TMOS Review & Speculation Thread

[BH/HHH]

Hi. I've been reading this thread for updates on MOS. I am not a comic book fan. Still, I love Superman. I think he is great. I wasn't around yet when early movies about him were shown. Nonetheless, I've seen some of Superman movies through vhs when I was a kid. I got pretty excited to have learned WB is doing a reboot. It excites me to see Superman's capabilities to actualize on screen given the technology we have in the present time. That would be just so awesome to imagine.

I created this account just to say my piece regarding the possibility of Superman killing Zod. I read that some comic book fans here are enraged by the thought of it. I believe it's because having Superman kill a villain is a severe departure from the Superman in the comic book. I am not sure if that's the reason. Again, I am not really a comic book fan. But from a perspective of a fellow from the mainstream audience, Superman's killing a villain won't make Superman less of a superhero. To me, that actually adds to the complexity of Superman's character. And I love that; it makes him more relatable, more relevant to us, the mainstream audience. That proves he also has flaws. That he also faces situations in which drastic decisions are made just as any of us does.

As part of the mainstream audience, I care most that this film should be action-packed and over-top in the same level as The Avengers or even better than that film. I want to be entertained more than anything else. Of course, the film has to have a decent story. It doesn't need to have the Oscar potential. If this film turns out to be a boring Superman film, I'd be very disappointed. But from what I can see and based on the early reactions, MOS would not disappoint, and I am happy about it.

Just saying my piece.

Then get lost I'm joking t:

Welcome to the Hype!

 

[InJustice]

If they seriously kill off Zod, the least controversial way to do it would be letting him kill himself. An ending where Superman is the one to finish him would have to be dark and depressing. Honestly, an ending like that would work very well in the sequels with other villains.

Why does it have to be dark and depressing if Superman does it? What if it's portrayed as it's Superman's only option to ascertain a better and peaceful world? I mean the way it's shaping up is that Zod escapes from the Phantom Zone...which shows an immense flaw in the way that the place Krypton keeps their prisoners is insecure. And if Zod escapes, then what's the point of putting him there again?

 

[sup101]

Superman killing another Kryptonian by snapping the neck?How lame do that sound.Most people gonna hate that if it's tru and it would only increase the superman is overpowered talk.Why do we need the justice league when superman can just come in snapp the villain neck.

 

[tarnishedspace]

Then get lost I'm joking t:

Welcome to the Hype!

haha. Thanks.

 

[Autonet]

Wow people actually taking the Zod rumors as factual, at this rate with how gulable people are proving to be I might just spread my own online rumor about the film. Hmmmmmmm I wonder whats a good one.

So close to the release it's like playing a game of telephone. One person tells a guy "Hey Zod is in Man of Steel" and at the end of it "Superman kills zod by squishing his head."

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Why does it have to be dark and depressing if Superman does it? What if it's portrayed as it's Superman's only option to ascertain a better and peaceful world? I mean the way it's shaping up is that Zod escapes from the Phantom Zone...which shows an immense flaw in the way that the place Krypton keeps their prisoners is insecure. And if Zod escapes, then what's the point of putting him there again?

Your going to have the same problem with ALL the kryptonians though... so should he just kill all of them?

 

[X Knight]

eh, Superman will snap Zod's neck, only to discover later that it was an actor named Trevor.

then the Jor-El hologram will proclaim that HE IS ZOD only to have Lois blast him to high heaven with a Kryptonian gun.

the end.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

Why does it have to be dark and depressing if Superman does it? What if it's portrayed as it's Superman's only option to ascertain a better and peaceful world? I mean the way it's shaping up is that Zod escapes from the Phantom Zone...which shows an immense flaw in the way that the place Krypton keeps their prisoners is insecure. And if Zod escapes, then what's the point of putting him there again?

It doesn't matter if it's his only option. I'm just saying killing someone would have an immense impact on him and such an action should not be treated lightly considering Superman's character. In the comics, he was seriously upset after he was forced to kill the pocket dimension Zod because he started to question his powers and how he should deal with his villains.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

eh, Superman will snap Zod's neck, only to discover later that it was an actor named Trevor.

then the Jor-El hologram will proclaim that HE IS ZOD only to have Lois blast him to high heaven with a Kryptonian gun.

the end.

And he will blow up his suit.... t:

 

[Motown Marvel]

In this movie he's still a YOUNG Superman. I see no problem with him making a rash decision and killing Zod. That way for future movie he becomes more mature and starts to adopt the "no killing" attitude. Now if he's just popping villains left and right then ok, that's overboard.

i always hate this excuse. its so cheap. he's superman. superman doesnt kill. a young superman may make certain mistakes that he will learn from, but killing is not one of them. there is absolutely positively zero reason why superman has to kill zod. it achieves nothing.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I think he should handle the army by faking them out. Not SII style with the Holograms, but should find some way to stage an act that frightens them.
Maybe capture and threaten the life of Zod if they don't go back to their ship and surrender?

 

[Manosman]

i always hate this excuse. its so cheap. he's superman. superman doesnt kill. a young superman may make certain mistakes that he will learn from, but killing is not one of them. there is absolutely positively zero reason why superman has to kill zod. it achieves nothing.

Unless he accidentally kills him.

 

[king666]

i always hate this excuse. its so cheap. he's superman. superman doesnt kill. a young superman may make certain mistakes that he will learn from, but killing is not one of them. there is absolutely positively zero reason why superman has to kill zod. it achieves nothing.

This.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

i always hate this excuse. its so cheap. he's superman. superman doesnt kill. a young superman may make certain mistakes that he will learn from, but killing is not one of them. there is absolutely positively zero reason why superman has to kill zod. it achieves nothing.

This ^

 

[Strafer]

When does the embargo lift?

 

[X Knight]

I had a problem in SR when Superman was indirectly responsible for killing several of Lex's henchmen when pieces of New Krypton fell on them.

I will have a HUGE problem if Superman intentionally kills Zod in MOS.

as stated above, there is NO need for Superman to kill Zod. or, more specifically, there is no need for it to be WRITTEN that way in the story.

Superman is a fictional character dictated by the whims and designs of the writer.

for all the talk about hope, character, ideals, human spirit, etc. that this Superman is supposed to embody, it would be extremely counter-productive for him to kill in the end. Superman should be "above" all of that.

but, who knows, maybe it is true, and it's a source of those "terrible/abysmal" reviews......

 

[Gee]

When does the embargo lift?

Speculated to be next Monday after the premiere.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Yep. The he matures and stops killing idea suggest that it was OK for him to kill when he was immature. I'd like the idea of one of his opponents to tell him to get it over quickly, and then he replies, something along these lines: "I'm letting you live, so that you know who I belong to."

Or something like that.

 

[GreenKToo]

If zod is on a rampage, killing thousands, and supes has already fought him but zod keeps coming back, then by all means let supes kill him. twice even.
Keep in mind there are 4 or 5 kryptonian villains so supes may not have a choice but to kill the leader in the end.
EDIT: and im not for or against.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I had a problem in SR when Superman was indirectly responsible for killing several of Lex's henchmen when pieces of New Krypton fell on them.

I will have a HUGE problem if Superman intentionally kills Zod in MOS.

as stated above, there is NO need for Superman to kill Zod. or, more specifically, there is no need for it to be WRITTEN that way in the story.

Superman is a fictional character dictated by the whims and designs of the writer.

for all the talk about hope, character, ideals, human spirit, etc. that this Superman is supposed to embody, it would be extremely counter-productive for him to kill in the end. Superman should be "above" all of that.

but, who knows, maybe it is true, and it's a source of those "terrible/abysmal" reviews......

To me, it would be the ultimate way of saying "He's no boyscout."
However, I think it would make for an awkward handling of events. Is he gonna kill ALL his villains? Did he stop? If he stopped, does that make him MORE guilty for not finding a way to avoid carnage?

I think giving him a chance to attempt to spare his enemies shows that Superman can rise above their morality. Not all killing is the same, of course. But not killing would demonstrate the starj contrast of superman and his fellow Kryptonians. It can also fuel the "how far is too far" debate for the sequels. I say, find a way for Superman to avoid killing or leaving friends or foes to their fate.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

To me, it would be the ultimate way of saying "He's no boyscout."
However, I think it would make for an awkward handling of events. Is he gonna kill ALL his villains? Did he stop? If he stopped, does that make him MORE guilty for not finding a way to avoid carnage?

I think giving him a chance to attempt to spare his enemies shows that Superman can rise above their morality. Not all killing is the same, of course. But not killing would demonstrate the starj contrast of superman and his fellow Kryptonians. It can also fuel the "how far is too far" debate for the sequels. I say, find a way for Superman to avoid killing or leaving friends or foes to their fate.

Exactly.

 

[JangoNate]

I'm curious to know if they're going to use the Christ like symbolism that was used in the Donner films. That's another thing that factors into the whole Superman killing someone thing. If following that Christ angle there would be a need to abstain from killing to be that higher ideal for others to follow. Violence breeds violence and so there needs to be someone who rises above. Heck, reading the comics, even without that angle he's supposed to be someone who shows humanity another way. That whole joining him in the sun thing.

 

[Herolee10]

An person can't say that they'll be staying true to the spirit of Superman if they have him killing his enemies.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

So Nolan and Goyer made sure Batman did not directly kill a villain throughout the batman trilogy, and you guys are worried about this?
I doubt the snapped neck thing is true....

 

[Man_of_Tomorrow]

NO. Batman didn't put Ras on that train, it was all Ras & his doing, his plan. Batman just didn't save him. He did not kill him. Anybody who says otherwise is just looking for excuses to hate that version of Batman, even if it's just 1 scene to nitpick at.

In the Knightfall-Knightsend arc the moment used to demonstrate that Jean-Paul Valley had gone too far and was not worthy of being Batman was when he left a criminal to die. Batman fans have a valid reason to take issue with that decision in the movies, it goes against the history of the character. It would be like having him use a gun, as long as the shots werent fatal.

http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Batman_Issue_508