They did with Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
MAN OF STEEL: Another look
- Thread starter david g
- Start date
They did with Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
Captain America is limited in his ability to change the world, though. Superman is not.
It's not like Superman in the new movie was a cruel manipulative character anyway. The only real complaint is that, in a fight for world survival, there was collateral damage and that he reluctantly killed someone.
It's not like Superman in the new movie was a cruel manipulative character anyway. The only real complaint is that, in a fight for world survival, there was collateral damage and that he reluctantly killed someone.
^ Collateral damage that he did not sufficiently acknowledge during or after the fact (subjectively speaking). 
As for the Captain America comparison ... it's not about a comparison of abilities, it's in how his squeaky-clean persona is portrayed on screen. It shows that an "aw shucks" kind of superhero can be a draw at the cinema.
As for the Captain America comparison ... it's not about a comparison of abilities, it's in how his squeaky-clean persona is portrayed on screen. It shows that an "aw shucks" kind of superhero can be a draw at the cinema.
I thought Henry Cavill did a great job as Superman in very much the way you would expect him to be - particularly in the scene where he's locked up by the army. I think people are downplaying the goodness of the character throughout the movie.
No.
Anyway, Cavill's Superman did what was necessary in the context of the story. Killing Zod certainly wasn't unprecedented for the character; he killed three Kryptonians (including Zod) with a great deal more premeditation in a story started by John Byrne back in the 1980s.
Really, the only difference between the actions of Captain America and Superman is that the helicarriers happened to not go crashing into Rosslyn, the Pentagon, and the Kennedy Center. There's no reason for them not to except the writers didn't want them to. The actions of the characters weren't particularly different - especially when compared to the ship that Superman destroys that crashed through Metropolis. Both acted basically the same.
In addition, let's not forget that dozens of people on the helicarriers were killed. They were "assumed" to be HYDRA because they had no choice but to assume that, but there's no way to be certain that every one of them was.
In addition, let's not forget that dozens of people on the helicarriers were killed. They were "assumed" to be HYDRA because they had no choice but to assume that, but there's no way to be certain that every one of them was.
No what? You said they couldn't do a character nowadays who is an overgrown boy scout like Superman was in the Donner films. Well guess what? Captain America is exactly that. You can say no all you want, but unless you back that up with some facts (you know, the proper way to disagree with someone) than I will assume I am right.
How was Superman supposed to use "humanity" to beat Zod? Zod and his followers had made it pretty clear what there intentions were since coming to Earth.
Zod's message to Earth: "To Kal-El I say this. Surrender in 24 hours or watch this world suffer the consequences".
The Dream Sequence where Zod reveals his plan to rebuild Krytpon atop the skulls of humanity.
Faora to Superman: "For every human you save, we will kill a million more'.
Activating the World Engine in the middle of a civilian city.
Zod's speech before the final fight: "I'm going to make them suffer Kal. These humans you've adopted. I will take them all from you".
"If you love these people so much. You can mourn for them".
Zod was unapologetic mass murderer. He gave no shit about humanity. Even if he did, how would Superman talk Zod in to submission? It didn't work in Superman II, or the comics; why would it work here?
Speaking of Superman II what does Superman do after he outwits Zod? He crushes a powerless Zod's hand and proceeds to lift him up and throw him into a wall. Where Zod presumably falls to his death. Fans cheered about it.
MOS Superman kills a still dangerous and active threat to himself and all of humanity and the fans go berserk about it.
Superman killing another genocidal Zod in the comics (Superman #22 1988)
That's fandom for you I guess. Celebrate the canon moments you agree with and condemn the ones you don't.
There's another cut of the Superman 2 where Zod gets arrested, That said, I don't like that scene.
The thing is: it's all about tone, the mot elusive aspect of making a film.
Sure, in the original cut of Superman 2, Zod fell to his death, and Superman killed him. Sure. That's what happened. But here's where tone came in. The original films were wholesome, standup films for the whole family, and they looked and felt like living, breathing comic books, and things in that film happen according the rules of a comic book. And in that world, people die. Sure, but there isn't a dark, grim, cloud-like feeling of depression we feel because of it. Notice how Superman kind of salutes.
But Nolan and Goyer had to try all of our patience by having pain, agony, catastrophic 9/11x200 level destruction, burning eyes, neck snapping and screaming in a reboot of the most wholesome comic book character of all time.
Thanks guys!
The thing is: it's all about tone, the mot elusive aspect of making a film.
Sure, in the original cut of Superman 2, Zod fell to his death, and Superman killed him. Sure. That's what happened. But here's where tone came in. The original films were wholesome, standup films for the whole family, and they looked and felt like living, breathing comic books, and things in that film happen according the rules of a comic book. And in that world, people die. Sure, but there isn't a dark, grim, cloud-like feeling of depression we feel because of it. Notice how Superman kind of salutes.
But Nolan and Goyer had to try all of our patience by having pain, agony, catastrophic 9/11x200 level destruction, burning eyes, neck snapping and screaming in a reboot of the most wholesome comic book character of all time.
Thanks guys!
I have never seen the deleted scene of Zod, Ursa and Non being arrested. However I can tell you, The Richard Donner Cut ends exactly the same as the Theatrical version of Supreman II, with one additional scene. After Zod, Ursa and Non fall in to the bottomless pit. Superman flies Lois of of the Fortress and uses his heat vision to destroy it. Two different version of the same event, both end with Superman killing Zod.
MOS is an "end of the world" threat. It's meant to be challenging since Superman is so powerful. Pick up any recent (within the last 15 years) Superman comic and mass destruction in a civilian setting is a staple of it. Pick any recent (no need to go back to the 90's) alien invasion movie Avengers, Transformers 3, Skyline, War of the Worlds, Cloverfield; and mass destruction is there. The difference between MOS and say Avengers is that the threat in MOS was compentent and nearly achieved their goals. The Chitauri in the Avengers were just fodder for the heroes to beat up. They flew around on scooters and shot up cars; completely missing people every time. They jumped in to building where people were started shooting and only hit the wall.
Burning eye are just how heat vision looks in comics.
From the "Donner Cut"
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA5d66AnT7s[/yt]
Yup, they get arrested!
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA5d66AnT7s[/yt]
Yup, they get arrested!
I'm not going to disagree with this, but I am going to point to point out something that I think is important. I think a lot of people are confusing the actions of Superman with the tone of Man of Steel. People have said that Superman was dark and brooding and indifferent to the suffering around him, but really they're just talking about the tone of the movie. Superman's personality was not all that different from previous incarnations. I pointed to the scene where he turns himself in to the US military as an example. That scene, to me, struck exactly the right tone for Superman.
In Man of Steel Clark is a very good person placed in an incredibly difficult situation he doesn't yet have the skill set to deal with in the most effective way. He still managed to save seven billion people from annihilation.
I actually don't have a problem with him killing Zod, whether in SII or MOS. I have an issue over *how* he beats him.
In MOS they punch the crap out of each other, broadly speaking evenly matched, until they crash back from space through a glass roof, Supes lucks out and lands in the dominant position and manages to get Zod in a head lock. It's pure luck. I'd rather the writers had come up with something a little more interesting - sure they punch crap out of each other, fight to a standstill perhaps, but Superman eventually uses some low cunning/cleverness to win the day - perhaps based on some bit of local knowledge - Zod is an elite supersoldier, so the only advantage that Superman has is that he's been on earth for 30 years. It just seems more in keeping with the character and I don't think it precludes anything you've mentioned about world level threat.
My original comment was agreeing with you - Superman normally wins through using his brain.
Well, Superman did use the one advantage he had over Zod throughout that battle - he could fly and Zod could not.
I was watching Man of Steel on HBO this morning. I still think its the best of the Superman movies.
it is
easily the best. The 2nd half of Superman is awful, Superman II is good (Donner cut is better though turn back earth AGAIN 
) and we won't speak of III & IV
Spot on.
- Destroyed a man's truck, and risked letting the world know of his powers (something his dad sacrificed his life to conceal) because the dude was a jerk.
- Destroyed a multi-million dollar piece of military equipment without warning.
- After the big battle, when hundreds of thousands are dead or dying, would rather make out with Lois than look for survivors.
Those are not the actions of a very good man. Sure, I agree with you that the intention of the movie was to show Clark doing the best he can in overwhelming circumstances, but the execution of the film portrays him as an unfeeling sociopath.