TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 3

[hopefuldreamer]

And that is why it worked. They didn't approach it in "cool, he kills!" It was the FIRST film I've ever seen where they really dealt with the pain and anguish that goes into that. It was a devastating scene to watch because it showed how much killing someone can take out of someone. It devastated him and the entire audience felt that devastation with him. It was the hardest thing he could have done, and it took a good minute for him to work up the courage to do it.

What can I say, I didn't think it was enough.

Probably because in the next scene, he was fine.

And whether or not he regretted it is going to be irrelevant for teenage boys. They will still be saying 'Oh yeah, man, he snapped his neck and you heard it go crack and everything blah blah'.

 

[Doc Samson]

I didn't like the killing because I didn't think it was necessary in that moment. This is the first film where Superman felt like the strongest being on Earth, I think he could've flew Zod away from the people, used his own heat vision to destroy the floor around himself and Zod so they drop into a crater or any bunch of things.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Thank you. I've been saying the same thing. That's why I put the blame on Goyer. They wanted Superman to kill because they thought it would be "awesome", and I think this is probably the single most controversial thing in the film, especially the way it's done.

Yup.

And the film didn't make any definite statements about how he'll feel about it in the future either... which as I mentioned slightly before, not only makes me worried about their attitude towards it in sequels, but also their attitude towards it within the DC universe in general and how it'll be approached in JL films.

 

[JangoNate]

Thank you. I've been saying the same thing. That's why I put the blame on Goyer. They wanted Superman to kill because they thought it would be "awesome", and I think this is probably the single most controversial thing in the film, especially the way it's done.

I highly doubt they were thinking it would be awesome. I'm sure it began with a question of, "What would Superman do in a situation where it was kill or watch innocents die?" It also matches the greater theme of the movie where Clark must choose between his human and Kryptonian heritages.

 

[Ultimatehero]

But as i've always said, I just didn't think they should do that. Why write the plot in that way? They completely intentionally worked the plot so that Superman would have to kill, and that's what I take issue with. Because I don't get why they'd WANT to do that. Like why they'd be sitting in a room going 'Right, so we really wanna have Superman snap a guys neck by the end of this film, let's talk about how we get there.'

Because it was the hardest thing they could do to him. You don't worry about Superman getting beaten around because he'll bounce back. You worry that his emotional state will get a beating and it did. They didn't approach it as "cool, let Superman kill!" It was "Superman having to kill would really be hard for him and we can show much even having to kill the villain does to him as opposed to other heroes, here's a guy who after he kills the villain - he doesn't celebrate, he doesn't hurray - he is completely and totally devastated by this one experience. It separates him." THAT is what's going on in their minds. And the way Cavill played it was brilliantly that I'm wondering if anyone in his military family has gone through that that's how brilliantly he portrayed it. It just felt really raw and real. As said, I'm betting just ask any cop or soldier with a moral code that had to kill about that scene and chances are they'll say it rung true.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Well yeah, they worked the plot so it left him with no choices.

But as i've always said, I just didn't think they should do that. Why write the plot in that way? They completely intentionally worked the plot so that Superman would have to kill, and that's what I take issue with. Because I don't get why they'd WANT to do that. Like why they'd be sitting in a room going 'Right, so we really wanna have Superman snap a guys neck by the end of this film, let's talk about how we get there.'

Superheroes, and in particular Superman, have stories I love because of the way they inspire me and the way they make me feel better about the world. Even ones as dark as TDK.

That was the kind of ending that just made me feel nothing of the sort.

Bingo


People seem to forget that someone actually sat down and wrote this, and specifically chose to build a situation that lead to an event violent, gratuitous climax. the focus is "how would YOU have changed the scene" when it's much more complicated than that.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I loved when Superman killed Zod. It was shocking and something I haven't seen often in a comic book film. Because as great as their final fight was, I thought, "How the hell is Superman gonna win?" They were even in every respect. This was the rare time in a movie where I didn't know how the hero was going to defeat the villain. And if he didn't kill him there, what would happen afterwards? Zod was not a man of empty threats. He even said he was going to stop at nothing to obtain his goal, which meant killing. Superman had no choice. It's not so easy when you're in a position like that to make a choice. It never is. The fact that this is Superman highlights this idea. Zod was beyond saving.

And it's not like he liked doing it. He hated doing it. This just reinforces his no killing rule even more. Because now that he's actually done it instead of believed, he's seen the devastation it causes.

Oh well. If this didn't spur debate I think the film would have been lacking. He made a difficult choice. And I'm sure he will make the effort to never put himself in that position again. It just shows even more how imperfect he is.

 

[Anita18]

Well yeah, they worked the plot so it left him with no choices.

But as i've always said, I just didn't think they should do that. Why write the plot in that way? They completely intentionally worked the plot so that Superman would have to kill, and that's what I take issue with. Because I don't get why they'd WANT to do that. Like why they'd be sitting in a room going 'Right, so we really wanna have Superman snap a guys neck by the end of this film, let's talk about how we get there.'

Superheroes, and in particular Superman, have stories I love because of the way they inspire me and the way they make me feel better about the world. Even ones as dark as TDK.

That was the kind of ending that just made me feel nothing of the sort.

Yeah I still don't understand how TDK could possibly be more uplifting than this. I mean, Batman's sacrifice at the end was uplifting, but not anything before those last minutes. I feel my insides being twisted while watching that film. At the end I'm crying out of devastation than hope! (Also, really want to give poor Bats a giant hug!)

I went last night with a screenwriting friend of mine, and she actually appreciated that they made him go that far. It increases the drama. There are already so many movies where the good guy just figures out how to make everything ALL better at the end, and the movies that don't are the more dramatic ones.

Of course that's at the expense of clear heroism, but people will react to it in different ways.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

And if they missed the next 20 seconds when he stands there utterly devastated and screams out in emotional pain then has to get hugged by Lois.....I wouldn't worry about them, they don't have the brain cells to process much.

Agreed. It was plainly obvious how distraught Superman was after he had to kill Zod to prevent the murder of that family. This was not an easy decision for him to arrive at and I thought it was handled well. I also think that in future Superman films, he will be virtually immovable in his no killing rule, because of what happened with Zod.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I didn't like the killing because I didn't think it was necessary in that moment. This is the first film where Superman felt like the strongest being on Earth, I think he could've flew Zod away from the people, used his own heat vision to destroy the floor around himself and Zod so they drop into a crater or any bunch of things.

See, this is exactly why there is a stigma of Superman. "Oh, why can't he just do this and this, since he's so powerful," and so on.

It's not that easy. It's consistent with the overall idea of playing this interpretation of Superman as a man first and foremost. Despite his powers, he still has to make tough choices and person can make. Yet his choices and their consequences are a cause for his powers, and he has to deal with them as a man. This went in an extreme direction, and for a film, it proved most powerful.

See this is why I like movies. Comics still play things safe because they have guidelines and rules that they have to follow so they can get to the next issue. A film is a complete work that has to be the most dramatic thing possible at its conclusion. And yes, that includes a comic book film.

Killing Zod also meant killing any last remnant of Krypton, his true home. Once he made the choice to sever that, he severed any hope of connection he has to his birthplace.

 

[Anita18]

What can I say, I didn't think it was enough.

Probably because in the next scene, he was fine.

And whether or not he regretted it is going to be irrelevant for teenage boys. They will still be saying 'Oh yeah, man, he snapped his neck and you heard it go crack and everything blah blah'.

It simply wasn't the emotional beat they wanted you to feel at that point in time. I think for most, having that drawn-out shot of him being devastated will be enough....

Aso, teenage boys are idiotic.

Because it was the hardest thing they could do to him. You don't worry about Superman getting beaten around because he'll bounce back. You worry that his emotional state will get a beating and it did. They didn't approach it as "cool, let Superman kill!" It was "Superman having to kill would really be hard for him and we can show much even having to kill the villain does to him as opposed to other heroes, here's a guy who after he kills the villain - he doesn't celebrate, he doesn't hurray - he is completely and totally devastated by this one experience. It separates him." THAT is what's going on in their minds. And the way Cavill played it was brilliantly that I'm wondering if anyone in his military family has gone through that that's how brilliantly he portrayed it. It just felt really raw and real. As said, I'm betting just ask any cop or soldier with a moral code that had to kill about that scene and chances are they'll say it rung true.

Bingo.

My writer friend and I discussed a bit after we saw it. What DO you do story-wise with a guy like Superman? What is going to make the audience feel for him, because he can't have anything physically done to him besides shoving Kryptonite into his face? You wreck him emotionally, that's what you do.

 

[J.Howlett]

Him killing ZOD was not a decision based on how "awesome" it would be. It was about choosing a heritage.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I highly doubt they were thinking it would be awesome.

Actually it felt like that exactly. Look up Goyer's screenwriting credits. It was a classic Goyer "FINISH HIM" move

 

[Doc Samson]

Anyone get the feeling it was as much suicide as murder? Zod basically lays it out that his whole purpose was to protect his people, and now, he has no more people. I felt he somewhat forced that situation with the knowledge that it could go the other way...

See, this is exactly why there is a stigma of Superman. "Oh, why can't he just do this and this, since he's so powerful," and so on.

It's not that easy. It's consistent with the overall idea of playing this interpretation of Superman is a man first and foremost. Despite his powers, he still has to make tough choices. This went in an extreme direction, and for a film, it proved most powerful.

See this is why I like movies. Comics still play things safe because they have guidelines and rules that they have to follow so they can get to the next issue. A film is a complete work that has to be the most dramatic thing possible at its conclusion. And yes, that includes a comic book film.

I'm simply saying he could've just flown Zod away from them. That's a pretty basic solution.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Because it was the hardest thing they could do to him. You don't worry about Superman getting beaten around because he'll bounce back. You worry that his emotional state will get a beating and it did. They didn't approach it as "cool, let Superman kill!" It was "Superman having to kill would really be hard for him and we can show much even having to kill the villain does to him as opposed to other heroes, here's a guy who after he kills the villain - he doesn't celebrate, he doesn't hurray - he is completely and totally devastated by this one experience. It separates him." THAT is what's going on in their minds. And the way Cavill played it was brilliantly that I'm wondering if anyone in his military family has gone through that that's how brilliantly he portrayed it. It just felt really raw and real. As said, I'm betting just ask any cop or soldier with a moral code that had to kill about that scene and chances are they'll say it rung true.

Which would have been much more respectful if they'd actually focused on that for more than 5 seconds, and like I said, actually had a conversation about what it meant to him.

Again I say, sorry, but it just wasn't enough.

Besides, I disagree that having Supes kill is the hardest thing you can do to him.

I think what he goes through within the context of Superman vs The Elite is just as hard if not harder. He has to deal with the fact that innocent people DIE because he won't kill. He has to face a young boy whose father died because he didn't kill a villain and he struck again. And he questions himself and doubts himself tonnes, but he has to stick to what he believes so strongly is the right thing to do.

That is SO MUCH HARDER imo.

Bingo

People seem to forget that someone actually sat down and wrote this, and specifically chose to build a situation that lead to an event violent, gratuitous climax. the focus is "how would YOU have changed the scene" when it's much more complicated than that.

Yup, but i'm used to people ignoring that logic from the arguements we used to have about Superman killing BEFORE the film came out.

Yeah I still don't understand how TDK could possibly be more uplifting than this. I mean, Batman's sacrifice at the end was uplifting, but not anything before those last minutes. I feel my insides being twisted while watching that film. At the end I'm crying out of devastation than hope! (Also, really want to give poor Bats a giant hug!)

I went last night with a screenwriting friend of mine, and she actually appreciated that they made him go that far. It increases the drama. There are already so many movies where the good guy just figures out how to make everything ALL better at the end, and the movies that don't are the more dramatic ones.

Of course that's at the expense of clear heroism, but people will react to it in different ways.

So many many better ways of increasing the drama than a short and violent act. So many.

 

[kingfalcon]

Him killing ZOD was not a decision based on how "awesome" it would be. It was about choosing a heritage.

Don't kid yourself

That scene AND this movie was warner brothers/dc way of destroying the "boy scout" image of superman.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the pitch of the movie.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Bingo


People seem to forget that someone actually sat down and wrote this, and specifically chose to build a situation that lead to an event violent, gratuitous climax. the focus is "how would YOU have changed the scene" when it's much more complicated than that.

How they did it highlighted his difference. I wouldn't want it to be done any other way. Because, from a writing perspective, it does highlight that part of the character.

Have the heroes in other films felt any devastation when their villain dies? Did Bruce in Batman Begins show any pain when he LET Raas die? What about all those aliens in Avengers that were killed? The Avengers killed them like it was the funnest thing to do. What about James Bond movies and the like where the agent kills anyone in his way like it's no big deal? How many action movies and superhero movies have we seen where the hero is devastated by the death of the villain or having to kill the villain?

Exactly. It shows just how different Superman is.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

How they did it highlighted his difference. I wouldn't want it to be done any other way. Because, from a writing perspective, it does highlight that part of the character.

Have the heroes in other films felt any devastation when their villain dies? Did Bruce in Batman Begins show any pain when he LET Raas die? What about all those aliens in Avengers that were killed? The Avengers killed them like it was the funnest thing to do. What about James Bond movies and the like where the agent kills anyone in his way like it's no big deal? How many action movies and superhero movies have we seen where the hero is devastated by the death of the villain or having to kill the villain?

Exactly. It shows just how different Superman is.

Yeah, I guess at least that much is true.

 

[kingfalcon]

How they did it highlighted his difference. I wouldn't want it to be done any other way. Because, from a writing perspective, it does highlight that part of the character.

Have the heroes in other films felt any devastation when their villain dies? Did Bruce in Batman Begins show any pain when he LET Raas die? What about all those aliens in Avengers that were killed? The Avengers killed them like it was the funnest thing to do. What about James Bond movies and the like where the agent kills anyone in his way like it's no big deal? How many action movies and superhero movies have we seen where the hero is devastated by the death of the villain or having to kill the villain?

Exactly. It shows just how different Superman is.

He seemed more sad about zod dying than the thousands of people who died during all the fighting.

 

[Anita18]

I think we have reached an impasse. Some people wanted more or different, whereas others are fine with what we got.

At least in what we're talking about right now...I still would have liked the character moments to breathe a little in the first half...

 

[Ultimatehero]

I think what he goes through within the context of Superman vs The Elite is just as hard if not harder. He has to deal with the fact that innocent people DIE because he won't kill. He has to face a young boy whose father died because he didn't kill a villain and he struck again. And he questions himself and doubts himself tonnes, but he has to stick to what he believes so strongly is the right thing to do.

To me, that doesn't show Superman. So, he's willing to let all those people die because he isn't strong enough to sacrifice how hard breaking his moral code will be? For Superman, killing someone is a huge sacrifice and it's a sacrifice no one wants to make because it takes all the courage somebody can muster.

Also it wasn't five seconds. I'm still confused as to why people see it that way. He struggled before he killed Zod and was devastated afterwards. He didn't just suddenly snap his neck. He struggled against it, but realized there was nothing else he could have done and made the hardest choice possible which was getting hurt himself in one of the worst ways imaginable. Because you can't just act like that never happened. It will always be there. I know someone who almost had to kill someone in order to save someone and even that still weighs heavily on his mind. It's not an easy place to go to.

So with your Elite example, are you honestly saying you'd rather him let Zod kill the family than kill Zod???

 

[Ryudoz]

Disclaimer: I don't post much, I don't typically write reviews (I think the last time I really chimed in on a movie was X3:TLS), but I read quite a bit of them from other users here.


Just got back from seeing this about an hour ago and after reading some more reviews (from users who could better put their thoughts into words/had more digestive time for this) I'll say simply that this movie hit me on a number of planes I didn't expect.

I enjoyed the film. It has flaws. It makes the audience have to rely too much sometimes on connecting the dots through one-line dialogue statements or pure visuals vice over-expository monologues for every relevant plot point.

Spoiler

Example: The blogger name drops Lois' as the person who knows this "Kal" person Zod wants. Later it comes up that Zod now wants Lois when Clark turns himself in. The difference in time between these two events can cause confusion as to his motivation for wanting her as well. Couple that with the line of how after Lois has been saved (a good 15 minutes or so later) we finally find out that Zod was able to get into her mind and that's how he would locate the codex.

To me that seems to be an overly complex way to go about showing off a character's motivation in a certain context to complete his goal. Surely it could have been done a little cleaner. Or I'm picking nits.

The thing that really hit for me though was the father(s)/son portrayal. I'm a dad, and given experiences this movie hit the "right" notes at the right times for me to experience a pretty "dusty" movie theater at times. I felt the emotional side of things from both perspectives. Not that I feel this movie is award-winning or life altering drama, it's just that I wasn't ready for it. I liked the way they portrayed [BLACKOUT]Jonathan's death[/BLACKOUT]. It was a tender moment I felt, and I could understand the motivations of the characters in those times. It worked for me.

I'm undecided about how I feel about the resolution between Superman and Zod. In the moment, I was a bit startled that it happened; the shock turned quickly to acceptance though after Clark's reaction. I didn't need any more or less weight to the scene as it still feels like this is a very rough Clark/Superman, much how Batman Begins gave us a very rough Bruce/Batman. His reaction told me what I needed to know.

I find that I can't place the character of an experienced Superman on this iteration at this time. Not while he still has room to grow I feel. We are the sum of all of our experiences and knowledge, and I think this Superman needs more of them before he resembles the one from the comics.

I can't rate this film other than I liked it. I'm not good at assigning numbers, because I feel it would be arbitrary. I really liked the film. For what it gave me personally and nothing else. And it gave me more than I was expecting.

 

[Ultimatehero]

He seemed more sad about zod dying than the thousands of people who died during all the fighting.

He wasn't going to just stop in the middle of the fight to mourn. He had to stop Zod as soon and as fast as possible before others got hurt. His mourning in the end was devastation over everything that happened. If he slowed down for even a second, many more would have died.

 

[KalMart]

I think we have reached an impasse. Some people wanted more or different, whereas others are fine with what we got.

At least in what we're talking about right now...I still would have liked the character moments to breathe a little in the first half...

Way back when, I suggested that the first movie start with Clark arriving in Metropolis for the first time and Superman's first appearance, and a second film going back into his origins and Krypton, paralleling it with the current threat like Brainiac and tying it together....sorta' Godfather II-ish. I think would have allowed them to show Krypton and Crowe as JorEl more, and use more Costner, more of young clark's alienation and learning. It all felt very truncated.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Anyone get the feeling it was as much suicide as murder? Zod basically lays it out that his whole purpose was to protect his people, and now, he has no more people. I felt he somewhat forced that situation with the knowledge that it could go the other way...



I'm simply saying he could've just flown Zod away from them. That's a pretty basic solution.

Superman might as well have been carrying Zod around the world avoiding all that then. It would have been redundant. Zod was relentless, and he made that clear in his words and the devastation he brought to Earth. If Supes didn't put a stop to it, it would have never ended, and more people would have died. Zod did not give him a choice or way out. This is rare in movies and comic book films.

Which would have been much more respectful if they'd actually focused on that for more than 5 seconds, and like I said, actually had a conversation about what it meant to him.

Again I say, sorry, but it just wasn't enough.

Besides, I disagree that having Supes kill is the hardest thing you can do to him.

I think what he goes through within the context of Superman vs The Elite is just as hard if not harder. He has to deal with the fact that innocent people DIE because he won't kill. He has to face a young boy whose father died because he didn't kill a villain and he struck again. And he questions himself and doubts himself tonnes, but he has to stick to what he believes so strongly is the right thing to do.

That is SO MUCH HARDER imo.



Yup, but i'm used to people ignoring that logic from the arguements we used to have about Superman killing BEFORE the film came out.



So many many better ways of increasing the drama than a short and violent act. So many.

Well what are they then? It seems to me you want an alternative to just get around Superman not killing. If I were a screenwriter, and you set that up battle up between Supes and Zod, how are you going to solve that? It seems like they would just be avoiding it. You do the unthinkable thing, from a writing and character perspective. That's great drama for what this type of film was saying.