The Double Standards Against Superman

[hopefuldreamer]

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.

I never said I think Zod's death was an after thought.

I said the 'lighter' scenes after where an after thought...

*sigh*

I enjoy conversing too, but I do feel like a lot of my posts are just me repeating myself because people haven't taken in the content of my previous posts.

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.

That's crazy.

Why can't you have a verbal acknowledgement of what we saw in his emotional response, and still have the full extent of it explored in a sequel?

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

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.

I agree on those two scenes.

Personally, I'd have left out the military one (Something like that would have been better left as one of the first scenes of the next movie), and instead gone straight to Clark talking to his Dad's grave about everything that happened.

Telling his Dad he'd finally been ready, and that he was right and they were afraid of him. Telling him he had to hurt someone, and he knows there was no other way but he feels so affected by it.

And then have Martha come up behind him and comfort him and tell him what he'd done was be the hero his dad always hoped he'd be.

You could still then move into him talking about wanting to do more to help, wanting to be around the action etc, and go to the DP scene.

I just feel like that would have been such a better way of dealing with it.

 

[J.Howlett]

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.

Or he felt distraught by the fact that he actually killed? Not only did he kill, he killed his last remaining link to his homeland.

It's not about the fact that it was Zod. It was about the fact that he actually had to do the deed. That's why the distraught.

 

[Skrilla31]

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.

You see this is the problem. Superman didn't want to kill Zod but he felt he had to. Why? Because if he didn't, Zod was going to kill that innocent family and god knows how many more. And we all know that's the last thing Superman wants, right?

But then if Superman had that kind of profound love for humans then why didn't he try and kill Zod long before the two of them ever engaged in a destructive battle that no doubt killed hundreds of thousands of people. And why was the family of four the breaking point and not the moment the first innocent life was lost.

It basically boils down to had Superman made a personal vow to protect human life at all cost, then killing Zod wouldn't have effected him as deeply as the movie chose to convey. Again, WHY is he so distraught at the thought of killing Zod when it was something that he deemed the only moral solution? The way he reacted you would think he caused the death of an innocent human (oh wait... )

As for your cop analogy, it depends on the victim doesn't it? Do you think a cop might have felt remorse after pulling the trigger on Bin Laden back in September of 2001? Probably not. Not if he thought Bin Laden was a national threat. But we're not even talking about remorse here. Superman felt borderline agony after killing Zod. WHY???? The movie NEVER clues us in on Superman's moral code outside of him just being an all around good guy who helps people.

Had the movie plainly spelled out or at least hinted at Superman's opposition towards murder, or his profound respect and love for all life... then his reaction would have made a little more sense. But in the context of the movie, it really doesn't.

 

[J.Howlett]

Had the movie plainly spelled out or at least hinted at Superman's opposition towards murder, or his profound respect and love for all life... then his reaction would have made a little more sense. But in the context of the movie, it really doesn't.

Well, it kind of did. We are presented with a character who literally can't be aggressive towards another soul because of his power, even while we saw at one certain time (which I'm sure was followed by many) being bulled. Either way, he can't.

Cut to the end when he's finally aggressive, he witnesses the raw strength of his power and that's gotta be an upsetting moment, considering the fact that basically on the same day is when he throws his first punches in his life.

Just sayin'....it's not like the film doesn't get us some ammunition to make up our minds about the actually act that traumatizes him.

 

[jmc]

What baffles me to this day is how people have reacted to Superman killing Zod. He did the exact same thing 30 years ago in Superman 2, in fact it was worse then because Zod was de-powered and defenseless and was no longer a threat to anyone, and all the while Clark had a smirk on his face. I'm mean really? For 30 years I've heard not one peep out of anyone regarding Zod's fate in Superman 2, yet for some reason MoS, who's grounds for Zod's death at the hands of Superman are far more justifiable, has everybody losing their collective ****. The only thing I can conclude is that it's the manner of his death which rubs people the wrong way, but the death isn't the problem, it's everything leading up to it. Ultimately what this whole discussion amounts to is further proof of the film's inadequacies and Snyder's inability to develop a proper character arc and showcase the best qualities of Superman in a proper light. In the right hands that ending is powerful, emotional, and heartbreaking, akin to the hollow victory Batman got in TDK. But there's a carelessness involved with MoS, Synder and Co were too busy showing off Superman's powers they neglected to show off his humanity at the right time. There's a recklessness to his actions which is acceptable early on given this is literally day one Superman, but the relentless fighting during the last Act of the film leaves no room for him to realize the consequence of those actions, and thus the death of Zod seems out of character. I watched the ending again yesterday - the destruction is insanely overloaded. The problem isn't how Superman killed Zod, the problem is the build up to it being executed poorly.

 

[J.Howlett]

What baffles me to this day is how people have reacted to Superman killing Zod. He did the exact same thing 30 years ago in Superman 2, in fact it was worse then because Zod was de-powered and defenseless and was no longer a threat to anyone, and all the while Clark had a smirk on his face. I'm mean really? For 30 years I've heard not one peep out of anyone regarding Zod's fate in Superman 2, yet for some reason MoS, who's grounds for Zod's death at the hands of Superman are far more justifiable, has everybody losing their collective ****. The only thing I can conclude is that it's the manner of his death which rubs people the wrong way, but the death isn't the problem, it's everything leading up to it. Ultimately what this whole discussion amounts to is further proof of the film's inadequacies and Snyder's inability to develop a proper character arc and showcase the best qualities of Superman in a proper light. In the right hands that ending is powerful, emotional, and heartbreaking, akin to the hollow victory Batman got in TDK. But there's a carelessness involved with MoS, Synder and Co were too busy showing off Superman's powers they neglected to show off his humanity at the right time. There's a recklessness to his actions which is acceptable early on given this is literally day one Superman, but the relentless fighting during the last Act of the film leaves no room for him to realize the consequence of those actions, and thus the death of Zod seems out of character. I watched the ending again yesterday - the destruction is insanely overloaded. The problem isn't how Superman killed Zod, the problem is the build up to it being executed poorly.

See, that's the thing...I agree mostly with this, although I thought the film had plenty of character development for the character.

It's just the presentation of the destruction of Metropolis. Even as a lover of this film, it's ungodly destructive, even while technically not by Kal's hand. I have no idea what Snyder does with the sequel, especially with Batman and maybe others involved.

Kal's fight with Zod is where Snyder went overboard, I'm not going disagree, even while I enjoy the spectacle and technical proficiency to which they pulled it off. Everything leading up to that, I personally think is fine. It has a place and a reason for it.

 

[jmc]

I've always said the foundations for MoS is actually really strong, it's just executed in a poor way. I can actually replay a much better version of that movie in my head. In better hands, that film is not only the best superhero movie of all time, it's a masterpiece, but it can only be judged for what it is.

 

[J.Howlett]

I've always said the foundations for MoS is actually really strong, it's just executed in a poor way. I can actually replay a much better version of that movie in my head. In better hands, that film is not only the best superhero movie of all time, it's a masterpiece, but it can only be judge for what it is.

It is what it is for people. It's in my top five of the genre, without fail. It just clicks for me and I'm gladly admit that it has a lot to do with the fact that I'm a parent to two boys. Father and son stories, even flawed, work wonders on me.

All of the flaws that tend to creep up when I rewatch Man of Steel go completely by the way side when that last flashback of Jonathan Kent happens at the end.

Seen the film 8 times, still get chocked up at that part.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Agree with both you guys on some of those points.

But it's that sense of seeing the potential that makes the overall product even more dissapointing to me.

I will say this though, it is one of the strongest superhero films in terms of evoking emotion.

I was balling from the first scene.

 

[jmc]

There's nothing worse than seeing a really good film executed poorly. I can't watch the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises because I see the potential of what that film could have been and it depresses me to no end.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

There's nothing worse than seeing a really good film executed poorly. I can't watch the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises because I see the potential of what that film could have been and it depresses me to no end.

I understand that.

I mean, personally the messages within that film resonated with me enough to overlook a lot of the plot holes. But I can definitely see it could have been better.

With MOS, I didn't feel there where any messages of much merit too understand... And even the ones you could argue where in there, I didn't agree with. Like pretty much everything with JK.

 

[J.Howlett]

There's nothing worse than seeing a really good film executed poorly. I can't watch the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises because I see the potential of what that film could have been and it depresses me to no end.

How the hell do you think I felt after witnessing Thor The Dark World?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

How the hell do you think I felt after witnessing Thor The Dark World?

Yeah, unfortunately I think if I were a Thor fan I'd be even more dissapointed with that movie than I was with MOS.

At least with MOS I felt they TRIED to do something more, they didn't treat the romantic plot as a cheesy joke, and I actually cared (one way or another) when bad things happened

 

[Krumm]

How the hell do you think I felt after witnessing Thor The Dark World?

Maybe the first mistake was thinking it was a good trailer...

 

[J.Howlett]

Yeah, unfortunately I think if I were a Thor fan I'd be even more dissapointed with that movie than I was with MOS.

At least with MOS I felt they TRIED to do something more, they didn't treat the romantic plot as a cheesy joke, and I actually cared (one way or another) when bad things happened

And here's the bad thing; I think the cast of Thor is the best cast in the MCU, bar none. Not only that, the potential for awesome drama is all over the place and both films just don't freaking go there. And it's painful to watch.

The visual aesthetics of the Dark World are out of this world. Could you imagine that film where the plot and story matched the visual?

Ugh. Pisses me off. Enjoyable film but damn Marvel, believe in Thor. It's the best franchise you have that's untapped potential for something special.

 

[jmc]

Maybe the first mistake was thinking it was a good trailer...

Oh snap.....

 

[Skrilla31]

There's nothing worse than seeing a really good film executed poorly. I can't watch the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises because I see the potential of what that film could have been and it depresses me to no end.

That's how I feel about MOS. To me MOS Trailers 2 & 3 make up the greatest movie of all time lol.

 

[blumatic]

That's crazy.

Why can't you have a verbal acknowledgement of what we saw in his emotional response, and still have the full extent of it explored in a sequel?

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

First off Kal screaming and Lois comforting him is acknowledgement enough of the killing.

If Kal just went to see if the family was ok. And see them thankful for it and have him fly off would have be not ackowledging the killing.

Secondly, I believe the moment was sad, to start having a conversation a about would make the moment sadder and with teh movie trying to wrap up it would have risked short changing the subject matter.

In addition what should Kal say at that time. Does he have a coherent thought on a traumatic experience that just happened. Its a big subject that I felt was best left unspoken and better just seeing him in pain.

 

[jmc]

That's how I feel about MOS. To me MOS Trailers 2 & 3 make up the greatest movie of all time lol.

They do indeed. I fell for the trap as well.

 

[blumatic]

There's nothing worse than seeing a really good film executed poorly. I can't watch the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises because I see the potential of what that film could have been and it depresses me to no end.

Whats more disappointing is a movie that doesnt try to be what it says its going to be. Im talking to you Iron Man 3.

That movie had no execution. It was crap. Same with Spider Man 3.

I felt like I was in the wrong theater with those films.

 

[Skrilla31]

Whats more disappointing is a movie that doesnt try to be what it says its going to be. Im talking to you Iron Man 3.

That movie had no execution. It was crap. Same with Spider Man 3.

I felt like I was in the wrong theater with those films.

I would argue the same thing happened with MOS.

I felt like those trailers were selling a different movie... with probably the exception of Trailer 4.

 

[Krumm]

I would argue the same thing happened with MOS.

I felt like those trailers were selling a different movie... with probably the exception of Trailer 4.

For me, I'd say the individual nuggets of the trailer held up in the film but for some reason the movie as a whole didn't come together as well. And I say that as a fan of the film.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Oh the trailers *sigh*

How I wish I could go back to the happy time of the release of trailer 3.

I cried with happiness all the way through the first veiwing. Then did not stop watching it for hours. Then kept going to the bathroom the next day at work just to watch it

MOS itself may not have given me much pleasure, but the journey sure as hell did

 

[hopefuldreamer]

First off Kal screaming and Lois comforting him is acknowledgement enough of the killing.

If Kal just went to see if the family was ok. And see them thankful for it and have him fly off would have be not ackowledging the killing.

Secondly, I believe the moment was sad, to start having a conversation a about would make the moment sadder and with teh movie trying to wrap up it would have risked short changing the subject matter.

In addition what should Kal say at that time. Does he have a coherent thought on a traumatic experience that just happened. Its a big subject that I felt was best left unspoken and better just seeing him in pain.

Again we've reach that point where all I can say is 'I don't agree' and leave it there.

 

[Shikamaru]

MOS Trailer 3 was fantastic and mindblowing. It looked like the film had the pitch-perfect balance between fantasy vs. realism, dark vs. light, etc. It gave off the vibe that anything could happen in this universe ranging from Batman to the space stuff.

*sigh*