This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for richardcranium
#1 Posted by RichardCranium (766 posts) - - Show Bio

This film has been around for 5 years or so, I won't bother not spoiling the twist ending where Superman kills Zod.

I understand the point about Batman willingly killing in Batman v Superman as being not true to the comic book character's roots and therefore a negative criticism of the film, whether or not I agree with those arguments...

But what about Superman's killing of Zod and his indirect involvement in causing mass destruction? All these were forced onto him - Superman was not willing to do all that carnage and death. Its a tough decision that reflects that in real life we have to make tough choices as opposed to comics Superman's idealism. Henry Cavill's Superman is still true to the comic book character's roots, isn't it? **So is it still valid to make his destructive actions a negative criticism of the film?**

Discuss.

Avatar image for chimeroid
#2 Posted by Chimeroid (8175 posts) - - Show Bio

I think people were watching too much DBZ. How on earth would Superman remove 3 kryptonians away from the city? I mean, they would just ignore him and destroy the world. Casualties happen in comics all the time as well and i believe it is simply ignorant to hate the movie for that part of it. There are other annoying things in it that should be criticized, but this is not one of them.

Avatar image for adamtrmm
#3 Posted by adamTRMM (7522 posts) - - Show Bio

He wasn't all that careful, I'll give you that. But the decision to kill Zod could only be opposed by a very special kind of people. Very special.

Avatar image for aros001
#4 Posted by Aros001 (3110 posts) - - Show Bio

While I don't blame Superman for the city's destruction or his choice in killing Zod, I do think a problem with the latter is that we and Superman are never given any time to dwell on it. When Superman killed Zod in the comics, it was a decision that haunted him for years. Something he knew he had to do to save billions but still something he never felt right about doing because he's not a sociopath. He does care about life.

In the movie, Superman is clearly upset about having to kill Zod, but after the moment it's never really brought up again. I blame this mostly on how rushed BvS and JL were made to be by WB's management. There was never any time for the audience to see how Superman was dealing with having taken a life or the guilt he's still feeling over it because there are so many other things being crammed into the same movie to focus on. And given that, from what I've heard, BvS originally was just going to be Man of Steel 2 and not be setting up a cinematic universe, I'd like to think Zod's death was something Sndyer was going to address before the studio snowballed the movie. Here's hoping an actual Superman sequel does address it.

Online
Avatar image for mazahs117
#5 Posted by MAZAHS117 (10907 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for ready_4_madness
#6 Posted by Ready_4_Madness (11462 posts) - - Show Bio

People overreacted.

Avatar image for lvenger
#7 Posted by Lvenger (35300 posts) - - Show Bio

*Sigh* As if the countless threads, comments, articles, videos, discussions and flame wars across the Internet don’t prove those scenes aren’t valid criticisms of Man of Steel. If plenty of people have the same problem, there might be something to it.

Avatar image for marvelanddcfan24
#8 Posted by MarvelandDCfan24 (5117 posts) - - Show Bio

That's the best part of the movie it was his upbringing and demeanor that was the worst part of the movie

Avatar image for rbt
#9 Posted by RBT (23166 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes

Avatar image for helloman
#10 Posted by Helloman (17929 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes.

Avatar image for richardcranium
#11 Posted by RichardCranium (766 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

*Sigh* As if the countless threads, comments, articles, videos, discussions and flame wars across the Internet don’t prove those scenes aren’t valid criticisms of Man of Steel. If plenty of people have the same problem, there might be something to it.

What do you mean? Double negatives are confusing.

So plenty of people have problem with Man of Steel's destructive saviour scenes? That's why this thread is here for, to address it and generate discussion.

Zack Snyder is trying to portray a deconstructed version of Superman as if he were to be in the real life world. In the real life world, hard choices had to be made, and that's what Superman did in that film. This is pretty clear, and what I don't understand is why the fans are so "Not my Superman" when they should very well know that comics do not always translate panel for panel to live action if it were to be a good adaptation.

Avatar image for indomitableregal
#12 Edited by IndomitableRegal (12858 posts) - - Show Bio

Killing Zod was dumb, but at least it ultimately gave us Teenage Mutant Doomsday Turtle, right? Right?!

MoS just wasn't a great movie. I mean it was good. Better than Suicide Squad and BvS imo, but I would never put it near the CBM top tiers.

Avatar image for wakel
#13 Edited by Wakel (790 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes. Killing Zod was understandable but didn't feel right. Also the destruction caused was unforgivable, there was no reason to kill that many people in the city. By the time Superman stops Zod, so much has been lost already.

Avatar image for richardcranium
#14 Posted by RichardCranium (766 posts) - - Show Bio

@rbt said:

Yes

@helloman said:

Yes.

could you guys at least explain why instead of putting up the "#NotMySuperman" banner each time DCEU Superman shows up?

I have already put up an argument which I summarize as: An adaptation does not mean every scene had to be word for word, scene for scene, and Superman's moral character as portrayed in the film is not twisted when compared to the comics adaptation. Act of killing does not mean the moral character is gone.

Avatar image for lvenger
#15 Edited by Lvenger (35300 posts) - - Show Bio

@richardcranium: I’m already known as a major critic of MOS for those scenes in particular. I don’t want to repeat myself again where I’ve argued plenty of times in the past so I’ll just direct you to my review of it:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/superman-165/a-super-disappointment-my-man-of-steel-review-spoi-1471461/

If you want to know why this scene is such a big problem in case you didn’t already know, there you go. And this discussion has been done to death, there was no need for you to make another one of these.

Avatar image for richardcranium
#16 Posted by RichardCranium (766 posts) - - Show Bio

Killing Zod was dumb, but at least it ultimately gave us Teenage Mutant Doomsday Turtle, right? Right?!

MoS just wasn't a great movie. I mean it was good. Better than Suicide Squad and BvS imo, but I would never put it near the CBM top tiers.

This thread isn't about whether MoS is a great film, it is specifically targeting the criticisms about Superman's destructive actions and killing of Zod. There are problems with the film no doubt, and we are discussing whether Superman's actions are part of them.

@wakel said:

Yes. Killing Zod was understandable but didn't feel right. Also the destruction caused was unforgivable, there was no reason to kill that many people in the city. By the time Superman stops Zod, so much has been lost already.

So what do you mean when you said it "didn't feel right" and "unforgivable"? This version of Superman reflects how a Superman would be like if he interacted with the real life world. Its live action after all, isn't it? Also, two superpowered beings fight each other in a city, and you are asking for a scene where there's not much destruction - don't you think that's asking too much to stretch the suspension of disbelief?

Avatar image for indomitableregal
#17 Posted by IndomitableRegal (12858 posts) - - Show Bio
@indomitableregal said:

Killing Zod was dumb, but at least it ultimately gave us Teenage Mutant Doomsday Turtle, right? Right?!

MoS just wasn't a great movie. I mean it was good. Better than Suicide Squad and BvS imo, but I would never put it near the CBM top tiers.

This thread isn't about whether MoS is a great film, it is specifically targeting the criticisms about Superman's destructive actions and killing of Zod. There are problems with the film no doubt, and we are discussing whether Superman's actions are part of them.

That's what you say, but these threads (particularly for the DCEU) have been made too often. I'm sure you could find plenty of discussions about this very same topic. At this point it just comes across as "Do people criticize Man of Steel too much".

Avatar image for deactivated-5add3922b3476
#18 Posted by deactivated-5add3922b3476 (699 posts) - - Show Bio

I hate when people try to assign more meaning to what Snyder created than he did.

Avatar image for richardcranium
#19 Posted by RichardCranium (766 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

@richardcranium: I’m already known as a major critic of MOS for those scenes in particular. I don’t want to repeat myself again where I’ve argued plenty of times in the past so I’ll just direct you to my review of it:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/superman-165/a-super-disappointment-my-man-of-steel-review-spoi-1471461/

If you want to know why this scene is such a big problem in case you didn’t already know, there you go. And this discussion has been done to death, there was no need for you to make another one of these.

I just read your review. I do actually agree with a lot of what you said, with regards to Superman's portrayal in the film. I just would want to ask whether is it fair to conflate the film adaptation's lack of Superman's comic book characterization - With Superman's moral center. Let's not talk about Snyder's deconstruction (Because I guess that had also been discussed to death) of a realistic Superman. I just want to ask whether do those destructive actions of Superman indicate that he lacks the moral center that comics' Superman portrayed?

E.g.: If DCEU Superman maliciously kills someone, I believe that clearly shows it deviates greatly from the comics. But for this case he did not.

Also, you said the essence of Superman is doing the right thing. Why do you say that DCEU Superman's killing of Zod is not doing the right thing? If someone is faced with only two evil choices, the only good choice is the lesser of two evils. You would most likely argue: "Superman/Batman will find a third option!" - I just feel that in the heat of the moment, Superman couldn't think of any other way, if he knew about a third and better option I don't doubt the Henry Cavill depiction would have taken it. Another argument is that I would refer you to the hard choices of real life i.e.: deconstruction, but that's not what we want to go to right now.

Avatar image for iknowwhoyouare
#20 Posted by iknowwhoyouare (1631 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor destroys Sokovia and no one has an issue LMAO

Avatar image for richardcranium
#21 Posted by RichardCranium (766 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor destroys Sokovia and no one has an issue LMAO

I don't read Thor comics, but I believe the reason is because Thor's characterization is not so much defined by his morals especially when compared to Superman's.

Avatar image for fullmetalemprah
#22 Posted by FullMetalEmprah (1953 posts) - - Show Bio

@richardcranium: You're completely missing the point of his criticisms. Superman's idealistic ethical compass is what makes the character who he is, when you toy with that you toy with the essence of the character. And of course there's going to be destruction when two people on the level of Zod and Superman fight, you can't avoid it all. But Supes destroyed so much that it really gives the impression he isn't defending anything and just causes as much destruction as Zod. There was nothing to left to defend by the time the two were done.

Avatar image for maestromage
#23 Posted by maestromage (165 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: Just read your review and for the most part I think you made good points about the film. There were just two bits that I ha did to disagree with. First I see when you said [superman] probability killed more than he saved". The reason I would disagree with this is that's superman saved thhe entire human population from zod when he beat him, a star Zod intended to "kill them all". The other point was when you stated that superman had other options than to kill zod. In the short term? Yeah, he coulda have saved that family by just flying upwards or something like that. But in the long term? Not really. I think it's different in the eatablished comix universe because there's would be alternatives like krytonite, a res sun prison etc. But in the DCEU, non existent of that exist she because the world only found out about kryptonians like the day before. Hell, superman didn't even discovery krytonite until 18 month so later in BvS. The world was completely unequipped to contain a being like zod, whichever is why superman had to kill him. Other Than that though, good review.

Avatar image for itouchedtheboat
#24 Posted by ITouchedTheBoat (2834 posts) - - Show Bio

he was a noob, he didn't know how to control his powers, it was his first fight, and if he didn't fight Zod the entire planet would've been gone...so, no it's not a valid form of criticism. Especially when nobody said the same thing about the Avengers' fight in the first movie. Those guys were experienced heroes too.

Avatar image for worldofthunder
#25 Posted by Worldofthunder (4284 posts) - - Show Bio

He was a noob, anyone would have been that careless their first time.

Avatar image for jgames
#26 Posted by Jgames (7510 posts) - - Show Bio

@aros001 said:

While I don't blame Superman for the city's destruction or his choice in killing Zod, I do think a problem with the latter is that we and Superman are never given any time to dwell on it. When Superman killed Zod in the comics, it was a decision that haunted him for years. Something he knew he had to do to save billions but still something he never felt right about doing because he's not a sociopath. He does care about life.

In the movie, Superman is clearly upset about having to kill Zod, but after the moment it's never really brought up again. I blame this mostly on how rushed BvS and JL were made to be by WB's management. There was never any time for the audience to see how Superman was dealing with having taken a life or the guilt he's still feeling over it because there are so many other things being crammed into the same movie to focus on. And given that, from what I've heard, BvS originally was just going to be Man of Steel 2 and not be setting up a cinematic universe, I'd like to think Zod's death was something Sndyer was going to address before the studio snowballed the movie. Here's hoping an actual Superman sequel does address it.

More or less this.

Avatar image for quinlan58
#27 Posted by Quinlan58 (1012 posts) - - Show Bio

The in-universe decision to kill Zod was the obious right choice.

The out-of universe narrative reason to have Superman kill Zod is more questionable.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00
#28 Posted by deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00 (10000 posts) - - Show Bio

You're 5 years late. Get over it.

Avatar image for motm
#29 Posted by MoTM (1647 posts) - - Show Bio

Lmao NO it's probably the single worst criticism for Man of Steel.

Superman just saved the whole world. He literally just saved seven billion f*cking people and because there are a few causalities in a massive fight spanning into space, he's somehow not a hero. It's quite laughable tbh. I also don't understand the people who think Iron Man is in the right in Civil War for that very reason, Civil War turned Iron Man into a massive idiot and dick and people just brush that aside for some reason, hypocrites smh.

No it is not.

Avatar image for the_magister
#30 Posted by The_Magister (10346 posts) - - Show Bio

The DCEU is a misunderstood masterpiece.

Avatar image for webinyoureye11
#31 Posted by webinyoureye11 (4184 posts) - - Show Bio

The dumbest thing is how he spoke to that random priest instead of going to the ship with jor els consciousness. Like, how is some random priest gonna know how to help with a kryptonian invasion more than your kryptonian dad?

Then again, we never would have gotten the fight if he had

Avatar image for batman242
#32 Posted by Batman242 (10010 posts) - - Show Bio

This film has been around for 5 years or so, I won't bother not spoiling the twist ending where Superman kills Zod.

I understand the point about Batman willingly killing in Batman v Superman as being not true to the comic book character's roots and therefore a negative criticism of the film, whether or not I agree with those arguments...

But what about Superman's killing of Zod and his indirect involvement in causing mass destruction? All these were forced onto him - Superman was not willing to do all that carnage and death. Its a tough decision that reflects that in real life we have to make tough choices as opposed to comics Superman's idealism. Henry Cavill's Superman is still true to the comic book character's roots, isn't it? **So is it still valid to make his destructive actions a negative criticism of the film?**

Discuss.

I see what you did there....

Avatar image for motm
#33 Edited by MoTM (1647 posts) - - Show Bio
@maestromage said:

@lvenger: Just read your review and for the most part I think you made good points about the film. There were just two bits that I ha did to disagree with. First I see when you said [superman] probability killed more than he saved". The reason I would disagree with this is that's superman saved thhe entire human population from zod when he beat him, a star Zod intended to "kill them all". The other point was when you stated that superman had other options than to kill zod. In the short term? Yeah, he coulda have saved that family by just flying upwards or something like that. But in the long term? Not really. I think it's different in the eatablished comix universe because there's would be alternatives like krytonite, a res sun prison etc. But in the DCEU, non existent of that exist she because the world only found out about kryptonians like the day before. Hell, superman didn't even discovery krytonite until 18 month so later in BvS. The world was completely unequipped to contain a being like zod, whichever is why superman had to kill him. Other Than that though, good review.

Both of those points make absolutely no sense and just goes to show the illegitimate criticisms most people have about the movie. That whole review is filled with falsehoods and nonsensical reasoning, easily debunked rationales.

Avatar image for farkam
#34 Posted by Farkam (11732 posts) - - Show Bio

@motm said:
@maestromage said:

@lvenger: Just read your review and for the most part I think you made good points about the film. There were just two bits that I ha did to disagree with. First I see when you said [superman] probability killed more than he saved". The reason I would disagree with this is that's superman saved thhe entire human population from zod when he beat him, a star Zod intended to "kill them all". The other point was when you stated that superman had other options than to kill zod. In the short term? Yeah, he coulda have saved that family by just flying upwards or something like that. But in the long term? Not really. I think it's different in the eatablished comix universe because there's would be alternatives like krytonite, a res sun prison etc. But in the DCEU, non existent of that exist she because the world only found out about kryptonians like the day before. Hell, superman didn't even discovery krytonite until 18 month so later in BvS. The world was completely unequipped to contain a being like zod, whichever is why superman had to kill him. Other Than that though, good review.

Both of those points make absolutely no sense and just goes to show the illegitimate criticisms most people have about the movie. That whole review is filled with falsehoods and nonsensical reasoning, easily debunked rationals.

Shut up nerd.

Avatar image for zepta_pon
#35 Edited by Zepta_Pon (700 posts) - - Show Bio

No.

Because the criticism is nonsense and purely unrealistic. For example, you don't expect a category 5 major hurricane that's passing over your town to do no environmental damage, that's just nonsense. There's also the fact that Clark is very inexperienced and he's fighting characters with equal powers and skill sets.

In comparison:

No Caption Provided

Thor made a huge tornado right in the center of this town with enough force to lift the Destroyer, debris off the ground and a car, and yet it deals no further environmental damage. Even the explosion has no environmental impact. The structures, the houses, the power lines and everything else were not affected by it. This scene is supposed to look epic, it just looks complete nonsense. It looks very cookie-cutter, safe, no impact, no risks and no stakes. This is also one of the several reasons why MCU films are considered cookie-cutter.

Online
Avatar image for lvenger
#36 Posted by Lvenger (35300 posts) - - Show Bio

@richardcranium: It's not just Superman's comic book characterisation which made killing Zod problematic, it's the cultural idea of Superman which ultimately makes it worse. My point here is basically what @fullmetalemprah expressed succinctly, Superman's idealistic ethical compass is what makes the character who he is. When you toy with that you toy with the essence of the character. He is supposed to be the ultimate aspiration of human values and morality and that includes not killing his enemies and finding a better way. I'm aware that's often too unrealistic and doesn't create enough drama in some fictional movies and it's fine to have a hero willing to kill in other genres like fantasy or sci fi. But when it comes to Superman, him taking Zod's life was a betrayal of the character.

As for finding another way in the heat of the moment, he could have blocked Zod's eyes, turned his head away from the family without breaking his neck, slammed it into the ground or other alternatives to prevent Zod from killing that family in the heat of the moment. Even Snyder's attempt to create a no win scenario for Superman to have to kill Zod was flawed.

@maestromage I appreciate that you read it. Regarding your first point, Superman did save the entire human race but I was referring to Metropolis specifically and the outcome of the Metropolis fight's destruction. In that I don't think he did save more than he hurt or destroyed collaterally. Secondly, although you have a point that the DCEU doesn't have the resources to imprison a Kryptonian, the Phantom Zone could have been kept open instead or another plot point to imprison Zod after the battle. And I've already given my thoughts on Superman killing Zod. Thanks for the response.

Avatar image for motm
#37 Posted by MoTM (1647 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

@richardcranium: It's not just Superman's comic book characterisation which made killing Zod problematic, it's the cultural idea of Superman which ultimately makes it worse. My point here is basically what @fullmetalemprah expressed succinctly, Superman's idealistic ethical compass is what makes the character who he is. When you toy with that you toy with the essence of the character. He is supposed to be the ultimate aspiration of human values and morality and that includes not killing his enemies and finding a better way. I'm aware that's often too unrealistic and doesn't create enough drama in some fictional movies and it's fine to have a hero willing to kill in other genres like fantasy or sci fi. But when it comes to Superman, him taking Zod's life was a betrayal of the character.

As for finding another way in the heat of the moment, he could have blocked Zod's eyes, turned his head away from the family without breaking his neck, slammed it into the ground or other alternatives to prevent Zod from killing that family in the heat of the moment. Even Snyder's attempt to create a no win scenario for Superman to have to kill Zod was flawed.

@maestromage I appreciate that you read it. Regarding your first point, Superman did save the entire human race but I was referring to Metropolis specifically and the outcome of the Metropolis fight's destruction. In that I don't think he did save more than he hurt or destroyed collaterally. Secondly, although you have a point that the DCEU doesn't have the resources to imprison a Kryptonian, the Phantom Zone could have been kept open instead or another plot point to imprison Zod after the battle. And I've already given my thoughts on Superman killing Zod. Thanks for the response.

I'm legitimately curious, what is your alternative here? Do you know of some form of incarceration that could hold Zod? I don't. Zod isn't joker or Lex Luthor, you can't throw him in Arkham and call it good, be realistic here. That was the only thing for Superman to do so he did it.

Avatar image for lvenger
#38 Posted by Lvenger (35300 posts) - - Show Bio

@motm: Why did Zod have to stay outside of the Phantom Zone? Couldn't it have been kept open until after Superman and Zod's battle was finished and Superman threw Zod into it? Why did Snyder force Superman and Zod to have a final battle without Zod being able to be incarcerated? Superman doesn't kill, it's been a core tenant of the character no matter what realistic deconstructionism you want to apply to the character. Snyder showed he didn't understand Superman in that respect as well as the rest of his movie.

Avatar image for motm
#39 Posted by MoTM (1647 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: Superman took down Zod in his ship saving Lois, he wasn't near the Phantom Zone. I don't think it works like that, it's pretty clear they didn't have much control over opening/closing the Phantom Zone and could perhaps only do it for a limited time. And as far Superman throwing Zod into it I don't think that's practical, they just had a major fight to even get in the advantageous position he had, and Zod was struggling in the choke hold, no telling how long he could have held him for sure. And yeah the characterization could be a criticism, but Superman has killed before and even Batman killed Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight. They had to eliminate a threat to save people. And MoS was a origin movie anyways, Superman didn't have a no kill rule at that point, he had to develop that. He was clearly pretty bent up about it too.