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

[The Beast]

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

How else is Clark supposed to get the idea to dress up as Superman if not from his parents?

He may have been a vagabond in MoS but like Byrne's MoS, Clark was roaming around looking for people to help, he just didn't know how to do it without losing his privacy.

[Pharozonk]

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.

That's your opinion so I can't really argue with you on that.

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be honest, these characters have endured because of their powersets and their visceral appeal, not because of their out of date morality.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.

Marvel doesn't even put nostalgic fan service anymore if books like Superior Spider-man or Uncanny Avengers are any indication.

Heh, the funny thing is that DC's characters don't even look the same visually as they did decades ago with these horrid Nu52 costumes.

[The Beast]

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



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

Based on what exactly? The differences were so small I don't see how it could be a problem for any fan.

Seeing as Snyder's MoS was a much bigger hit than Morrison's ASS, I can see why WB/DC gave him the keys to the kingdom.

[Captain Haddock]

I always thought that killing Zod was always meant to be a failure on Clark's part, and he knew it at the time. Whether or not he did have other options, he as a young and inexperienced man who has never come across anything like an actual threat before Zod and Co. showed up was out of his depth and made the snap decision that to save lives (plural) he HAD to take a life (single), and there was the shot of him in anguish afterwards. If they'd made more of his pain/regret/sorrow at killing I think more people would have given it a pass, or at least accepted the rationale. As it stands, he kills, feels bad... then just shrugs it off (which is not a very Superman thing to do.) If he had killed Faora and the other Kryptonians in cold blood or been fighting to kill Zod from the first punch, then it would have been out of character to me. Him believing he had to kill and regretting it doesn't seem terribly out of character for a newbie Superman to me.

I am hoping that if/when he throws down with Batman or the villain of the next movie, he is making a point to disable/defeat quickly and easily and not be forced into the same position again.

[Pharozonk]

Seeing as Snyder's MoS was a much bigger hit than Morrison's ASS, I can see why WB/DC gave him the keys to the kingdom.

How can you compare how popular a comic is to a movie? They are two different mediums entirely.

[lancerman]

How can you compare how popular a comic is to a movie? They are two different mediums entirely.

More people saw one, one made more money, one had more impact.

[Pharozonk]

More people saw one, one made more money, one had more impact.

From his logic, however, comic writers would be trusted to helm movie projects based on their works when that clearly is never the case.

[Jon-El]

This thread & a boatload of others, all seem come down to two camps. In one camp you have fans who want their comics & movies to reflect the storytelling of the 60's - 80's. The "classic" comic book period. Evil villain vs noble hero. There's not much time spent on consequences. How many stories dealt with the aftermath of the Hulk coming to town. (As I write this I think of one. Lol! It wasn't the norm though. ) Hero bounces from villain to villain. Few grey areas. Secret identities are prominent.

Then you have the other camp where the stories aren't about purely noble "super heroes". These stories are more what if a normal person was given these powers. What would they do? All the traditional ideas like secret identities break down with this approach. It's not enough to see a character dress in a costume & do good. People want to understand why. With this approach you lose the "super hero" idea & get people struggling to use their abilities to do good. The focal point isn't as much on good vs evil but the characterization & understanding motivations.

The biggest difference seems to be that one is a bit more down to earth & the characters more conflicted. The other approach is idealistic & overwhelmingly positive. Neither is wrong but the "classic" idea is rooted in a time when the audience was younger. The more realistic approach is sort of the natural progression to what made Marvel successful in the 60's. Regular people as heroes.

Just my thoughts. Probably wrong!

[Pharozonk]

It's more of a debate between imagination vs deconstruction.

[Vanguard-01]

I always thought that killing Zod was always meant to be a failure on Clark's part, and he knew it at the time. Whether or not he did have other options, he as a young and inexperienced man who has never come across anything like an actual threat before Zod and Co. showed up was out of his depth and made the snap decision that to save lives (plural) he HAD to take a life (single), and there was the shot of him in anguish afterwards. If they'd made more of his pain/regret/sorrow at killing I think more people would have given it a pass, or at least accepted the rationale. As it stands, he kills, feels bad... then just shrugs it off (which is not a very Superman thing to do.) If he had killed Faora and the other Kryptonians in cold blood or been fighting to kill Zod from the first punch, then it would have been out of character to me. Him believing he had to kill and regretting it doesn't seem terribly out of character for a newbie Superman to me.

I am hoping that if/when he throws down with Batman or the villain of the next movie, he is making a point to disable/defeat quickly and easily and not be forced into the same position again.

Thank you!

This is a great way to look at it.

Maybe the final battle ended on such a sad, depressing note because it wasn't supposed to be a victory! Maybe the killing of Zod was supposed to be a failure on Clark's part in order to show that even Superman isn't infallible. Maybe Zod's death motivates Superman to never, EVER, fail like that again.

I do agree with you that Superman should've grieved Zod's death a little more for his regret to seem genuine. My only stance on this is that it was the very end of the movie and they just didn't have enough time. Also? Superman wouldn't be the first guy to just "put on a brave face" when he's feeling crappy. Maybe the smiles and the jokes at the end of the movie was just supposed to be him trying to hide the pain. If the next movie shows this to be true, that'll be a very good bit of writing.

And I couldn't agree with you more on the fact that Superman should NOT kill in this next movie. Or any upcoming movie. Superman killing Zod is good shock value because it made sense given the circumstances. However? Now that shock has been used up. If Superman kills again, it'll just look like "Oh, joy! They really ARE trying to turn Superman into the Punisher!" Once was okay. Especially if they whole idea was to make the killing into a personal failure on Superman's part. But after that? No more.

[Vanguard-01]

It's more of a debate between imagination vs deconstruction.

Wow! So anyone who was okay with MoS isn't imaginative? Imagination is solely the domain of the people who think Superman should always just "lolnope" every moral quandary he ever encounters?

Did it ever occur to you that it takes a good bit of imagination to come up with a believable scenario in which a guy like Superman has no other option other than to take a life?

[phonogram12]

It's more of a debate between imagination vs deconstruction.

And in Superman's case I will choose imagination every time.

[Pharozonk]

Wow! So anyone who was okay with MoS isn't imaginative? Imagination is solely the domain of the people who think Superman should always just "lolnope" every moral quandary he ever encounters?

Did it ever occur to you that it takes a good bit of imagination to come up with a believable scenario in which a guy like Superman has no other option other than to take a life?

Nowhere in my post did I say people who liked MoS had no imagination.

Man of Steel is clearly a deconstruction of the classic Superman story. Here are articles about it:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/vc-commun...truction-hero/

http://www.philipsandifer.com/2013/0...e-reading.html

http://wednesdayshaul.com/wordpress/...-man-of-steel/

[Plawsky]

Seeing as Snyder's MoS was a much bigger hit than Morrison's ASS, I can see why WB/DC gave him the keys to the kingdom.

More people saw one, one made more money, one had more impact.

With that logic, EVERY Hollywood movie beats out EVERY comic book. I'm sure a lot more people saw Nolan's Bat-trilogy than have read Year One and DKR - and the movies certainly made more money - but there's no way they had more impact on Batman.

[lancerman]

It's more of a debate between imagination vs deconstruction.

I think the issue many people have is that when every story is imagining the way out, and it get diluted, and the narrative conventions start becoming decreasingly imaginative, and it becomes the standard, the novelty of it is worn off. And what is imagination if you are imagining the status quo? So the intrigue moves to the course of action that was repressed and denied for so many years.