Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Agent Richard07, Jun 11, 2013.
It's really one of those Silver-Age powers we rarely see anymore. It's a shame, really.
I liked Zod's motivation in Superman II much much more, which was to rule. Simple but effective. Also Terence Stamp was awesome.
Zod was just Hitler in MOS. Meh.
Don't be willfully dense just for a laugh. You know what I meant.
The whole set up wherein Superman "had" to kill Zod was because Snyder and Goyer wanted it in there to "reinvent" the character. So they rewrote the ending, which originally, had Zod getting sucked into the PZ, to create a situation under which he "had" to kill Zod.
It was a tacked on coda, not something that flowed naturally from the rest of the script (insofar as, noted above, it wasn't in the original script). It didn't have to be there. The writers could have found ways around it if they hadn't been pushing for it in the first place.
How dare those bastards try to reinvent Superman in this new reboot origin story I demand the same thing forever
Of course I knew what you meant, that doesn't make your original statement any less silly. Hell, we could say that about EVERY movie out there. "Batman didn't have to kill Ras, with some minor script changes he wouldn't have been on the train that was set to crash."
"Luke didn't have to have his hand chopped off. With some changes to the script and blocking his hand could have been a different position when Vader swung his saber."
"Part of New York didn't have to be damaged with the world threatened. With some minor changes to the script Loki never would have gotten his hands on Tesseract at all!"
"Frodo and company didn't have to walk all the way to Mordor to destroy the ring, with some changes to the script and original story the rings could have not existed to pose any problem at all!"
The point is that Zod DID escape getting into the Phantom Zone and then Superman had to do *something* with him and deal with him in some manner when he threatened innocents.
"It could have ended differently if it was written differently" isn't a solution. The writers wanted this to happen. The POINT is in how characters deal with it and the repercussions it has. Here, Superman snaps Zod's neck, breaks down, yells, and weeps. It was emotionally hard for him to do and for all we know it'll lead to him going into a "I will never kill again," mentality. In the situation Superman was in he had little other choice.
"It could have been different it was written differently" isn't a solution. It's meta-solving solutions. Stay inside the fourth-wall.
Well, at least we know you would have snapped his neck. I'm glad I don't have to be around you in any dark alleys.
The solution is to not write yourself in that corner in the first place. The sequence where the phantom zone is opened as a singularity was imagery and ideas taken from the Geoff Johns / Richard Donner Action Comics Annual #11 that concluded the Last Son story arc. Zod wasn't killed there; he was sucked back into the zone just like the rest.
Snyder and Goyer borrowed the ideas and images from the comics, but they adjusted the story to make sure Superman killed somebody. Again, I wonder if it's part of a grand plan to tell the story of "Exiled" and "The Eradicator" over the course a trilogy. We'll see.
However, I can't help how I felt when I saw Superman do it. I realize you don't care and even seem to like it; but that's you and not me.
That's not writing yourself in a corner. Writing yourself in corner means you have to pull out a McGuffin or a deus ex machnia to come up with an ending that doesn't fit. (See: Any movie made where destroying the mothership causes all of the secondary ships/attackers to drop dead.)
The writers made a choice to have Superman kill Zod to have a impactful, shocking, moment in the movie. They didn't write themselves in a corner they wrote themselves exactly where they wanted to go. And, for me, it worked. Again, Superman showed pain and remorse over doing it. It didn't come easy to him and that he didn't "simply kill Zod earlier" shows it was his absolute very last choice and not a decision that came to him quickly and easily. (See: Him risking exposing himself to a bus-full of children as opposed to letting them die to protect his identity.)
Where it goes from here, we'll see. But killing is hardly completely out of Superman's character and he'll bring himself to that point if he absolutely has to go there. Again, as we see.
Again, what else were his options with access to the Phantom Zone gone and Zod is just as powerful as he is and is promising to kill humans to his dying breath? Again, this was done much better than Batman shrugging off killing Ras by simply saying "Well, I didn't kill him. I just didn't save him."
I say this as a big Superman fan, I've got no problem with how the Zod thing was handled.
I think that scene would been more effective if Superman actually had a choice. He never did. The writing forced Superman to kill Zod.
There should have been a plan A like Superman getting Zod on the scout ship to depower and capture him, but Superman was forced at the last moment to kill Zod when he threaten the family. Instead the entire battle was just the two of them punching each other.
I have little problem with genocidal maniacs losing their ability to draw breathe, nice to know you would prefer their killing spree to contine though
The world thanks you.
Sometimes being the Hero means you have to do something that is against your morality. Superman made the choice to kill and live with that guilt for the rest of his life in the same way Batman refused to save Ra's in Begins because some EVIL cannot be reasoned with.
But see, Batman's killing (excuse me, refusal to save) is illogical because Ra could've been saved and then taken into custody by Gotham PD/the authorities who don't take kindly to attempts to kill/poison a city full of people. Batman also has a bit more a firmly established "code" against killing and Batman HAD a choice, Superman really didn't.
If Superman didn't act Zod would have killed the people and continued his rampage. If Batman acted Ra would've be imprisoned. Batman also came across as rather indifferent to the idea of killing (excuse me "not saving") Ra.
^ You could argue Batman saved him once and the consequences were almost disastrous so Batman factored that into his decision to not save him/kill him. I hate the whole won't kill code anyway as it was written in a time when Heroes had to be pure, it just doesn't suit the more gritty realistic heroes that are potrayed in todays TV/Movies.
The world is a lot of grey and it will always be that way.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure it was featured briefly in IV.
I dunno, with Batman I like the "no-killing" thing because, well, he's still a human being and he has to live with the things he does. He also likely wants to stay as much inside the "law" as he can and killing someone will be crossing that line too much for him. It also creates interesting situations like when he saved a mortally wounded Joker because he didn't want to be responsible for his death, or when Batman realized it was time to retire when he reached for a gun to save himself.
One of the bigger reasons Batman doesn't kill is that he doesn't want anyone to suffer what he did when lost his parents. Sure, this doesn't apply as much with his big villains but, still, it's an interesting aspect to him.
If Batman couldn't save Ra because he was pinned or something that's one thing. But for Batman to say, "Yeah, I'm not going to save you." is a whole other thing.
The movie hardly suggests that Superman killing Zod was a "heroic" thing, only that it was necessary in that moment-- just like it often is for our own cops and soldiers.
And there was hardly anything thrilling or exciting about him doing it either. In fact it was actually pretty tragic to watch-- which was the point.
And they were right that that original ending would have been deeply unsatisfying-- and way too easy for the character. Not only did the movie still need some kind of powerful conclusion, but we needed to see Superman truly tested as well.
Seeing him finally forced to kill Zod to prevent more death and destruction, and seeing the pain and agony he felt afterwards, only reinforces the idea that this is something that Superman-- more than any other superhero-- takes VERY seriously.
We needed to see that pain, because that is something only the Superman of the comics would truly feel (even if it was over the death of someone who had killed his own father!) In fact in my mind this act only makes him seem MORE like Superman to me.
Yes when he went to speak with the elders
Reeve's performance is memorable, but for me the main thing that redeems the movie is John Williams' score, which, to be fair, doesn't take everything seriously, either, but the main title is grand.
Send him back to the Phantom Zone. All it would have taken is restructuring the final act so that Zod was in a position--like the rest of the Kryptonian criminals--to be banished.[/QUOTE]
FYI, from the movie it was explained that the only way to open the Zone was for them to turn on the Phantom Drive of the ship they had in hand from the Kent's farm in the proximity of the World builder, which also had a drive. The two fields created the singularity. There was no other Phantom drives left to create the singularity.
Just got back, gave it an A-... I liked it a lot, good performances all around, and nice eye-candy abounds. My major quibble is the sheer volume of the collateral damage in the final hour of the movie, and in Kal's seeming unconcern with it other than to save the colonel and Lois -- I know he was in the middle of a pair of fights, but the way the movie casually killed tens of thousands of Metropolis residents [at least] seemed very un-Superman-like to me. The action sf movies seem to have to one-up each other on the carnage scale these days, with Pacific Rim next on deck... Avengers' NYC battle looks like a minor kerfuffle after seeing this one.
BUT Bruce didn't come out and tie him to the train himself, did he? He also specifically said that he didn't have to save him...IS THAT the same as snapping someones neck?!?!?
What a sad life you must have when you must ignore GOD's number one commandment..On your definition on hero????
Actually I'm pretty sure that was the fifth or sixth commandment (apparently commanding that humans worship no one other gods but Him was more important).
Separate names with a comma.