Man of Steel (SPOILERS)

[jye4ever]

Oh I thought so, but I wasn't sure.

Whatever JW is nothing special to me, I'm glad it wasn't institutionalized as the Supeman theme.

 

[GasparZizou]

I meant JW's supes score, I like other Williams' scores I just don't care much for Superman's.

 

[CelticPredator]

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

I don't like the idea of characters who historically and intentionally don't kill in the comics doing it on the screen. That goes for Burton Batman, Daredevil, and this new Superman. Captain America is different. He killed in war, etc. So I'm not going to say that these guys killing sets them down an irredeemable path to moral decay. But that's just something that those characters--in the incarnations I know and care about--didn't generally do.

Superman doing what he did makes sense on its surface. But Goyer didn't have to put Superman in that position. Like blacca says, it sets the franchise off on the wrong foot in my eyes. If they use this as a way of helping to develop a no-kill policy later, then at least it will serve some purpose in moving the story forward, so that would be the best way to handle it from here on. Though I'm not sure how they can spin it so that he looks back and says, "You know what? I should have let that innocent family including children die. It's just not worth the guilt I feel."

But ultimately this is just not a Superman story that I need to see explored. Better to just not have him encounter it at all if this is the end result because it flies against one of the aspects of Superman that makes him special. But I also realize that this Superman isn't, and won't be the same character that exists in my mind as an ideal "Superman," so considering that I say go ***** out and do a Justice Lords type storyline where Superman and pals become dictators of the earth. Nolan could have Batman wage an insurgent war against Supes, Wonder Woman, Manhunter, etc. with lesser powered guys like Green Arrow and Blue Beetle. Could be very dark and morally ambiguous. But. . .not the Superman I care for.

Whether you care for it or not, Superman has killed several times in comics. He has NEVER had a no kill policy. Batman is the only one who does, and he does so much shady **** it's not even funny. Hell even he didn't start out with the no kill policy. It wasn't adopted till later in the characters run. He used to cary twin pistols. The Reeve version of "golly gee whiz" is not the version I grew up reading. He wasn't the Punisher, but he would kill a villain if left with no alternative.

 

[Rugby1970]

I loved MOS. But, there's a bit of difference between letting a villain die in a crash (Batman Begins), or pushing a villain off a roof while saving a kid from which the villain incidentally dies (The Dark Knight) ... and intentionally snapping a villain's neck with your bare hands (MOS).

Maybe the "I don't have to save you" thing is a technicality, but Nolan's Batman never intentionally killed a man with his own hands.

SnakeDoc

I know I'm jumping into this late. Sorry, but just had to comment quickly.

For better or worse, I think that Snyder and Goyer made the decision to have Clark kill Zod to set him apart from the modern screen version of Batman. Even though Batman has killed people in the series, "You're going to break your one rule" is part of the popular lexicon now. As in the Dark Knight Trilogy, where the Nolans and Goyer pushed Batman to the edge of what we knew about the character and beyond, I love that they are forcing us to challenge and rethink what we know about these characters.

Clark was will to commit this horrible act... to take the burden on himself... so that more suffering would not follow. Rather than just doing a live action version of the comic book, they wanted to push, reshape, test, and hopefully force people to re-evaluate this character people THINK they know. He made some tough decisions (Destroying the Genesis chamber, the Scout ship) because he had chosen to save his adopted home over his own species.

I love that it's brought about so much discussion. And I love that so many people say that the used to not like Superman but actually liked him and rooted from him in this movie. Not everyone can have his powers but everyone knows what it's like to make awful decisions.

And regards to an earlier post, I don't think Clark killing Zod will make people trust him less. Ultimately, some may trust him more since he killed one of his own kind rather then let more death and destruction occur.

 

[GasparZizou]

Whether you care for it or not, Superman has killed several times in comics. He has NEVER had a no kill policy. Batman is the only one who does, and he does so much shady **** it's not even funny. Hell even he didn't start out with the no kill policy. It wasn't adopted till later in the characters run. He used to cary twin pistols. The Reeve version of "golly gee whiz" is not the version I grew up reading. He wasn't the Punisher, but he would kill a villain if left with no alternative.

In fact, the reason Superman normally doesn't kill it's cause he loves living beings and he sees it's living sort of "aura" which is lost once they die.

But he was rarely put into a situation like in MoS.

 

[GasparZizou]

I know I'm jumping into this late. Sorry, but just had to comment quickly.

For better or worse, I think that Snyder and Goyer made the decision to have Clark kill Zod to set him apart from the modern screen version of Batman. Even though Batman has killed people in the series, "You're going to break your one rule" is part of the popular lexicon now. As in the Dark Knight Trilogy, where the Nolans and Goyer pushed Batman to the edge of what we knew about the character and beyond, I love that they are forcing us to challenge and rethink what we know about these characters.

Clark was will to commit this horrible act... to take the burden on himself... so that more suffering would not follow. Rather than just doing a live action version of the comic book, they wanted to push, reshape, test, and hopefully force people to re-evaluate this character people THINK they know. He made some tough decisions (Destroying the Genesis chamber, the Scout ship) because he had chosen to save his adopted home over his own species.

I love that it's brought about so much discussion. And I love that so many people say that the used to not like Superman but actually liked him and rooted from him in this movie. Not everyone can have his powers but everyone knows what it's like to make awful decisions.

And regards to an earlier post, I don't think Clark killing Zod will make people trust him less. Ultimately, some may trust him more since he killed one of his own kind rather then let more death and destruction occur.

It was the ultimate act of proof that he chooses his human heritage over his kryptonian heritage.

 

[krec9]

I meant JW's supes score, I like other Williams' scores I just don't care much for Superman's.

Same here its annoying to listen too.

 

[chewblacca]

I know I'm jumping into this late. Sorry, but just had to comment quickly.

For better or worse, I think that Snyder and Goyer made the decision to have Clark kill Zod to set him apart from the modern screen version of Batman. Even though Batman has killed people in the series, "You're going to break your one rule" is part of the popular lexicon now. As in the Dark Knight Trilogy, where the Nolans and Goyer pushed Batman to the edge of what we knew about the character and beyond, I love that they are forcing us to challenge and rethink what we know about these characters.

Clark was will to commit this horrible act... to take the burden on himself... so that more suffering would not follow. Rather than just doing a live action version of the comic book, they wanted to push, reshape, test, and hopefully force people to re-evaluate this character people THINK they know. He made some tough decisions (Destroying the Genesis chamber, the Scout ship) because he had chosen to save his adopted home over his own species.

I love that it's brought about so much discussion. And I love that so many people say that the used to not like Superman but actually liked him and rooted from him in this movie. Not everyone can have his powers but everyone knows what it's like to make awful decisions.

And regards to an earlier post, I don't think Clark killing Zod will make people trust him less. Ultimately, some may trust him more since he killed one of his own kind rather then let more death and destruction occur.

Then why didn't he kill him before the whole fight in Metropil happened? Would of saved lives and real estate .

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Then why didn't he kill him before the whole fight in Metropil happened? Would of saved lives and real estate .

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

Then why didn't he kill him before the whole fight in Metropil happened? Would of saved lives and real estate .

Well the point is that he didn't want to kill zod until he was rendered no choice. In fact u can argue that by not killing him earlier that he allowed more damage to occur. The key is he realized it was the only way to deal with them. He did send the others back to the phantom zone but zod left him no choice in the end.

He didn't want to destroy the kryptonian ship either hence his pause but then he realized earth would be destroyed in the process so he wiped out the ship. With the " krypton had its chance" line

 

[GasparZizou]

Same here its annoying to listen too.

Then why didn't he kill him before the whole fight in Metropil happened? Would of saved lives and real estate .

I would think because Zod wouldn't voluntarily put himself into an arm lock position so Supes breaks his neck.

And because killing Zod was the last resort, only until Zod put that family in risk and Supes was actually on a place where he could do something to save them, that's when he had to make the only choice possible.

 

[krec9]

Then why didn't he kill him before the whole fight in Metropil happened? Would of saved lives and real estate .

Its not that big of a deal who cares.The movie been out three Weeks we and still talking about this? Its done cant change it now .its a new take on superman if we like it or not.

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Well the point is that he didn't want to kill zod until he was rendered no choice. In fact u can argue that by not killing him earlier that he allowed more damage to occur. The key is he realized it was the only way to deal with them. He did send the others back to the phantom zone but zod left him no choice in the end.

"There's only one way this ends Kal, either you die, or I do."

"Don't do this. Stop!"
"Never."

Seems preety clear Zod was on board with how this was going to end. Kal had to realize that he meant business. Then handle things like his comic counterpart.

 

[GasparZizou]

"There's only one way this ends Kal, either you die, or I do."

"Don't do this. Stop!"
"Never."

That sealed the deal.

 

[JAWS]

I loved MOS. But, there's a bit of difference between letting a villain die in a crash (Batman Begins), or pushing a villain off a roof while saving a kid from which the villain incidentally dies (The Dark Knight) ... and intentionally snapping a villain's neck with your bare hands (MOS).


SnakeDoc

I was thinking more of the Burton films... But Batman kills some people in TDKR when, in the Bat, he machine guns the approaching truck. Kills the driver I do believe but like Superman he was put in a no win situation.

Batman Also leads a missile back to one of the vehicles. We don't know if anyone dies there though.

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

Hey for all we know Zod may just be in a Kryptonian Healing Coma...

 

[chewblacca]

So if there was no family to save where would it of ended? After the destruction of more cities?

 

[karamazov80]

The Reeve version of "golly gee whiz" is not the version I grew up reading. He wasn't the Punisher, but he would kill a villain if left with no alternative.

He killed Doomsday, which is more an animal than a person. And he killed some alternate reality Kryptonians. But both were cases where his failure to do so could have doomed the entire planet or more, not simply saved one family (Superman had already defeated Zod in MOS and could presumably have incapacitated him in time). Though again I think those stories were unnecessary examinations into Superman. Joker could force Batman to rape a defenseless woman or risk his killing an orphanage full of children, but why go there?

You can always find a few exceptions to comic rules (Batman even killed in the comics), but as a general rule Superman did not and would not kill and as such, to my knowledge, there are very very few examples of it happening, all of which happening in a post-Crisis period. Zangetsu, if you are aware of more examples to support your argument then please share them. Elseworlds-type alternate realities don't count.

 

[GasparZizou]

Hey for all we know Zod may just be in a Kryptonian Healing Coma...

Probably.