Grant Morrison gives his version of how MOS should've ended.

[phonogram12]

More fantasy and wonder would have been MUCH welcomed. I mean god forbid there be some less grounded fantasy in my Superman movie. I just saw not too long ago a movie staring a tree and a raccoon. That movie had more raw heart that MOS had. I say this as a person who thought the movie was fine for the most part. Oh it's not like my raccoon and tree movie lacked spectral and action. Oh no. It was filled to the brim with it and along with that it came with ideas like a colony excavating spinal fluid in the craved out head of a dead god! The sheer creativity!

Spot on, yo!

[Mr. Mastermind]

The big problem with the ending of Man of Steel isn't that it makes Superman evil or "darker", it's that it simply isn't a triumphant end to the story that the movie needed. The last battle is depressing and sad, instead of happy and awesome. Morrison's version actually delivers in that regard.

A lot of the criticisms of the serious tone of the film probably would have been solved by this one, and we wouldn't have to waste time in the sequels talking about those annoying no kill codes.

[Pharozonk]

Once again, Morrison shows that he knows Superman better than anyone else these days.

[The Beast]

It's quite possible that MOS was a taste of what's to come, and some of us didn't like what we tasted.

Better you guys be disappointed than the rest of us. There is no middle ground where everyone is going to be happy, so I'm glad DC is after my demographic rather than yours.

[Kid A]

See, that's the thing. With the exception of a few brief spots here and there in the '00s, I pretty much detested the Superman books post-COIE. All the fantasy and magic seemed to've just evaporated from the books. I guess it really shouldn't've come as any surprise to me that I felt exactly the same way about the movie that borrowed the title of the story that was responsible for doing exactly that.

Yeah it's hard to pay homage to all versions of Superman, when the post-Crisis one was such crap and doesn't deserve homage.

[The Beast]

Once again, Morrison shows that he knows Superman better than anyone else these days.

We all know why Superman is reviled by casual fans and general audiences and that's the reason why Snyder was hired by DC to eliminate those aspects of the character. The kind of fan service guys like Waid and Morrison are capable of does very little to expand the fanbase.

[Pharozonk]

We all know why Superman is reviled by casual fans and general audiences and that's the reason why Snyder was hired by DC to eliminate those aspects of the character. The kind of fan service guys like Waid and Morrison are capable of does very little to expand the fanbase.

Perhaps not, but I still don't buy into Snyder's idea that forcing Superman into a position where he has to kill somehow makes the character more compelling or the narrative more complex.

That's part of the reason I dislike modern comics. It just feels like caving into what non-fans want rather than embracing what made these characters endure for decades.

[lancerman]

Yeah it's hard to pay homage to all versions of Superman, when the post-Crisis one was such crap and doesn't deserve homage.

What about the pre Silver Age one. Or the bronze age one. And people need to get over the post-Crisis hate, it happened and it defined Superman for several generations of fans.

[phonogram12]

Yeah it's hard to pay homage to all versions of Superman, when the post-Crisis one was such crap and doesn't deserve homage.

IDK, I thought Morrison's take on Doomsday was kind of clever, but yeah, for the most part I agree.

[lancerman]

Perhaps not, but I still don't buy into Snyder's idea that forcing Superman into a position where he has to kill somehow makes the character more compelling or the narrative more complex.

That's part of the reason I dislike modern comics. It just feels like caving into what non-fans want rather than what made these characters endure for decades.

Fans on this site have made the argument for killing. Many fans have always felt like killing shouldn't be completely off the table. I for one think it's fallacy to suggest Superman's popularity had anything to do with his no killing code. His popularity has to do with being a superhero with a diverse power set and being the basic template for superheroes. Hell he's killed in nearly every era of comics. Maybe the Silver Age was the only exception.

The only reason killing was ever so compelling was because you had a legion of Silver Age comic book writers and the writers who were inspired by that who crafted a bunch of thinly veiled scenario's where Superman was given an out that many fans felt was inauthentic. And guys like Mark Waid who wrote strawman stories to argue against killing under any circumstance.

[Pharozonk]

Fans on this site have made the argument for killing. Many fans have always felt like killing shouldn't be completely off the table. I for one think it's fallacy to suggest Superman's popularity had anything to do with his no killing code. His popularity has to do with being a superhero with a diverse power set and being the basic template for superheroes. Hell he's killed in nearly every era of comics. Maybe the Silver Age was the only exception.

The only reason killing was ever so compelling was because you had a legion of Silver Age comic book writers and the writers who were inspired by that who crafted a bunch of thinly veiled scenario's where Superman was given an out that many fans felt was inauthentic. And guys like Mark Waid who wrote strawman stories to argue against killing under any circumstance.

The only instance of Superman killing I could accept would be if it was a Golden Age story. Based on Snyder's visual and character choices, that clearly wasn't what he was going for. Superman in Man of Steel isn't a vigilante social crusader who fights for the rights of the oppressed through whatever means necessary. Instead, he just wanders the world as a vagabond without any real purpose in his life until his dad actually tells him what to do.

[lancerman]

The only instance of Superman killing I could accept would be if it was a Golden Age story. Based on Snyder's visual and character choices, that clearly wasn't what he was going for. Superman in Man of Steel isn't a vigilante social crusader who fights for the rights of the oppressed through whatever means necessary. Instead, he just wanders the world as a vagabond without any real purpose in his life until his dad actually tells him what to do.

Which is exactly what happened in the Christopher Reeve films.

[Pharozonk]

Which is exactly what happened in the Christopher Reeve films.

I don't really care for the Donner movies either.

[The Beast]

What about the pre Silver Age one. Or the bronze age one. And people need to get over the post-Crisis hate, it happened and it defined Superman for several generations of fans.

For this fan, Byrne's run is still the high watermark for comics.

Fans on this site have made the argument for killing. Many fans have always felt like killing shouldn't be completely off the table. I for one think it's fallacy to suggest Superman's popularity had anything to do with his no killing code. His popularity has to do with being a superhero with a diverse power set and being the basic template for superheroes. Hell he's killed in nearly every era of comics. Maybe the Silver Age was the only exception.

The only reason killing was ever so compelling was because you had a legion of Silver Age comic book writers and the writers who were inspired by that who crafted a bunch of thinly veiled scenario's where Superman was given an out that many fans felt was inauthentic. And guys like Mark Waid who wrote strawman stories to argue against killing under any circumstance.

Brilliant post!

Perhaps not, but I still don't buy into Snyder's idea that forcing Superman into a position where he has to kill somehow makes the character more compelling or the narrative more complex.

That's part of the reason I dislike modern comics. It just feels like caving into what non-fans want rather than embracing what made these characters endure for decades.

The reason why the death of Zod makes Superman more compelling and the narrative of MoS more complex is because ass pulls and jobber antagonists as the key components to Superman's victory are incredibly vapid by comparison.

Let's be honest, these characters have endured because of their powersets and their visceral appeal, not because of their out of date morality. Other than that, they're trademark placeholders that are too big to fail. If you want formulaic fan service that panders to people who aren't comfortable taking comic books seriously, then Marvel has got a whole line up of products for you to enjoy.

[phonogram12]

For this fan, Byrne's run is still the high watermark for comics.

Polar opposite for me. Absolute low point, imo, even below when they tried to rehash Superman Red/Superman Blue in the '90s.

Let's be honest, these characters have endured because of their powersets and their visceral appeal..

For you perhaps, but obviously this doesn't apply to everybody, especially everyone who made Morrison's All-Star Superman such a hit.