Man of Steel Discussion (Spoilers)

[DIrishB]

Yep. I agree. It could've worked. Just didn't work. No set up. Like the kiss. The set up was "you've seen other Superman shows before, right?" Doesn't work. It needs a set up in the world its created.

The Lois/Superman kiss was poorly built up. However on the second viewing it seemed to work better, perhaps because knowing it was coming I paid more attention to the build up (their conversations, the looks they gave each other, the mutual respect built between them over the course of the film, etc). It still wasn't handled well, but I feel subsequent viewings make it more forgivable, least it did for me.

If I were more cynical, I might suspect that Snyder used MAN OF STEEL to try to adapt MIRACLEMAN since the climax felt very, very much like that.

Good point. Also, you're a total Miracleman whore.

 

[Bass]

Can you blame me? That comic is excellent.

 

[E]

The Miracelman stuff has been moved to one of the [thread=12307]Marvelman discussion threads[/thread]...

 

[Ice]

....David Goyer – There's No Rule That Says Superman Can't Be A Killer


In the case of [Superman's controversial death match with] Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice.

This is one area, and I've written comic books as well and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers – 'Superman doesn't kill'. It's a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don't believe in rules like that. I believe when you're writing film or television, you can't rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film.

So the situation was, Zod says 'I'm not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.' The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can't fly to the moon, and we didn't want to come up with that crutch.

 

[DIrishB]

....David Goyer – There’s No Rule That Says Superman Can’t Be A Killer In the case of [Superman's controversial death match with] Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice. This is one area, and I’ve written comic books as well and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers – ‘Superman doesn’t kill’. It’s a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don’t believe in rules like that. I believe when you’re writing film or television, you can’t rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film. So the situation was, Zod says ‘I’m not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.’ The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can’t fly to the moon, and we didn’t want to come up with that crutch.

I still think those saying Superman "never kills" are just plain wrong. Granted he should find another way, but in rare instances, there is no other way. This has been shown in the comics themselves, so the argument is invalid. Also, since this is essentially Superman Begins, it makes sense that his killing of Zod is a catalyst for the "not killing" motivation. From there on out its a perfect motivating factor for him to not kill. That said I think it was pretty obvious he tried to avoid killing Zod until faced with the decision of Zod or the innocent family. Easy decision. But seriously, the purists are exhausting.

 

[thee great one]

I still think those saying Superman "never kills" are just plain wrong. Granted he should find another way, but in rare instances, there is no other way. This has been shown in the comics themselves, so the argument is invalid. Also, since this is essentially Superman Begins, it makes sense that his killing of Zod is a catalyst for the "not killing" motivation. From there on out its a perfect motivating factor for him to not kill. That said I think it was pretty obvious he tried to avoid killing Zod until faced with the decision of Zod or the innocent family. Easy decision. But seriously, the purists are exhausting.

You're exhausting! I am not even going to counter this I'm so exhausted!

 

[Captain Canuck]

I guess it just seemed silly to me that Superman would be so concerned with the lives of one family after his fights with Zod and crew had toppled several skyscrapers and blown up a gas station. Are you telli me that no one in Smallville or Metropolis died as a result of the fight? Come on.

 

[ProjectX2]

I want a Superman movie where he doesn't stop killing.

 

[Ice]

I guess it just seemed silly to me that Superman would be so concerned with the lives of one family after his fights with Zod and crew had toppled several skyscrapers and blown up a gas station. Are you telli me that no one in Smallville or Metropolis died as a result of the fight? Come on.

Screw the rest of the people. KILL! KILL! KILL!

 

[thee great one]

I want a Superman movie where he doesn't stop killing.

You have played too much GTA

 

[wyokid]

....David Goyer – There's No Rule That Says Superman Can't Be A Killer


In the case of [Superman's controversial death match with] Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice.

This is one area, and I've written comic books as well and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers – 'Superman doesn't kill'. It's a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don't believe in rules like that. I believe when you're writing film or television, you can't rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film.

So the situation was, Zod says 'I'm not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.' The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can't fly to the moon, and we didn't want to come up with that crutch.

I've never wanted to beat a man close to death before, but man is Goyer making me want to do it to him. QUIT BEING SUCH AN IDIOT!

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

I've never wanted to beat a man close to death before, but man is Goyer making me want to do it to him. QUIT BEING SUCH AN IDIOT!

I don't see what he said that was so ridiculous. I have quite a few issues with the movie (although I liked more than I disliked), but Superman killing Zod isn't one of them. I will grant that the way they staged it was really awkward and melodramatic. I've always thought that this insistence that Superman (and Batman to a lesser extent) never kill is a bit childish and simple-minded. Are you telling me that there is no situation where it's ok for Superman to kill a villain? Zod's going to go on killing people by the thousands, but Superman just has to go "oh well", because...you know...it's never ok to kill someone. I think most people recognize that although it's not a good thing to kill someone, there are exceptions that that rule. And one of those exceptions is if it's the only way to stop a mass murderer.

 

[wyokid]

I don't see what he said that was so ridiculous. I have quite a few issues with the movie (although I liked more than I disliked), but Superman killing Zod isn't one of them. I will grant that the way they staged it was really awkward and melodramatic. I've always thought that this insistence that Superman (and Batman to a lesser extent) never kill is a bit childish and simple-minded. Are you telling me that there is no situation where it's ok for Superman to kill a villain? Zod's going to go on killing people by the thousands, but Superman just has to go "oh well", because...you know...it's never ok to kill someone. I think most people recognize that although it's not a good thing to kill someone, there are exceptions that that rule. And one of those exceptions is if it's the only way to stop a mass murderer.

This whole movie was a mess and it's, mainly, thanks to Goyer's horrendous script and Snyder's lack of skill. All the post-interviews shows me that they've learned nothing. Never mind the fact that there is ALWAYS another way, the movie fell apart LONG before Zod's neck was snapped. I also think Goyer is an asshat so I already wanted to punch him before Man of Steel. Bottom line is this movie wasn't made by people who like Superman nor is it made for people who like Superman. The last time I saw a film this godawful was The Amazing Spider-Man.

This is going to be my last post in this thread because, well, just thinking about this movie pisses me off too much.

 

[thee great one]

I would have been more open to the idea if this was a sequel where superman has already been established. But nope, first major problem and he kills. Some last resort. I hope the next film is just Injustice the game.

 

[Captain Canuck]

The last time I saw a film this godawful was The Amazing Spider-Man.

Except The Amazing Spider-Man was a nearly perfect Spider-Man film.

 

[E]

Except The Amazing Spider-Man was a nearly perfect Spider-Man film.

If you compare it to the previous 3 it's a virtual Citizen Kane.

Otherwise, it was completely average at best.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

I would have been more open to the idea if this was a sequel where superman has already been established. But nope, first major problem and he kills. Some last resort. I hope the next film is just Injustice the game.

Why is Superman killing after he's been established any better or worse than him killing a villain at the beginning of his career? It seems to me that having him make this "mistake" (although I don't think it's a mistake) early in his career can ensure that Superman acts with more caution as he matures as a hero. Man of Steel was Superman's first outing. Why does he have to be fully formed as the hero we all know right off the bat?

But yeah, Amazing Spider-Man was terrible. The first two Raimi films are easily better.

 

[DIrishB]

You're exhausting! I am not even going to counter this I'm so exhausted!

Well after your nap come up with a better solution to give your point any weight. When you've got a homicidal superhuman intent on killing everyone on Earth, what can you do to ensure the safety of humanity other than kill Zod? If you've got a better idea, I'm all ears.

But no one has mentioned one yet.

I guess it just seemed silly to me that Superman would be so concerned with the lives of one family after his fights with Zod and crew had toppled several skyscrapers and blown up a gas station. Are you telli me that no one in Smallville or Metropolis died as a result of the fight? Come on.

Of course not. Obviously people died as a result. But as I've said numerous times, Superman was left with two options there. Stay and fight, which he did, or try to draw Zod away someplace empty of life (like a desert or the Antarctic) to minimize collateral damage. Except that was Zod's point: to maximize collateral damage/human death by staging the fight in Superman's hometown. If Superman had left to get Zod to chase him, it wouldn't have worked. Zod would merely begin killing people to draw Superman to him.

Essentially, Zod held all the cards.

Why are people not seeing this? It's like the detractors are looking for fault merely for the sake of looking for faults without fairly examining the issue. If Superman is forced to choose between protecting innocents and killing a villain, I can understand him choosing the latter. Granted I get that he's better than that and should find another way, but in this instance, there was no other way. If you or anyone else can come up with a viable option other than killing Zod that doesn't result in the deaths of countless additional people, I'm all ears.

I don't see what he said that was so ridiculous. I have quite a few issues with the movie (although I liked more than I disliked), but Superman killing Zod isn't one of them. I will grant that the way they staged it was really awkward and melodramatic. I've always thought that this insistence that Superman (and Batman to a lesser extent) never kill is a bit childish and simple-minded. Are you telling me that there is no situation where it's ok for Superman to kill a villain? Zod's going to go on killing people by the thousands, but Superman just has to go "oh well", because...you know...it's never ok to kill someone. I think most people recognize that although it's not a good thing to kill someone, there are exceptions that that rule. And one of those exceptions is if it's the only way to stop a mass murderer.

Exactly. Again, the film had its problems, but the "Superman killing Zod is wrong" argument hasn't been well argued by those against it.

This whole movie was a mess and it's, mainly, thanks to Goyer's horrendous script and Snyder's lack of skill.

How so? You're talking in generalities instead of specifics, which is the definition of a weak argument.

All the post-interviews shows me that they've learned nothing. Never mind the fact that there is ALWAYS another way,

Yet no ones mentioned a single, viable alternative yet, including you.

the movie fell apart LONG before Zod's neck was snapped.

Ok. Why? How?

I also think Goyer is an asshat so I already wanted to punch him before Man of Steel. Bottom line is this movie wasn't made by people who like Superman nor is it made for people who like Superman. The last time I saw a film this godawful was The Amazing Spider-Man. This is going to be my last post in this thread because, well, just thinking about this movie pisses me off too much.

You really need to calm down and learn how to get your point across. All you've essentially done is scream about the film sucking without actually giving a single reason why you think so.

If you compare it to the previous 3 it's a virtual Citizen Kane. Otherwise, it was completely average at best.

Ha! "Rosebud".

Why is Superman killing after he's been established any better or worse than him killing a villain at the beginning of his career? It seems to me that having him make this "mistake" (although I don't think it's a mistake) early in his career can ensure that Superman acts with more caution as he matures as a hero. Man of Steel was Superman's first outing. Why does he have to be fully formed as the hero we all know right off the bat? But yeah, Amazing Spider-Man was terrible. The first two Raimi films are easily better.

I disagree with your view of ASM, but agree about MoS.

Again, if anyone can come up with a better way of preventing Zod from wiping out humanity short of killing him (keeping in mind imprisonment in the Phantom Zone was not an option at that point), I'd love to hear it.

 

[thee great one]

Well after your nap come up with a better solution to give your point any weight. When you've got a homicidal superhuman intent on killing everyone on Earth, what can you do to ensure the safety of humanity other than kill Zod? If you've got a better idea, I'm all ears.

But no one has mentioned one yet.



Of course not. Obviously people died as a result. But as I've said numerous times, Superman was left with two options there. Stay and fight, which he did, or try to draw Zod away someplace empty of life (like a desert or the Antarctic) to minimize collateral damage. Except that was Zod's point: to maximize collateral damage/human death by staging the fight in Superman's hometown. If Superman had left to get Zod to chase him, it wouldn't have worked. Zod would merely begin killing people to draw Superman to him.

Essentially, Zod held all the cards.

Why are people not seeing this? It's like the detractors are looking for fault merely for the sake of looking for faults without fairly examining the issue. If Superman is forced to choose between protecting innocents and killing a villain, I can understand him choosing the latter. Granted I get that he's better than that and should find another way, but in this instance, there was no other way. If you or anyone else can come up with a viable option other than killing Zod that doesn't result in the deaths of countless additional people, I'm all ears.



Exactly. Again, the film had its problems, but the "Superman killing Zod is wrong" argument hasn't been well argued by those against it.



How so? You're talking in generalities instead of specifics, which is the definition of a weak argument.



Yet no ones mentioned a single, viable alternative yet, including you.



Ok. Why? How?



You really need to calm down and learn how to get your point across. All you've essentially done is scream about the film sucking without actually giving a single reason why you think so.



Ha! "Rosebud".



I disagree with your view of ASM, but agree about MoS.

Again, if anyone can come up with a better way of preventing Zod from wiping out humanity short of killing him (keeping in mind imprisonment in the Phantom Zone was not an option at that point), I'd love to hear it.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN AN OPTION!

The writers wrote him into the situation that never should have happened.

This god awful movie doesn't even deserve the discussion. **** man of steel and **** all those involved.

 

[E]

When you've got a homicidal superhuman intent on killing everyone on Earth, what can you do to ensure the safety of humanity other than kill Zod? If you've got a better idea, I'm all ears.

Phantom Zone? Isn't that exactly what it is for?

Why are people not seeing this? It's like the detractors are looking for fault merely for the sake of looking for faults without fairly examining the issue. If Superman is forced to choose between protecting innocents and killing a villain, I can understand him choosing the latter. Granted I get that he's better than that and should find another way, but in this instance, there was no other way. If you or anyone else can come up with a viable option other than killing Zod that doesn't result in the deaths of countless additional people, I'm all ears.

Because the argument is that Superman doesn't do that. He doesn't kill.

You are asking what he should have done instead...when Superman is great it's because he finds a way when no one can. He should find a way where no one else can. He preserves life, and he finds a way to do so even when it seems like there is no other option. That is his "power" as much as super strength or the ability to fly or anything else. He's better in every way, and he always finds a way even when you or I don't think there is one.