Grant Morrison talks modern Superman and his politics

[adkal]

I'm not referring to people who merely say the movie or aspects of the movie disappointed them. I'm talking of the people who flood forums with stuff like "Man of Murder" or "Murderer of Steel" "Hobo of Steel" etc and treat Superman's killing of Zod as some abberation or anomaly as Superman "never" kills...when he has, in the comics and other media and past movies, HAS KILLED , and usually it's General Zod or Doomsday.

Not according to Reeve

Many of those same people will defend these other instances and make excuses for them but for some reason in MOS it was unforgivable and forever ruined the current film version of Superman no matter how future films address it. I think that's telling.

I do agree MOS could have been a lot better, particularly in the case of how they handled Jonathan Kent's death and the last act was slanted a little too much in the vein of destruction porn (as an over correction to the valid claims of no action in SUPERMAN RETURNS),but the ending with Zod was not as problematic as some make it out to be, and the majority of first two thirds of the movie did a good job with character development and building a credible version of Superman from elements of the Post-Crisis comics, Smallville and, yes, the Donner film. I enjoyed Cavill and the rest of the cast and the costume used in the film is 1000 times superior to any of his current comic looks (particularly the New 52 armor), so it gets a thumbs up overall, but it could have and should have been better.

Actually my opinion matches Morrison's pretty closely. He enjoyed quite a lot of it, felt the ending was flawed, albeit for different reasons, and is optimistic for the sequel.

I've been very open about my issues with Man of Steel (I wrote a super-long analysis of it and did a 'rewrite'/alternate approach to it) but I still gave it a '7 and a half'. There are a lot of viable seeds that have been sown and I'm looking forward to seeing how and where they take things going forward.

[t hedge coke]

Seriously, the whole point of him turning himself over to Zod and his cry of anguish after he killed Zod are more than enough proof that this Superman does care.

Exactly. I think it was a fairly boring movie, and I wish the writers had come up with a better way for Superman to save the day, but I'm not going to "blame" Supes for the kill, because it clearly was a last ditch effort, and I'm still confident the filmmakers get at least the basic morality of killing hurting him, too. That's in the movie. It should be in followups.

[manofsteel1979]

Not according to Reeve

Well, it's true that may not have been the intention of the original film makers when making the film considering that they did film a scene of Zod and co. being led away by the artic police. However, ultimately movies are made in editing, and for whatever reason Richard Lester, the director who took over from Donner, made the decision to get rid of that scene and we are left with Superman crushing a powerless Zod's hand into mush and then chucking him into a chasm that presumably goes on for at least an excess of 100 feet either onto a rocky hard floor or a hard ice strewn bottom of freezing cold water. That usually results in death for a mortal man sans invulnerability, Kryptonian or not. Without any prior knowledge of any extra scenes to say otherwise, those who saw the film in 1980/1981 saw Superman killing Zod with a smirk, and that is true of the Donner recut as well. True the Donner cut has the artic police scene as a bonus feature on the DVD...however the movie itself without the extra scene added still shows Superman tossing a mortal man to his probable death. Although in the Donner cut, he undoes everything at the end by reversing time...so...yay?

I've been very open about my issues with Man of Steel (I wrote a super-long analysis of it and did a 'rewrite'/alternate approach to it) but I still gave it a '7 and a half'. There are a lot of viable seeds that have been sown and I'm looking forward to seeing how and where they take things going forward.

That's my feeling. MOS wasn't a slam dunk but a lay up. There is a lot of potential there should future screenwriters and directors foster the seeds sown. Will they? Time will tell.

[Doctor Know]

Superman cared, that's why he stopped being Superman.

Right.

It may be true that a broader audience feels it less, but I don't think you can look at Moore or Morrison's stories with Superman in them, or their work as a whole body, and come away sure that they don't care, that they're not aware that killing someone who looks a certain way is the same as killing someone who looks a different way.

The two-parter was also being advertised as the "final Superman story". That, and COIE happening already, and the Byrne reboot coming down the pipeline. Nothing in Moore's swan song comic, really mattered.

Also, keep in context what occurred in "Whatever Happened in the Man of Tomorrow". Specifically all the deaths.
Parasite died
Terra Man died
Luthor died
Brainiac died
Bizarro died
Kryptonite Man died
Mxyzspltk died
Pete Ross died
Lana Lang died
Jimmy Olsen died
Krypto died
Supergirl confirmed dead by the events of COIE

Pretty much all of Superman's greatest villains were either died or neutralized (Metallo). Conflate that with all the death Superman's family and friends suffered. Moore crafted a story that would allow Superman to walk away into the sunset. It's not like Superman actively abandoned Superheroing while his rogue's gallery was still an at large threat.


MOS Supes cared when he took Zod's life. The same can be said for Byrne's (see the storyline Exile).

[Ascended]

Im way more accepting of a Superman who kills than most posters here, but you all know how I dislike the Kents being alive during Clark's adulthood. I want those old farmers dead before Clark's old enough to drink. :devil: And even I couldn't get behind the ridiculousness of John Kent's death scene.

For real, that's the thing you should all be upset about. Killing Zod? Whatever. Not the first time. Had a good reason for it. Cried afterwards, showing more remorse for taking a life than any other hero ever has in the movies. Superman kills Zod. Like it or not, its repeated in the canon often enough it's part of his character. He doesnt have to do it, not every version is well served by including it, but it happening shouldnt be a surprise or an outrage. It's just part of the whole package, not unlike Batman's inevitable emotional abuse to Robin (present too often to be ignored, unpleasant but established). These guys aren't perfect. Debate closed.

But Kent dying in a tornado by refusing to let Clark save him? And Clark letting it happen? Pure BS and as out of character as you can possibly get.

What was John thinking? He's fifty feet away. There's a huge natural disaster not much further than that promising certain death. Friggin CARS are flying around. And John is worried that people are going to notice Clark, in the back of the group, disappear for five seconds while he puts John somewhere safe so they can "find" him later, miraculously alive after being "caught and then thrown from the tornado".

Dont forget, Martha was there too and could have helped cover for Clark if, by some impossibility, someone in the group looked back at that exact moment and noticed through their fear and panic that one stranger out of a crowd of a dozen strangers was missing.

And worst case scenario, someone does notice. So what? Is anyone going to give any credit at all to these claims? Random person sees weird stuff during a near-death experience. Happens a lot. If any attention does end up on them, it'll be on the "luckiest farmer in Kansas" who survived being tossed from a tornado with barely a scratch. No one is going to make the connection. "So, you lost sight of this kid for a second while everyone scrambled for their lives, so you think he saved the old man? Ohh-kay. Let me guess, he's an alien too, right?"

[Last Son of Krypton]

For me, MoS main problem is the execution. There're so many themes and ideas that the movie wants to convey but the execution sometimes leaves something to be desired.
I like the idea behind Jonathan's death, it makes sense in the story they want to tell, but they could find a better way to convey the same message.
I feel the same for most of Goyer/Snyder's creative choices for MoS, including Zod's death.

[sunofdarkchild]

For me, MoS main problem is the execution. There're so many themes and ideas that the movie wants to convey but the execution sometimes leaves something to be desired.
I like the idea behind Jonathan's death, it makes sense in the story they want to tell, but they could find a better way to convey the same message.
I feel the same for most of Goyer/Snyder's creative choices for MoS, including Zod's death.

This. All the pieces of a great movie are there. They just failed to execute them properly.

[Robotman]

This. All the pieces of a great movie are there. They just failed to execute them properly.

Maybe one of the reasons why Goyer has been replaced with Terrio. I think the Dark Knght trilogy was so good because the Nolan brothers would clean up Goyer's script. He can come up with the initial ideas but he needs someone to polish his work.
But at least in BvS they're acknowledging that Superman made some mistakes during his first major conflict as a hero. One of the main plot points is pretty much what people on the internet have been arguing about since the release of MoS. The destruction caused by the fight with Zod and his death at the hands of Superman.

[manofsteel1979]

Im way more accepting of a Superman who kills than most posters here, but you all know how I dislike the Kents being alive during Clark's adulthood. I want those old farmers dead before Clark's old enough to drink. :devil: And even I couldn't get behind the ridiculousness of John Kent's death scene.

For real, that's the thing you should all be upset about. Killing Zod? Whatever. Not the first time. Had a good reason for it. Cried afterwards, showing more remorse for taking a life than any other hero ever has in the movies. Superman kills Zod. Like it or not, its repeated in the canon often enough it's part of his character. He doesnt have to do it, not every version is well served by including it, but it happening shouldnt be a surprise or an outrage. It's just part of the whole package, not unlike Batman's inevitable emotional abuse to Robin (present too often to be ignored, unpleasant but established). These guys aren't perfect. Debate closed.

But Kent dying in a tornado by refusing to let Clark save him? And Clark letting it happen? Pure BS and as out of character as you can possibly get.

What was John thinking? He's fifty feet away. There's a huge natural disaster not much further than that promising certain death. Friggin CARS are flying around. And John is worried that people are going to notice Clark, in the back of the group, disappear for five seconds while he puts John somewhere safe so they can "find" him later, miraculously alive after being "caught and then thrown from the tornado".

Dont forget, Martha was there too and could have helped cover for Clark if, by some impossibility, someone in the group looked back at that exact moment and noticed through their fear and panic that one stranger out of a crowd of a dozen strangers was missing.

And worst case scenario, someone does notice. So what? Is anyone going to give any credit at all to these claims? Random person sees weird stuff during a near-death experience. Happens a lot. If any attention does end up on them, it'll be on the "luckiest farmer in Kansas" who survived being tossed from a tornado with barely a scratch. No one is going to make the connection. "So, you lost sight of this kid for a second while everyone scrambled for their lives, so you think he saved the old man? Ohh-kay. Let me guess, he's an alien too, right?"

Yeah...i agree with you completely, and as time passes I have more and more problems with that scene and how it was done.

One thing though to wonder is exactly how fast Clark is at age 17? We assume he is at full speed and strength here,especially seeing as they are trying to pass off the nearly 30 year old Cavill as a late teen's Clark, however it's possible in this illeration his powers don't peak until later on and he may not be up to speed as they say. He perhaps may have been fast enough to save Jonathan...but not fast enough to"disappear" while doing it as we assume he would.Or perhaps he had yet to test the limits of his speed and wasn't aware he COULD move faster than a speeding bullet. If that was the case, the movie should have found a way to sell that,because that's the only way this scene makes any real sense and doesn't make Jonathan Kent look like a selfish idiot and Clark a dolt. It also might have helped to have that scene happen when, say, Clark was 15 or 16 so they could have justified having the kid who played teen Clark in the later scene play Clark here so the scenario makes more sense. Perhaps that was supposed to be the case,but somewhere along the line someone realized that Cavill wasn't given any scenes to play against Kevin Costner, so they decided to use Cavill to give them one scene together? If that was the case, the entire scene needed to be rewritten.

[Ascended]

Yeah...i agree with you completely, and as time passes I have more and more problems with that scene and how it was done.

One thing though to wonder is exactly how fast Clark is at age 17? We assume he is at full speed and strength here,especially seeing as they are trying to pass off the nearly 30 year old Cavill as a late teen's Clark, however it's possible in this illeration his powers don't peak until later on and he may not be up to speed as they say. He perhaps may have been fast enough to save Jonathan...but not fast enough to"disappear" while doing it as we assume he would.Or perhaps he had yet to test the limits of his speed and wasn't aware he COULD move faster than a speeding bullet. If that was the case, the movie should have found a way to sell that,because that's the only way this scene makes any real sense and doesn't make Jonathan Kent look like a selfish idiot and Clark a dolt. It also might have helped to have that scene happen when, say, Clark was 15 or 16 so they could have justified having the kid who played teen Clark in the later scene play Clark here so the scenario makes more sense. Perhaps that was supposed to be the case,but somewhere along the line someone realized that Cavill wasn't given any scenes to play against Kevin Costner, so they decided to use Cavill to give them one scene together? If that was the case, the entire scene needed to be rewritten.

You know, I hadn't considered that Clark's speed wasn't up to the job.

I think you might have a possible explanation for Clark's actions in that scene, but I dont know if the rest of the film supports it. We see him at a much younger age using enhanced senses, we see him push the bus out of the river, twist steel in his bare hands, and I dont know what else. Now, off the top of my head we never saw him use his speed before adulthood but it seems to me that if his other powers have developed as a pre-teen, his speed would be at least partially developed by his late teens.

We also know that they're going with the idea that it doesnt take much sunlight to trigger the powers. Zod was on earth for like, ten minutes before he started flying, and when Clark tore his helmet off (exposing him to earth's atmosphere for the first time) the assault on his senses overwhelms him immediately.

Still, its as good a theory as any Ive seen. But I think they just really dropped the ball with John's death. Would it have been any harder on the budget if they had shown Clark and John pulling people to safety together (at normal speed) and John getting pulled into the tornado while saving someone, while Clark was saving someone else further away? I cant imagine that it would have been much more expensive, and I think it would have made the scene much more palpable.

[adkal]

This was my 'alternate take' on that scene:

'Dad, you've seen the changes my writing has brought to this town, I know I can do more out there.'

'I know, Clark, I know, but...you're barely seventeen. Focus on college for now, please?'

'Dad, come on, I-'

'He has almost graduated, Jonathan,' interrupts Martha.

'Those are remote classes, Martha, and you heard Mr Phillips: Clark could be a great scientist or even an inventor. He can make a difference that way, the way he did when he fixed our thresher.'

'That's not fair, Dad. Please?'

'Son, just...give me this for now. Please? I just...it feels like you're growing up too fast.'

'Fine,' mumbles Clark, slumping into his seat.

Ahead of them they see the storm, and the abandoned cars. Clark leans forward, his eyes wide at first and then squinting, and then wide again. 'It's turning, Pa. It's going to head this way.'

'You're sure?'

'Positive.' Clark looks out of the back of the truck. 'There are too many cars back there to get everyone to turn around, and...no, it's picking up speed.'

'The ditch. Go. Go!'

They clamour out of the car and head to the ditch. Seeing a woman struggling with her children, Jonathan hurries forward to help. All around them panicking people are running, stumbling, falling, and children are crying and struggling.

'Pa!' shouts Clark, and Jonathan nods and shouts back, 'Be careful!'

Clark hurries to the nearest car and tugs at the belt holding in the child safety seat. The belt snaps and Clark pulls out the seat and hands it the child's mother, and tells her to get to the ditch. Martha ushers people to the ditch while Jonathan, Clark, and other people try to help those around them.

A woman stumbles and hurts her leg, and her daughters scream and try to help her up. Clark shouts to his father and the others: 'These are the last ones! Get to the ditch!' and hurries over to her and tells her to get on his back while he carries two of the girls under this arms and the third against his chest. The woman and the girls are screaming against the wind as Clark easily makes his way to the ditch. At the ditch, the woman, helped by Martha, slides off and slumps painfully to the ground, and Clark places two of the girls onto the ground and tries to coax off the one clinging to his neck. From the corner of his eye he sees Jonathan stumble and struggle against the wind.

'Honey, please, you have to let go. I need to go back and help.' The girl is screaming, crying into Clark's chest and Clark sees the winds getting stronger and Jonathan struggling more. 'Please, honey, let me go.' Cars are getting tossed into the air and the other two girls suddenly grab onto Clark's legs.

'Ma!' shouts Clark, desperately. 'Take them. I can save him.' Martha and the girls' mother try to get the girls to let Clark go and Clark, helpless, watches his father struggle.

'Don't,' Jonathan coughs, as he struggles to stand upright. 'You did good, son,' he whispers as he grabs at the side of a car. 'I'm proud of you.'

Clark screams in anguish, fighting every urge to pull the girls off him and rush to his father's aid, and Martha hides her face against his back.

'I made a choice that day, Ms Lane. A choice I knew my father would have me wanted to make, but it was the hardest one I had ever had to make. I could have removed the girls, but I would have hurt them in doing so. I could have rushed to him and saved him, but I would have hurt him and others around me in doing so.

'My father taught me that there is a right and a wrong in the universe and that the distinction isn't a difficult one, but that day the right felt so wrong. My father died in order to keep this secret. He died because the world wasn't ready for something like me.'

'I think the world's ready now, Clark. I really do.'

[adkal]

Maybe one of the reasons why Goyer has been replaced with Terrio. I think the Dark Knght trilogy was so good because the Nolan brothers would clean up Goyer's script. He can come up with the initial ideas but he needs someone to polish his work.
But at least in BvS they're acknowledging that Superman made some mistakes during his first major conflict as a hero. One of the main plot points is pretty much what people on the internet have been arguing about since the release of MoS. The destruction caused by the fight with Zod and his death at the hands of Superman.

The thing is, for me, one of the 'selling points' they had in the trailers and in various interviews was that the movie was going to go into how the world reacts to finding out someone like him exists. As far as I'm concerned, we never got that. That we're going to into it now, in BvS, doesn't change the fact that it should have been done then in Man of Steel, in my opinion...since that's what they had said they were going to do.

[manofsteel1979]

The thing is, for me, one of the 'selling points' they had in the trailers and in various interviews was that the movie was going to go into how the world reacts to finding out someone like him exists. As far as I'm concerned, we never got that. That we're going to into it now, in BvS, doesn't change the fact that it should have been done then in Man of Steel, in my opinion...since that's what they had said they were going to do.

Well to be fair, the first half of MOS did go there....and even through the Smallville fight to some extent...then it all came secondary to the end battle which was a shame, as there was a lot of richness to the first hour and a half.

[Tayswift]

Well, it's true that may not have been the intention of the original film makers when making the film considering that they did film a scene of Zod and co. being led away by the artic police. However, ultimately movies are made in editing, and for whatever reason Richard Lester, the director who took over from Donner, made the decision to get rid of that scene and we are left with Superman crushing a powerless Zod's hand into mush and then chucking him into a chasm that presumably goes on for at least an excess of 100 feet either onto a rocky hard floor or a hard ice strewn bottom of freezing cold water. That usually results in death for a mortal man sans invulnerability, Kryptonian or not. Without any prior knowledge of any extra scenes to say otherwise, those who saw the film in 1980/1981 saw Superman killing Zod with a smirk, and that is true of the Donner recut as well. True the Donner cut has the artic police scene as a bonus feature on the DVD...however the movie itself without the extra scene added still shows Superman tossing a mortal man to his probable death. Although in the Donner cut, he undoes everything at the end by reversing time...so...yay?

.

I think donner take on the scene is very cartoon like tom and jerry. they do terrible things on the cartoon but we laugh because it isn't really serious.

[manofsteel1979]

I think donner take on the scene is very cartoon like tom and jerry. they do terrible things on the cartoon but we laugh because it isn't really serious.

Yet, that would contradict the "verisimilitude" mantra Donner and crew adhered too when making their films. Although, theres no doubt that if Donner had been able to film all of II, he likely would have reshot or completely redone certain scenes he shot while making the first one. He acknowledged as such in past commentaries and interviews, and I highly suspect the end of the movie, particularly the scenes in question would have been among those redone. What ended up in the film though is what we got, and what was edited for the screen in 1980, Superman and Lois killed a powerless Zod and his crew.