Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Agent Richard07, Jun 11, 2013.
Just because it's not uncommon doesn't mean it's not stupid.
That might be a bit harsh. I think what it really comes down to is whether one is fine with the edgier and grittier take on the character, and with the heavy emphasis on action.
Those who are fine with that approach, like me, ended up loving the hell out of the movie. But those who aren't just can't seem to get into the movie at all.
Frankly I never expected the edgier approach to be such a tough sell. I figured a lot more people would be really into the idea of a more "real world" Superman, and looking at the story through more of a documentary-style lense.
I might have a few little issues with the storytelling, but the style and approach itself I thought were fantastic, and more than enough to make up for any other issues.
I am a firm believer that Superman killed Zod at the end of Superman II. Also, Superman has killed before.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Is that Pre-Crisis? Then it doesn't count
Actually post-Crisis, pre-Byrne reboot.
And even in the example he talks about his oath not to kill.
Can't have that oath in the new films.
“I promise I will never kill anyone...“ SNAP “...again.“
As stated before, all that devastation in the climax, and that Superman is basically broken by having to kill someone... That's the end of an arc, not the beginning. The new Superman starts off as someone who a) was the reason why the bad guys came here, b) couldn't prevent major destruction, c) caused major destruction himself and d) killed his enemies. Such a guy would NEVER ever become the inspiring role model that Superman is supposed to be.
I'm confused, Byrne's Man of Steel mini series is what introduced Superman post-Crisis. How can there be a story post-Crisis pre-Byrne?
Actually, it would be more inspiring for someone to overcome such obstacles rather than simply "be inspiring" because they're supposed to be.
It could be the event that causes the new film version to take up an oath against killing again...a new origin for the oath.
The various reboots of individual series, hard and soft, were published for years following the Crisis mini-series. The version of Superman who came out of the Crisis was still the Silver/Bronze-Age version. The Byrne reboot didn't happen for about a half year after the Crisis ended. In-between, stories continued to be published in the old continuity.
The story represented above was the sendoff story of that version of the character. And he did the honorable thing after breaking his oath...he exposed himself to Gold Kryptonite, sacrificing his powers forever, grew a 'stache, and disappeared into the obscurity of a new identity. That he went and married Lois Lane wouldn't have been a dead giveaway as to who he really was, no....
Oh, was that from Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? I've read that. I didn't know it came out after Crisis though!
Yeah, there were even references to Supergirl's death. When the Silver Age-era Legion of Super-Heroes pays him a visit with Supergirl along for the ride, he gets very upset with them, as they'd know that she'd just died recently from his perspective.
An experienced Superman was locked in to a death brawl with the monster Doomsday during the "Death of Superman" arc back in 1992. Massive amounts of casualties, property damage was caused by their battle. Doomsday was programmed to seek out and destroy Kryptonians BEFORE he was imprisoned on Earth. So during the fight he solely focused on Superman. Superman killed Doomsday and died himself. Superman was immortalized as a hero for his valor and sacrifice. It wasn't perfect but people acknowledged that Superman gave his all and did what no one else (this includes the entire Justice League and other heroes) could do. The same applies to MOS. No one else could stop Zod and his followers. Humanity had to depend on Superman to save them. Which he did.
It's kind of hard to label Superman as a viscous killer, when the people he fights against commit crimes that are far worse. Yes he's sinking to their level but what other choice does he have? A charge that Superman fans like myself have to defend against, is that Superman is a "pacifist pussy" who is given plot immunity by his writers in order to avoid him from every making hard choices. For example General Zod has been used a lot in the past decade. Each time Zod, independently or with his followers send Earth in to chaos. See Superman For Tomorrow, Superman Last Son (where Zod and his followers took out the entire Justice League and Justice Society), and The New Krytpon/War of The Supermen arc (where Zod rallies 100,000 K's in a war against Earth) that preceded the New52 reboot. Each one of those stories ended the same. Zod wreaks havoc, he duels with Superman in climatic fashion, Superman locks Zod back in to the phantom zone. It's tired and annoying at this point. The writers don't want to bring any finality to Superman and Zod's relationship and resort to just locking Zod back up in the phantom zone at the end of each skirmish.
Superman does not kill indiscriminately and without cause. The enemies he has killed; Zod (in the comics, films Superman II and MOS), Mxyzsptlk (in the comics), Doomsday (comics and animated movie) are all super powerful and can be measured as threats on galactic scales.
Other heroes who have killed with less at stake than Superman include:
Green Lantern/Hal Jordan
The Flash/Barry Allen
Batman (shot Darkseid with a GUN killing his host Dan Turbin)
There are more I'm sure. The point is these characters have all killed and yet no one bats and eyelash when it happens. Superman uses lethal force on characters whose powers rival his own, and he's subjected to public inquiry over his actions.
I can't believe the death of Zod in the movie is the primary thing we are still discussing about the movie.
I'll give you guys this much: If Zod had simply been sent to the Phantom Zone again, at least a sequel could have dealt with him coming back. However, what would happen in that sequel? He gets sent to the Phantom Zone again?
^ If this was the comics, yes that is what would happen.
The final fight with Supes vs Zod was done by Snyder and Goyer to give the film a little more weight at the end. Nolan wanted the film to end with all Krytponians including Zod being sucked back in to the phantom zone. The scene would be followed by Lois falling out of the plan and Superman saving her. Snyder and Goyer found that unsatisfying.
It really did feel tacked on. Indeed, Warners could have given them more money, and they could have made the scene longer. And loner. More destruction. By that point, there was no story. It was an sfx demo reel. I miss more poignant third acts of blockbuster films a'la The Empire Strikes Back
I always forget that Superman killed Doomsday... mainly since Doomsday didn't actually die either...
If you thought that was bad you should read how Bryan Singer's unmade MOS was going to end. Long story short, Brainiac transports his mind in to Jason and Superman is forced to kill his own son for the sake of humanity. Yeah... And people flipped when Supes killed Zod. Imagine Supes shown killing his child son.
I've lost count on how many times Doomsday has "died" before Superman killed him the first time. Didn't Doomsday have something like hundreds of deaths with revivals before being planted on earth? If Doomsday wasn't such a mindless beast you could almost feel sympathetic for him. Since he was a baby when the scientist who engineered him began killing him over and over again.
That is ridiculous. Would you expect a cop to do the honourable thing and retire after killing someone in a shootout that saved many lives?
I agree that killing someone shouldn't be your first choice and should always be used as a last resort, but taking an oath not to kill is just dumb. That would be like making all cops swear an oath never to kill no matter what the circumstances or how justifiable it might be to do so. It's just not realistic in their line of work.
Agreed. This idea that "Superman can never kill", no matter what, or how many innocent lives might be saved by him doing so, has always seemed ridiculous to me. The comics and cartoons might be able to come up with some handy contrivance every time, but in the real world I expect there are many times when Superman would have no choice but to stop a threat by using deadly force.
Especially when that threat is as all-powerful as Zod.
Exactly. He wouldn't need to use lethal force against even run of the mill super-villains, but against someone who is his physical equal or better he'd be hard pressed to find any non-lethal options.
Separate names with a comma.