Superman and Killing

[Kurosawa]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who can't stand what they're doing to Superman.

On that last point you made, that's what I mean by clunky exposition. The conspicuously leaden rationalizing of unethical behavior felt to me like I was watching a movie written by someone that might have a touch of aspergers. That's just my humble opinion, and of course I can't be sure. However, the reason I say aspergers is because I'm not sure they are necessarily trying to pull a fast one on the audience like a snake oil salesman, and for the fact that I don't think they understand humor. I think they might actually believe some of this stuff that they write very literally, and that they truly mean well. Whatever the case may be, I'm not sure that any kind of dialogue would be smooth or nuanced enough to get Superman out of this no-win scenario if they insisted that it play out as it did. Unfortunately for Clark in this predicament, there's a word for characters who advertise one thing but promote the opposite by their actions. By contrast, Zod and Faora are honest about who they are and what they plan on doing.

As for what MOS might be trying to say about good and evil, oh boy. To me, not only do the principal film makers of MOS demonstrate their contempt for Superman, but contempt for morality itself. I mean, in the end, Faora's line was the message of the movie. "You are weak, Son of El, unsure of yourself. The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage. And if history has proven anything...It is that evolution always wins." Morality is considered weak. Might is right. Philosophically speaking, those kinds of ideals should be antithetical to Superman's values, but they aren't in this film's finale.

Agree completely. And I think the biggest thing is neither Snyder nor Goyer like that morality is one of Superman's key components. I think they feel morality is a lot of what makes Superman "old-fashioned and corny". Certainly none of the characters in MOS had any sort of morality or compassion apart from maybe Ma Kent. I really think Frank Miller's influence on Snyder is much deeper than anyone understands, and I think Batman V Superman will prove that. And to me, the biggest reason why Miller dislikes Superman is he just cannot buy into the idea that someone that powerful could be that moral and compassionate. As a follower of Ayn Rand, I imagine Miller feels Superman is betraying his power and his potential by wasting his time with lesser beings. I think the way they all see these characters is summed up in Miller's admittedly brilliant Daredevil #191:

Daredevil: "What am I giving people by running around in tights and punching crooks? What am I showing them? Am I showing them that good wins out, the crime does not pay, that the cavalry is always on its way — or am I showing them that any idiot with fists for brains can get his way if he’s fast enough and mean enough? Am I fighting violence — or teaching it?"

This is who "wins" in MOS-the idiot who is mean enough. And MOS Superman certainly is fists for brains.

"For me, the worst thing about Superman killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel isn’t the neck-snapping itself, but that a few minutes before it happens, during an interminable fight scene through the damn near post-apocalyptic landscape of a ruined Metropolis, Zod tells him something along the lines of “this doesn’t end until one of us dies.” And he’s right. That’s what kills me about it. The bad guy tells Superman that he’ll only stop if Superman kills him, and Superman proves him right. Superman proves that the bad guy is right. There’s no other way. It’s just violence and death as the only solution.

"Superman proves that the bad guy is right.

"There is nothing you can tell me that will make me think that’s not a completely insane, monumentally wrongheaded way to end a Superman movie. From a character standpoint, it is the worst possible thing they could do, undermining every bit of rancid dialogue about how Superman’s going to Show Us The Way and how It Stands For Hope. It doesn’t. It’s just dudes punching each other until one of them punches harder, the end.

"What makes it even crazier is that Snyder spends the preceding two hours hammering the idea that Superman is Space Jesus. Seriously, if you liked the Christ imagery of Superman Returns but thought it was a little too subtle, I have some good news for you...I don’t think Superman as a Christ figure works even in the best of times, but when you’re making a movie where you build to your Christ figure snapping a bad guy’s neck? It’s been a while since I’ve gone through the New Testament, but I’m at least 70% sure that’s not how that works."--Chris Sims, "‘Man Of Steel’: On My Planet, The ‘S’ Is For Sucks"

All of this is very sadly true. The entire movie is making the point that Superman as a character and as a concept is not viable and not possible. There are three pillars that Superman is built upon as a character: power, wish fulfillment, and morality. MOS threw away the last two, and the first one only works with the other two in play.

[The Red Monk]

"For me, the worst thing about Superman killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel isn’t the neck-snapping itself, but that a few minutes before it happens, during an interminable fight scene through the damn near post-apocalyptic landscape of a ruined Metropolis, Zod tells him something along the lines of “this doesn’t end until one of us dies.” And he’s right. That’s what kills me about it. The bad guy tells Superman that he’ll only stop if Superman kills him, and Superman proves him right. Superman proves that the bad guy is right. There’s no other way. It’s just violence and death as the only solution.

"Superman proves that the bad guy is right.

"There is nothing you can tell me that will make me think that’s not a completely insane, monumentally wrongheaded way to end a Superman movie. From a character standpoint, it is the worst possible thing they could do, undermining every bit of rancid dialogue about how Superman’s going to Show Us The Way and how It Stands For Hope. It doesn’t. It’s just dudes punching each other until one of them punches harder, the end.

"What makes it even crazier is that Snyder spends the preceding two hours hammering the idea that Superman is Space Jesus. Seriously, if you liked the Christ imagery of Superman Returns but thought it was a little too subtle, I have some good news for you...I don’t think Superman as a Christ figure works even in the best of times, but when you’re making a movie where you build to your Christ figure snapping a bad guy’s neck? It’s been a while since I’ve gone through the New Testament, but I’m at least 70% sure that’s not how that works."--Chris Sims, "‘Man Of Steel’: On My Planet, The ‘S’ Is For Sucks"

Yeah, Sims is the man. I am pretty firmly of the opinion that if it wasn't for Zod's statement, the whole shebang wouldn't bother me as much as it did.

And of course, I am simply of the opinion that they should have left the killing to further movies. Establish Superman as the paragon of virtue we all know and love, then WHAM, show him in a position of compromise. Especially if her gets a bit cocky in future movies, and starts thinking that, to quote Boris from Goldeneye, "I am INVINCIBLE!"*, only to get brutally brought down to earth from the clouds.

*Yes, technically he is, but you know what I mean.

[Agent Z]

Here's my two cents. I understand sympathize with those who didn't like how Superman was portrayed in Man of Steel. I myself wasn't all that impressed with it. But here is what I think many people are missing; Superman is a rookie.

Flashbacks to Clark's childhood show that he was constantly discouraged from using his powers, or at least from doing so in a flashy way that got him caught. Yet I don't think it's accurate to say he has no respect or value for human life. Remember the first scene of adult Clark has him saving a bunch of men from an oil rig and we later see him defending a woman from a trucker who sexually harasses her and is implied to do that on a regular basis. In fact, Lois outright states that the only reason she was able to track his movements so well was because of the many people he saved during his travels. So while he isn't exactly the Superman we know, he is still close enough in my opinion.

Then there's Zod. Firstly, when Zod shows up, Clark is at a considerable disadvantage. He only just learns that he can fly when Zod announces his arrival. Nonetheless, he chooses to turn himself in and only rebels when he learns that Zod plans to wipeout humans.

This brings us to the fight. As many have pointed out most of the damage is done by the world engine and by Zod smashing Superman into things. In fact, Clark does try to take the fight to outer space only for Zod to come back. Zod made it crystal clear that he wouldn't be stopped until he had exterminated every last human. This is not a sign of Clark's weakness or incompetence but a sign of Zod's ruthlessness. And while Clark has more experience with his powers, Zod has military training and is more willing to kill.

Again these are my opinions so take them with a grain of salt.

[Lexrules]

Here's my two cents. I understand sympathize with those who didn't like how Superman was portrayed in Man of Steel. I myself wasn't all that impressed with it. But here is what I think many people are missing; Superman is a rookie.

Flashbacks to Clark's childhood show that he was constantly discouraged from using his powers, or at least from doing so in a flashy way that got him caught. Yet I don't think it's accurate to say he has no respect or value for human life. Remember the first scene of adult Clark has him saving a bunch of men from an oil rig and we later see him defending a woman from a trucker who sexually harasses her and is implied to do that on a regular basis. In fact, Lois outright states that the only reason she was able to track his movements so well was because of the many people he saved during his travels. So while he isn't exactly the Superman we know, he is still close enough in my opinion.

Then there's Zod. Firstly, when Zod shows up, Clark is at a considerable disadvantage. He only just learns that he can fly when Zod announces his arrival. Nonetheless, he chooses to turn himself in and only rebels when he learns that Zod plans to wipeout humans.

This brings us to the fight. As many have pointed out most of the damage is done by the world engine and by Zod smashing Superman into things. In fact, Clark does try to take the fight to outer space only for Zod to come back. Zod made it crystal clear that he wouldn't be stopped until he had exterminated every last human. This is not a sign of Clark's weakness or incompetence but a sign of Zod's ruthlessness. And while Clark has more experience with his powers, Zod has military training and is more willing to kill.

Again these are my opinions so take them with a grain of salt.

Once again the character should never be put into that position. When he takes the name Superman, he is Superman. This is also a problem these movies have. Sure it is time consuming but when he finally takes the name Superman he is ready or else he is simply Superboy in training.

Superboy makes mistakes, Superman does not.

[The Beast]

Once again the character should never be put into that position.

Why not? Aren't you the guy who said:

But you are correct in saying we all see Superman differently and that is part of the reason the character reaches so many people and is so special. It's all a matter of how you see the character and why this above all else is why we will never have a perfect telling of the character in cinema because so many different ways of seeing the character.

We all see Superman differently because he's been portrayed differently throughout history. We've seen your approach on screen before, the fully realized Supergod 'that does no wrong' and it didn't perform that well. Now the studio wants to create the opportunity to allow the audience to experience the character arc of Clark Kent finding his way. I don't blame them, at all. They can't please everyone all of the time, so might as well go with the biggest potential audience.

Unfortunately for some of you, Superman may develop an aversion to killing but it's not going to be off the table for future movies.

"I think if there were more adventures for Superman to go on, you then are also given this other thing, where you don't know 100% what he is going to do. I think that when you really put in stone the concept that he won't kill, and it's totally in stone, it really erases an option in the viewer's mind. Now, I think that doesn't mean that he doesn't now have a code, that he is like 'okay I just can't don't do that, this has to be outside, I gotta find another way, that's how it is,' but again you will always have it in the back of your mind this little thing [of] how far can you push him. If he sees Lois get hurt, or if he sees his mother get killed, you just made a really mad Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff when he wants to be.

That's the thing that is cool about him, I think in some ways; the ideas that he has the frailties of a human, sort of emotionally, but you don't want to get the guy mad." - Zack Snyder

"And originally Chris didn't even want to let us to try and write it, and Zack and I said 'we think we can figure out a way that you will buy it,' and so, I came up with this idea of the heat vision and these people about to die, and I wrote the scene and I gave it to Chris, and he said, ' okay, you've convinced me, and I buy it.'

And I think it's a shocking ending. I've seen the film four times with an audience, and everyone gasps at the ending. They don't see it coming, and I think it makes some people feel uncomfortable, other people say 'right on,' but that was the point, and hopefully we've done at the end of this film, we've gotten people to - the mainstream audience not the geek audience - to question.

Hopefully we've redefined Superman. " - David Goyer

Transcribed from an Empire Online podcast.

[Lexrules]

Why not? Aren't you the guy who said:



We all see Superman differently because he's been portrayed differently throughout history. We've seen your approach on screen before, the fully realized Supergod 'that does no wrong' and it didn't perform that well. Now the studio wants to create the opportunity to allow the audience to experience the character arc of Clark Kent finding his way. I don't blame them, at all. They can't please everyone all of the time, so might as well go with the biggest potential audience.

Unfortunately for some of you, Superman may develop an aversion to killing but it's not going to be off the table for future movies.

"I think if there were more adventures for Superman to go on, you then are also given this other thing, where you don't know 100% what he is going to do. I think that when you really put in stone the concept that he won't kill, and it's totally in stone, it really erases an option in the viewer's mind. Now, I think that doesn't mean that he doesn't now have a code, that he is like 'okay I just can't don't do that, this has to be outside, I gotta find another way, that's how it is,' but again you will always have it in the back of your mind this little thing [of] how far can you push him. If he sees Lois get hurt, or if he sees his mother get killed, you just made a really mad Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff when he wants to be.

That's the thing that is cool about him, I think in some ways; the ideas that he has the frailties of a human, sort of emotionally, but you don't want to get the guy mad." - Zack Snyder

"And originally Chris didn't even want to let us to try and write it, and Zack and I said 'we think we can figure out a way that you will buy it,' and so, I came up with this idea of the heat vision and these people about to die, and I wrote the scene and I gave it to Chris, and he said, ' okay, you've convinced me, and I buy it.'

And I think it's a shocking ending. I've seen the film four times with an audience, and everyone gasps at the ending. They don't see it coming, and I think it makes some people feel uncomfortable, other people say 'right on,' but that was the point, and hopefully we've done at the end of this film, we've gotten people to - the mainstream audience not the geek audience - to question.

Hopefully we've redefined Superman. " - David Goyer

Transcribed from an Empire Online podcast.

Sure but that is my point of view. Not speaking for anyone else but me when I make posts about what I believe in.

Also David Goyer has no right to say he could redefine anything nor should he even be so delusional in thinking so. Superman already is what he is and nothing Goyer does should ever be taken to cannon.

[The Beast]

Sure but that is my point of view.

But why do you impose it on others as the preferred frame of reference?

Also David Goyer has no right to say he could redefine anything. Superman already is what he is and nothing Goyer does should ever be taken to cannon.

David Goyer has EVERY right to redefine Superman, he was hired and subsequently promoted by the owners of the franchise to do just that.

[Lexrules]

But why do you impose it on others as the preferred frame of reference?



David Goyer has EVERY right to redefine Superman, he was hired and subsequently promoted by the owners of the franchise to do just that.

Oh Hell NO.......

Superman was created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster. Nothing Goyer did was redefining in any way as he took from them and other talented writers who worked on Superman over the years to write MOS. Just like Mario Puzo or Tom Mankiewicz did with STM, they took different ideas that already where there. Mankiewicz most likely would have smacked Goyer in the mouth for even making such a ridiculous statement.

[Kurosawa]

Here's my two cents. I understand sympathize with those who didn't like how Superman was portrayed in Man of Steel. I myself wasn't all that impressed with it. But here is what I think many people are missing; Superman is a rookie.

Flashbacks to Clark's childhood show that he was constantly discouraged from using his powers, or at least from doing so in a flashy way that got him caught. Yet I don't think it's accurate to say he has no respect or value for human life. Remember the first scene of adult Clark has him saving a bunch of men from an oil rig and we later see him defending a woman from a trucker who sexually harasses her and is implied to do that on a regular basis. In fact, Lois outright states that the only reason she was able to track his movements so well was because of the many people he saved during his travels. So while he isn't exactly the Superman we know, he is still close enough in my opinion.

Then there's Zod. Firstly, when Zod shows up, Clark is at a considerable disadvantage. He only just learns that he can fly when Zod announces his arrival. Nonetheless, he chooses to turn himself in and only rebels when he learns that Zod plans to wipeout humans.

This brings us to the fight. As many have pointed out most of the damage is done by the world engine and by Zod smashing Superman into things. In fact, Clark does try to take the fight to outer space only for Zod to come back. Zod made it crystal clear that he wouldn't be stopped until he had exterminated every last human. This is not a sign of Clark's weakness or incompetence but a sign of Zod's ruthlessness. And while Clark has more experience with his powers, Zod has military training and is more willing to kill.

Again these are my opinions so take them with a grain of salt.

A rookie Superman should not be like a rookie Spider-Man or whoever. This is a guy with an intellect that is eons beyond any human, with total recall, a guy who can make calculations in nanoseconds and who has an unstoppable will and determination to do what he feels is right. If a villain tells Superman he is going to have to kill him to stop him, that should just make Superman that much more determined and stubborn to stop him WITHOUT killing him. Now MOS Superman does not seem to have much will or much intelligence, but if you take away Superman's intelligence, morals and will then you have created a character that is NOT Superman. And MOS Superman is not a legitimate take on the character.

[DochaDocha]

David Goyer has EVERY right to redefine Superman, he was hired and subsequently promoted by the owners of the franchise to do just that.

There are degrees to everything. Yes, he has the authority to make changes when necessary, but there's a line where the changes go too far. Obviously, that line differs from every fan, but to use an extreme example, what if Spider-man was no longer a human, and didn't have Spider-powers? What would be the point in even calling it Spider-man?

We don't have to agree on the particulars, but I think almost any reasonable fan would say that if you change a character beyond whatever undefined extent, at some point you're not even writing about that particular character anymore.

[The Beast]

There are degrees to everything. Yes, he has the authority to make changes when necessary, but there's a line where the changes go too far. Obviously, that line differs from every fan, but to use an extreme example, what if Spider-man was no longer a human, and didn't have Spider-powers? What would be the point in even calling it Spider-man?

We don't have to agree on the particulars, but I think almost any reasonable fan would say that if you change a character beyond whatever undefined extent, at some point you're not even writing about that particular character anymore.

Where that line is and whether it's crossed or not is ultimately up to the owners of the franchise to decide. Obviously, too radical a change may be detrimental to the franchise but that wasn't the case with Goyer's adaptation.

It was good enough for Nolan, after all.

[Jim Kelly]

I have never seen MAN OF STEEL, so I have nothing to say about the movie itself; however, I do have an opinion about death in fiction. We either take it seriously or not.

When killing is taken seriously, it demands something of the creator--a certain philosophical depth. I wouldn't look to most super-hero comics or comic book movies for real depth--they don't show the full import of death on human beings--it's mainly just a driver for the plot. When killing isn't taken seriously, there isn't philosophical depth.

Those who defend killing, in Superman comics or movies, try to use realism for their rationalization. But I don't believe that the creators are really trying to be that deep or real.

Zach Snyder's biography doesn't suggest that he really has a deep insight into death and dying, such that he can craft a work of profound philosophical insight. Both Snyder and Oliver Stone have a background in the Episcopal church and they both grew up in suburban privilege--but Stone was a decorated soldier in the Vietnam War, who had a profound experience of death that changed him forever. Even if Stone makes some bad movies, I still credit him with the firsthand knowledge that informs his art--unlike Snyder.

The works of Dostoevky and Tolstoy are profound and have a lot to say about killing and the human condition. Both authors had personal experiences that gave their work that philosophical depth. As much as I like Edgar Rice Burroughs--the killngs in his work are fundamentally different. John Carter kills a lot of Barsoomians, but never suffers PTSD. And I wouldn't want that from ERB--since his books are all about action and rich fantasies.

In the late '30s, kids were caught up in the fantasy of Superman but probably didn't think a whole lot about the killing. And the adults who read those comics weren't reading them for deep answers to life's mysteries. There were serious novels, plays and poems in the '30s that commented on death and murder--comic books were junk fiction.

You guys don't mean to, I'm sure, but you're not really giving the comics and the movies credit for being what they are. You're trying to elevate them to the level of Hemingway or Steinbeck, so you can justify them on that basis. The justification for super-hero comics and big box office movies is fun. I would accept the argument for killing if it in fact made the stories more fun. But I think a lot of times death is being used only as a fake kind of grit--so it seems like the work has some heft to it, but when you really look at it for deeper meaning, it just isn't that profound.

We should allow a freedom to be superficial. I think some posters are defeating themselves when they try to win an argument by suggesting that realism is the ultimate good and the more realism the better. The truth is there are times in our lives when we need Dostoevsky and there other times when we need Burroughs.

[The Beast]

Oh Hell NO.......

Superman was created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster. Nothing Goyer did was redefining in any way as he took from them and other talented writers who worked on Superman over the years to write MOS. Just like Mario Puzo or Tom Mankiewicz did with STM, they took different ideas that already where there. Mankiewicz most likely would have smacked Goyer in the mouth for even making such a ridiculous statement.

There you go imposing your preferred frame of reference again...

If we're all entitled to our opinions about what Superman is or could be within some basic parameters, then Goyer didn't do anything "wrong."

[DochaDocha]

Where that line is and whether it's crossed or not is ultimately up to the owners of the franchise to decide. Obviously, too radical a change may be detrimental to the franchise but that wasn't the case with Goyer's adaptation.

It was good enough for Nolan, after all.

Fans can influence owners, though, which is why (again, to some extent) I am all for fans to voice their opinions on stuff like this.

Personally, I didn't care for the killing in MoS, but I understand why some people think it's justifiable.

[Lexrules]

There you go imposing your preferred frame of reference again...

If we're all entitled to our opinions about what Superman is or could be within some basic parameters, then Goyer didn't do anything "wrong."

This one I stand pat on. Goyer did nothing new or innovative to improve Superman in any way. He used other people's ideas and made a movie. Nothing redefining or new there what so ever.