So injustice destroyed all notions of Superman being the ultimate hero, i really despise zack for using this story as reference along with the dark knight returns on how to handle superman, edge lords have truly destroyed this characters good name and reputation.
Man of Steel came out same year as Injustice 1. And Superman rampaging across Metropolis without caring for collateral damage is what "destroyed" his character's good name and reputation.
Well before that you had the Justice Lords episode, you had "Legacy", you had Elseworld comics like "Red Son" (where Supercommie means Luthor is automatic good guy), you also had Elseworlds with "The Dark Side" (inspiration for "Legacy").
The last decade (2010-2019) has to be one of the overall low points for the character's franchise. Terrible movies which showed him as a violent dullard, the games showing him as a treacherous totalitarian who murders more heroes than any villain in any comic has done. And no good cartoons. The DC Home Video movies had lousy animation and even then they had many scenes of showing Superman murdering people either while possessed or whatever. The CW show and the new cartoon as well as Supergirl were bright spots.
The comics were mixed because it started with New 52 Superman who became unpopular real soon and real fast, then we got Post-Crisis Superman back, and then it trudged on a bit.
Superman is the ultimate hero?first off,you have superman on pedastal.It's not about being edgy.If you don't acknowledge something as real(or problem. if someone points out what's bad) then you are just being in denial.I am pretty sure frank miller knows more about superman the character than anyone here.why?everything in darkknight returns was based on the themes of the character from donner superman to hugo danner-the gladiator.The guy gets struck down by lightning for pete sake.
"People’s Dreams... Have No Ends"
I still think MoS gets too much flack for Superman's supposed unwillingness to protect civilians. Perhaps the movie could've done a better job portraying it, but I don't think it was all that practical for Superman to draw Zod into a secluded location. It's not practical to say Superman could've pushed Zod into another area (controlling space in a fight is never easy, not even in video games...), and if Superman tried to lure Zod to chase him then Zod wasn't going to take the bait. Again, the movie could've done a better job explaining this without necessarily doing 1990s anime nonsense where some observer is narrating, but the idea that Superman was just being callous never rang true to me.
This isn't just about plot logistics and realism. The operative word is "should?" and not "could?".
What I mean is when you are asked to do a ground-up reintroduction of Superman in a new continuity separate from the one established before, why would you stage the character and frame the character in this kind of light? Why emphasize the brutality, the collisions, the destructive force of his power? Why should that element of fear and terror be part of introducing everyone to Superman?
Notions of realism are always selective and manipulative. The concept of a superhero is inherently fantastic and strange but the brief and concept is that as an audience you are supposed to identify and like the character and more importantly you are supposed to find the character fun to watch and be around. So I think defenses of "what could Superman do practically" is beside the point, the fact is Snyder deliberately manipulated stuff to frame the character in that specific way when he had a host of other choices.
I agree. The Smallville fight did a better job of showing Superman saving people while also fighting Faora and Non. I think it was a missed opportunity to not show Superman trying, and failing, to do the same in Metropolis and having Zod use Kal's compassion to his advantage. It would have helped with the infamous neck snap because it would have further illustrated how desperate the situation was. Every second that Superman allowed that fight to continue was leading to more deaths.
I think this is spot on. Ending your first film by putting Superman in a no-win situation where the villain "wins" by making Superman do something he clearly didn’t want to do was always a baffling choice for me.
Snyder's interest in deconstructing Superman is something that might have worked but he hadn't devoted enough time to construct him beforehand.
For instance, the neck snap would have had far more impact if they had included the hunting scene between Pa and young Clark that established his aversion to taking any life. Without that scene, the execution of Zod and Superman's subsequent freak-out don't really land because the movie hadn't shown us why that was such a big deal.
Well, I figured MoS had that scene to portray Zod's ruthlessness and establish his credibility behind his threats. Prior to Infinity War, I thought Shannon's Zod was about as good of a comic book movie villain that as any we've had, in part because of Snyder's extra investment in Zod's characterization. I fault Snyder for a lot of things, but not for deciding to spend extra movie time on Zod. To me, at least, having Zod say he was going to kill everyone, and then showing he was going to kill a few people, doesn't bother me from a narrative sense. Perhaps it's a little dark for a Superman movie, but it wasn't high on my list of things I thought really should've played out differently.
FWIW, I never bought into the claim that Superman had no choice but to kill Zod in that moment, either. I think that was a false either-or situation. And if you want to get really nitpicky, why is it that when they fell from orbit they landed back in downtown Metropolis, like a 3-min jog for Lois from where the fight started? That's like dropping a ball from a skyscraper and expecting it to fall on the exact 3 sq inch section you marked off on the sidewalk.
In short, Snyder wanted to emphasize that Zod had the intent and means to level Earth by himself, and had Superman react to that threat level. You can argue that it's not the right direction for the movie, but it seems wrong to peg that on Superman's lack of caring for civilians, as many online commenters have. The more I think about it, the more it seems like Snyder wanted the final fight to play out like Superman vs. Doomsday in the comics or even the 2007 animated movie.
Snyder is nothing if not eccentric. Dude operates on bizarro logic and it's a pity he didn't do a solo Bizarro movie. It would have been the perfect fit.
I think quite simply there was a host of things that need to be called into question. Why choose Zod as the villain? Why make snapping his neck the main solution? Why corral Superman to a point where he had to do it? Snyder has issues with the Donner movies' legacy, and that's something I sorta agree with him but why use the one character whose claim to fame is being in the second Superman movie.For instance, the neck snap would have had far more impact if they had included the hunting scene between Pa and young Clark that established his aversion to taking any life. Without that scene, the execution of Zod and Superman's subsequent freak-out don't really land because the movie hadn't shown us why that was such a big deal.
I mean if you want Superman to whale on an evil alien conqueror with all his powers and not have him be a murderer, use Brainiac. He's a robot so Superman can smash and destroy him all the live long day and it wouldn't count as killing. Brainiac's never been adapted in live-action before. You could basically do the same story as Man of Steel and substitute Brainiac for Zod and for the most part, nothing would change. Brainiac's the kind of bad guy who always survives with some part of himself in any tech so you could serialize him and tie him to Luthor and so on. You could do the DCAU thing and tie Brainiac to the Fortress tech and you could do the ambiguous thing where you wonder if the Jor-El hologram is in fact Brainiac or not, and Superman's interest in learning about his past would tie in to his interest and encounter with Brainiac and so on. The whole "Krypton had its chance" could be justified if Brainiac is planning to create disposable clone armies to conquer world in a perversion of his people's legacy.
There are ways to do that, Darkseid using his Omega beams to kill Dan Turpin did that well.
Agreed.FWIW, I never bought into the claim that Superman had no choice but to kill Zod in that moment, either. I think that was a false either-or situation. And if you want to get really nitpicky, why is it that when they fell from orbit they landed back in downtown Metropolis, like a 3-min jog for Lois from where the fight started? That's like dropping a ball from a skyscraper and expecting it to fall on the exact 3 sq inch section you marked off on the sidewalk.
In so far as I (and I think everyone) have a Platonic Ideal of Superman (how Superman should be as a consensus aggregate of multiple adaptations), I find it easy to separate that from Snyder's take on Superman. To me Snyder's Superman is a morose indecisive Hamlet-ish character who is depressed, lonely, plagued by father's ghosts and heedless of collateral damage just like Shakespeare's Hamlet (who murders in cold-blood several innocent people, and drives his girlfriend to suicide long before he gets to doing what he's supposed to do). The problem with Snyder is that every superhero is Hamlet (as ZSJL shows) and for all my objections that Jesus isn't a superhero, Hamlet is even less a superhero.You can argue that it's not the right direction for the movie, but it seems wrong to peg that on Superman's lack of caring for civilians, as many online commenters have.
You do find Hamlet likable and so yeah even ZS' Superman comes across as likable and there are moments in his movies where the character works (Cavill's Superman sassing the military during the two-way window scene with Lois, casually breaking the handcuffs) but that has to be spiced with so many asterisks.
Snyder directs every movie like its his last and gives it his all. That can be a virtue but the problem is that he stages Superman's first movie like it's essentially the last Superman story he can do so he puts it all there. It becomes a problem when you do the sequel, because in BVS you bring in Doomsday and Snyder has to set the fight scene in a depopulated dock area at night when the entire Doomsday battle took place at the heart of Metropolis. The battle between Zod and Superman would have been justified against Doomsday because the latter represents the upping of the ante from all that came before. You see this issue repeated in ZSJL where the Apokoliptan Invasion and the formation/debut of the Justice League lacks a sense of grand scale and epic coming together because it largely plays out among elite groups (Amazons, Atlanteans) and then a nowhereswhille Russian abandoned city.The more I think about it, the more it seems like Snyder wanted the final fight to play out like Superman vs. Doomsday in the comics or even the 2007 animated movie
The result is that MAN OF STEEL and Zod's Invasion is the biggest scale and most destructive threat in the DCEU and that everything after is a de-escalation. That's the opposite of how this should be.
Being part of VS debating i always got annoyed whenever i showed an awesome feat for supes like surviving a explosion meant to vaporise half a galaxy only to have boy try and debunk me by bringing up frank millars god awful supes nearly dying from a nuke scene. I truly hate it when writers refuse to be consistent with powerhouse characters.
This is absolutely brilliant. And I'll be laughing randomly about "Bat-Poochie" for decades. lol
Jack covered most of this well, but I keep thinking back to the oil tanker. That was a huge opportunity to not just "oh cool explosion behind the hero" but make it about his reaction - then call back to that when it happens again and this time Superman tries to catch it. There are a number of little ways to show both character growth and an attempt to move the fight.
Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
www.jamiekelleymusic.com
TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/
So I'm just going to say it,
if you make Superman Evil and the Ultimate Villain of your saga,
he is no different from the Sentry,
it's the fact he doesn't lose control and become the Void that makes him special,
that's what makes him Superman.