying to explain - I know he had no choice. Like Dr. Said, they made that pretty air tight.

I just don't like that this is how the film had to end.

I think they should have ended with triumph, not defeat.

And Superman on his knees, crying, is ending the film with defeat.

Ok I got you. I understand. But I dont really know how handle Kal killing Zod afterwards. Why do you say its a defeat? Its not a pure victory. But Superman didnt lose.

Superman losing means that he died, cause I think a hero shouldnt care about his own life when trying to save others. Or he gives up and quits. That's a loss.
I agree he wants triumphant, but you cant act triumphant that way. I felt the film ended appropriately by ending the way it did. I believe it didnt dismiss Zod but just gave a taste of things to come with the conversation with Swannick and the DP scene.


I wasnt trying to disrespect you at all. Your post seemed counter intuitive to me. Thats all.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

It's not a defeat. But it's not a win either.

It FEELS so much like a defeat.

The fact Zod wants it. The fact Superman doesn't want to do it and begs him to stop, but eventually has to 'give in' to what Zod wants and kill him. The fact the neck snap and his harrowing scream then echo around the theatre... And then his breakdown in Lois arms.

I swear, it's like they added in the 'lighter' scenes that follow as an after thought cause someone at WB went 'Uh, we have to have a happier ending than that...'

 

[blumatic]

You know what didn't make sense though? Him waiting that long to kill him. And you know what made even less sense? Him crying about it moments after.

That's all we're saying.

Whoa!!!!! So Superman's first instinct should be to kill Zod?

And should not feel remorse afterwards.

Please correct me if Im wrong.

Side note: I love conversation so I really appreciate your view and hopefuldreamer's as well.

 

[Skrilla31]

Whoa!!!!! So Superman's first instinct should be to kill Zod?

And should not feel remorse afterwards.

Please correct me if Im wrong.

Side note: I love conversation so I really appreciate your view and hopefuldreamer's as well.

No of course not.

But as it pertained to this movie? Then yea probably. Because obviously this Superman is not above killing.

You saw the movie just like the rest of us. Ask yourself why this Superman would feel any type of remorse after killing Zod. It was the only solution wasn't it?

 

[blumatic]

It FEELS so much like a defeat.

The fact Zod wants it. The fact Superman doesn't want to do it and begs him to stop, but eventually has to 'give in' to what Zod wants and kill him. The fact the neck snap and his harrowing scream then echo around the theatre... And then his breakdown in Lois arms.

I swear, it's like they added in the 'lighter' scenes that follow as an after thought cause someone at WB went 'Uh, we have to have a happier ending than that...'

You whats happening here. Im agreeing with you and disagreeing with you at the same time.

Kal in Lois' arms to me is not a defeat. Its just a tough situation.

I can understand that you feel Zod's death was an after thought. But I saw it as, let's set things up for his next journey.

To me, Kal killing deserves to addressed fully. I think that if a single word was utter about the killing they would have to extend the movie. If they trying t wrap up the film at that point the conversation to me would have been cut short or not addressed appropriately. With Superman screaming and Lois comforting him, you can tell its an issue already.

The scenes afterward ended Pa Kents story on continued Kal's. It was nice to see DP Clark "There he is!!!"

I do understand but I dont think they did a bad job. I thought the did a job.

 

[blumatic]

No of course not.

But as it pertained to this movie? Then yea probably. Because obviously this Superman is not above killing.

You saw the movie just like the rest of us. Ask yourself why this Superman would feel any type of remorse after killing Zod. It was the only solution wasn't it?

Should a mother not feel remorse or feel bad that she gave her child up for adoption or to a more financially stable family when she knows she has no ability to raise a child because she is poor? Should she not cry? She did the right thing. But it would be awkward if he started patting herself on the back.

Or when a cop kills for the first time. Should he not feel remorse for guilt.

I dont Superman is ever above killing. No superhero is. They just dont want to kill.