I'd almost forgotten about that. If you ever need to provide an example of someone missing the point of Superman completely, just link that post.

Also, this movie isn't just a reboot, it's an adaptation. Adaptations have to be more or less faithful to the original material.

 

Completely different Superman isn't Superman. It would be like making new Harry Potter movies, only Hogwarts wouldn't be a magical school in them, but a MI6 institute where they train children with supernatural powers.

 

Supermans personality really depends on what era of the comics you draw from more than anything else really. People always picture the ridiculously kind Silver Age and Modern when they think about him but if you go back to the Golden Age, Superman was no bullshit kind of a psychopath. He'd casually chuck human bad guy mooks off of multi story buildings or laugh while their lungs melted from poison gas they had intended to use, he really just didn't give even the slightest of fucks.

 

I actually just read the Golden Age story where Luthor was first introduced, and Superman was crashing zeppelins without much care and shooting at planes with another plane's machine gun, after having thrown its pilot out. And we all know how Batman used a gun in his very early days. Characterization moves on. I'd say these characters hit their stride sometime in the 70s with the Bronze Age, when they stripped away the Silver Age nonsense but didn't yet sink into the Dark Age of the late 80's and 90's.

This movie pretty clearly draws from the modern iteration of Superman though, around 1986 and on, so how he was in the Golden Age isn't very relevant.

I'd be interested in a modern take on a Golden Age Superman. The old Fleischer Superman animated shorts are still entertaining in a lot of ways, even if some are very dated (the ones with him fighting the Japanese namely).

 

Im not saying otherwise, Im just saying that the notion of Superman offing people isn't a totally new invention if you take a look at the Golden Age. Also kind of random but now that I think about it, it might be pretty damn funny to see a Superman movie at the height of his Silver Age power. An average day was him sneezing away an entire solar system xD.

 

They didn't miss the point, they just didn't yield to an utterly infuriating Superman that would not kill even at the end of the universe because...comic book logic or something. The movie Superman and Dark Knight have reasons for not doing what they do, and those reasons are reasonable for in-universe reasons, and thus can be subject to change.

That's the thing I hate most about the whole issue:it seems that the whole "never kill" thing has been raised to near divine mandate. Thankfully the movies don't seem to have that problem. Batman certainly brings it up when it's convenient but it doesn't seem to have the same flavor to it.

Sorry, but fuck comics, fuck their stupid artifacts, and fuck their writing. Movie!Superman's actions make sense to just about everyone except comic readers insisting on this very particular thing for meta-universal reasons.

 

What's wrong with having Superman that never killed anyone? Especially these days when almost every other superhero doesn't have a problem with it. That was something that could make him unique among them. A true Superman, not just another superhero.

I really like when people start to generalize things because it makes them sound completely absurd even when they may have a point. There is a big part of comic readers that like this change and many non-comic readers dislike it.

EDIT: And to be clear. Missing a point remark wasn't about MoS. It was about a theoretical complete change to Superman like the one Taure proposed. Compared to that MoS was a prefect interpretation.

 

Depends on the writing? In this case, it could work if Zod just went to the Phantom Zone but a repeated refusal to kill in the face of world-ending enemies where he has no recourse is silly.

Your question doesn't even match the rest of your paragraph.The issue for people is not that Superman has no problem with killing, is that he killed at all. Huge difference. He clearly has a priblem with it, it's just that some people hate that it happened at all.

(Some people are arguing that Superman didn't care about collateral damage and just fought in public places, but remember that he was often pulled back by Faora when he tried to leave and leaving Zod would just give him what he wanted.)

I might as well ask you what's wrong with a Superman that would kill someone like Zod when he has to. The moral issue is there. He did it because there was no recourse.He is not God. He cannot control every outcome, this is not a failing on his part, if it was up to him Zod would be alive. In fact, the obstinate Superman that would not kill Zod could be said to be the failure. It's just that it ends up working out is all. Haven't we gone through a bunch of cycles of deconstructing/reconstructing this whole thing?

Is this a change for non-comic readers? The old film Superman de-powered Zod, crushed his hand and threw him into a pit in the Fortress of Solitude. Then he let the others fall to their death as well. This is not new.

You are right on generalizing in general though (obviously).

However, I stand by my statements on comic books and their artifacts. Fuck .Them. Nolan resurrected this whole "thou shalt not kill" thing for his own reasons, but both DC film series work without making this some sort of must have divine command that all must bend to. Batman and Superman are good guys. They' won't kill people ordinarily. However, when a city is about to be blown up or the world ended they acted. Sorry if the writers didn't write around this to create an ending that didn't have this but I have little sympathy tbh

EDIT: You may feel that a Superman or Batman willing to watch the world burn before actually murdering someone is a good thing and an important character trait. I don't think it's necessary at all and am glad it's gone.

 

The no-killing thing stems largely, I think, from maintaining the status quo in comics (and earlier on the Comics Code Authority had something to do with it, but that's long gone now). In a different format like movies and animated shows that don't have to worry about that, I agree that having a strict, sacred no-kill rule doesn't really have the same purpose, and can be interpreted a lot looser. Though with animated shows there's also the whole TV-rating thing getting in the way, but that didn't stop the DCAU as long as they were vague enough.

But I have to wonder whether it might be a slippery slope. Again, a few people in my theater cheered when Zod died. You have Batman and Superman wind up killing to avert greater loss of life, and you're going to get people who aren't familiar with the comics (unfortunately the vast majority of the audience) wonder why they don't just kill every villain. And again unfortunately, they're probably the ones who the creators are going to listen to.

 

I don't really see the problem, honestly. Having a personal ideal to never kill is admirable for a superhero, but if Darksied has a finger on a Blow Up The Universe Button, and it's a reverse deadman switch that will only stop if someone kills him, I've got no problem with Superman or Batman or anyone else killing him.

It's one thing to refuse to kill the Joker or Magneto because you think they're deranged and need help and should be pitied, and thus you consistently go for "capture alive" and "stop them from hurting everyone else and themselves."

It's another matter entirely to believe that stopping a planet exploding cataclysm, galaxy implosion, or even a random 'mundane' murder, doesn't justify killing the bad guy to get it done.

This Superman was basically Golden Age powerset (plus flight) with a Silver Age personality, but not the ultra-contrived messiah bit where Superman never ever has to kill because the narrative bends itself in loops and pretzels so he doesn't have to.

That's pretty much my ideal Superman right there. A minimum of the Super bullshit, he's made of incorruptable pureness and unicorn light, but if Zod starts shooting lasers at kids and Superman has him in an arm-lock, he will snap Zod's neck to save them.

I genuinely don't understand the complaint. This is the Superman I've been wanting for years. We've finally gotten the balance right between Good Guy Superman, Super-but-not-bullshit Superman, and Protects-Life-But-Can-Be-Forced-To-Take-It Superman, and all I'm hearing across the void of cyberspace is people bitching that they fucked it up.

If I had to write my ideal Superman, it would basically be this. Hell, the only thing I'd change in the movie would be removing the kissing scene and keeping Lois more in the background.

Superman was incredibly torn up over having to not only take a life, but to take the life of the only other Kryptonian that wasn't sealed in the Phantom Zone. If he'd just brushed it off, yeah, I'd understand the complaints. But it clearly affected him deeply, being forced to do that. That scene where he screamed was worth the ticket all by itself.

It's not so much that Superman killed Zod, as it is Zod committed Suicide By Superman, by deliberately putting Superman in a situation where he could either watch innocents die, or kill Zod. I'm under the impression that Zod knew exactly what was going to happen, and he wanted it, because he was a warrior, and he knew he had lost, and the only thing he had left was to be killed by an enemy. "Better to die a good death."

 

It was the first Superman film which didn't bore me and I didn't think that was possible with that kind of "hero". The technical artwork and design didn't appear stale at all. At the end I had the impression the people which worked on Inception had a hand in it.
But I thought the film narrative structure on earth was too incoherent or jumpy before Zod arrived. It lacked something. Though I like Amy Adams, I thought her role was somehow underdeveloped and imho she was miscast. She didn't work at all for me in the film. Michael Shannon as Zod was fantastic. He gave the character real depth and you could feel his anguish while being a psychopathic bastard.

 

Movie needed better editors. And a more coherent plotline. By the end all I could think of was, what was so wrong with settling on Venus (considering that repeatedly they mentioned the harsher environment on their home planet, and the sun there was much much larger too - which meant either that the planet was closer or their star larger.) Furthermore, they couldn't leave the planet but were willing to waste time to conduct a ridiculous send-off for their criminals? Seriously? So many issues.

Some of the fighting was really good, though. Almost made up for the rest.

 

It matches, you just focused on the wrong part. The point is that almost all superheroes kill and additionally don't have a problem with it. Superman shouldn't kill at all. That's not a story that should be told about him.

When you put it that way then it's not really gone, isn't it? Superman basically watched world burn before he was forced to kill Zod.

And changing a subject a little, but I really hated how they handled the outcome of it. Or rather lack of it. Superman is emotionally crashed and Lois is there to comfort him, cut to the scene that ends with a female solider commenting that he is hot. Not exactly what I was expecting to happen.

 

I disagree. In general...maybe. When talking about the Joker being killed because Arkham is porous as all fucking hell, maybe. This is not that. This is not Superman kicking humans or enemies while they're down (and they probably always will be compared to him).Zod stands outside that . I think his morals are intact.

Now, you may say that it should have never have gotten to that point but really, with his powers this would always be an issue. Look at comics. I would much rather we deal with the issue now that spent decades writing around it for reasons that are no longer important.And I have no problem with the death of Zod opposed to say, Toyman.

This is an argument I've seen a lot and I can't agree with it. Superman tried to fly away every time he faced Zod and Faora. Facing those two Kryptonians you see them literally pull him back and bash his head in.

Running from Zod wouldn't do anything. Zod wanted to wipe out people. If Superman leaves he'll just kill all those people then follow, and possibly better acclimated for it. Superman cannot kill Zod most of the time because Kryptonian durability seems to scale pretty well. The only thing that makes a Kryptonian bleed at all was a change in environment iirc. The only thing that knocks them out is a missile combined with sensory overload. The only reason Superman can kill Zod is that he has him in a weakened position and can use leverage, otherwise the fight may have gone on forever.

Maybe the direction didn't point this out enough? Do we need closeups of Superman flying up with a desperate look on his face and getting dog-piled back to Earth or something?

Yeah. The problem is that Superman cannot be broody because he just spent the first hour running around on his own quest of self-discovery or something. He needs to be out and in the world, so he can't take the time to actually be fucking sad and mopey about killing Zod.

 

I honestly don't understand what issue you are talking about. Superman doesn't kill and you don't put him in a situation where he must kill.

Could be useful because otherwise it wasn't very noticeable to me. I'm not saying that he didn't try, just that I don't remember it. What I remember though is a scene where Superman is the one that brings Zod into the middle of Smallville. He has no excuse for that one.

There weren't many jokes in this movie and one of few that were present was just after the audience watched Superman kill. It's rather cringeworthy in my opinion.

 

And you get to decide that for the rest of us, now?

Why?

I'm going to pre-emptively counter your response of "It's not in his character" with "then your vision of Superman is a pretty shit character, all things considered."

If a character cannot survive contact with basic issues of life and the universe, like, for instance, being forced to kill someone in self-defense/to protect others that are in danger, then you really need to re-think how valid your character actually is.

 

Yes, obviously.

Or you can just add "in my opinion" before everything I say like most people do.

---------- Post automerged at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

Did you even read my rant about what I think Superman is about? No? Then read it. Yes? Then read it again.

But in short - Superman is about overcoming impossible odds. You put him in situation that would force anyone else to kill and he should find a way to avoid it and still save a day. That's what I think Superman should be about. But you are entitled to call it shitty if you want.

 

If you believe it was your opinion, you wouldn't be stating it as an absolute fact to begin with. No one is making you accept the movies, or watch them, or have anything to do with them. This is comics. I'm sure there's some run of Superman somewhere that hits your ideal of the entire universe and narrative bending over backwards so Superman doesn't have to give the bad guys an ouchie but still being a golden heroic hero. Go enjoy that.

Superman has been boring. For years. Now he finally isn't. No one was coming over to shit in your cornflakes for believing in an invincible super hero that never loses and can always stop dimension-ending threats without taking a single life or inflicting lasting damage to anyone or anything. Don't shit in ours for liking a version of Superman that is finally slightly more realistic than the Classic Disney Movie version that we've been stuck with for the last fifteen years.

Only it's not even that. The preacher in Hunchback burned to death after having a vat of molten bronze dumped on him, Scar was torn apart and devoured alive by the hyenas, the hunter in Tarzan was hung, badly, and that asshole from Beauty and the Beast fell on a bunch of wrought-iron spike fence and was impaled.

Disney is more fucking hardcore than Superman has been. Think about that for a bit.

 

Now I'm convinced that you didn't read a whole thread before starting this discussion. From the start I was presenting it as my belief about the character, not an absolute fact.

And I'm tried of being attacked for that. I mean, where did I tell anyone that they shouldn't enjoy this movie? Heck, I even admitted it's a good one as far as superhero movies go. I just think it's a bad Superman movie.

 

Well, just came back from watching it, original version, and I have to say, was rather disappointed overall. Really expected a lot more from this. I haven't read any of the Superman comics and what I do know from him are from wikis, fanfics and an few cartoons and I do like the concept behind him but this whole movie, with a few exceptions was rather formulatic and boring at times. And, at least to me, a lot of plotholes and inconsistencies.

But what I do like was Superman, and the actor who played him, for a lot of reasons that Lord Raine has already said. He had a good mix of powers and mindset, being a good and honest man who desperately wants to save life but will take it to save innocents. It really is one of the reasons why I can't really respect Batman in most settings. Not killing the Joker is, to me, nearly as big a crime as helping him, by now.

And while I do like what we have seen from his powers, they did seem a bit inconsistent. There were times where he crashed through buildings with ease and tore through hundreds of meters of asphalt but others where he crashed against a car and only slightly dented it and it never seemed as if the force he was hit with was any different.

I really did not like the origin story. It really makes no sense to me. I can get that the whole leadership is turning a blind eye towards the whole "world destruction" thing. A bit hard to swallow but hey, people have been known to go with the head in the sand tactic. In that regard, the whole Zod using a military coup was actually a good thing that made sense. (overall, liked most of Zod and his motivations, for the most part)

I even believed why the father had to die to get his son off the planet. What I did not get was why the mother could not have simply gone after her son after Zod and his goons had been imprisoned. There was clearly time, it seemed to me that the trial and then the end of Krypton did not happen within minutes from each other. There was really nothing stopping her from taking a ship after Zod was sentenced in the most ridiculously over the top prison system ever and flown after her only son.

Really, what was holding her back? Did she not believe that she would have been of use to her newborn son? From that matter, once it had been clear, undeniably clear that the planet was destructing, nobody could make it offworld? I mean, pretty sure there were some, there have to be Kryptonians to make for more fights, of course, and Supergirl, I guess. But yeah, it really seemed weak as how to a space travelling species could go extinct from their homeworld exploding. Also did not get how Krypton exploding tied in with all the Colonies dying off as well. It really seemed contradictory to have a species that has colonized the whole galaxy over 100 000 years but somehow every colony died.

The ship found in the ice, that was supposed to be 20 000 years old, how was the costume there and all the embryos? No way were those already stashed in there or is there a Superman costume in every scoutship? Who put those there?

A bit nitpicky, I admit, but those really distracted me from the movie, unless there are explanations that I have overlooked.

Zod's insistence that they terraform Earth really made little sense to me. He knows that they are pretty much gods in that atmosphere and he would them rather be "normal" by terraforming the Earth and killing off the populus of earth? Why? He got used to that in under a day. Two hours of discomfort are not worth being pretty much indestructible? Pretty sure that is a good trade-off. And while I liked the way that Zod, as a soldier who only knows the soldiers way of life (if all you have is a hammer), his whole insistence early on to kill of humans really seemed to come from left field to me. If they had needed humans as base form or workers or anything else, I would have seen the reason. But there was really nothing that prevented them from getting the information and than going somewhere else other than making for a more detestable villain that irked me.

Then there were the usual things, like always females needing rescuing or female roles in general. Don't get me wrong, I expected Lane being damseled a few times and have to actually say they did pretty well with her role in the movie, not counting the romance which was absolutely terrible and unconvincing. But things like it being the female worker who was trapped, it being a family with a little daughter that was threatened by Zod, female soldier saying Supes is hawt and whatnot. All those really felt too cliché, too regressive to be enjoyed.

Would have actually liked to see a gender-bend version of Superman á la Fate Zero, would think it would have made for a more interesting movie although I do know that that is never going to happen.

Agree with the notion that they botched Clark's father. Doesn't sit right with me that someone who was one of the two people who installed the moral compass into Clark actually was in favour of letting children die just to keep his secret.

Liked Lane enough in that they showed us her bravery and her tenaciousness but that we also saw her own set of morals and integrity and that she was not simply a glory hound who would do everything for a story, that she puts more important things first. Really, the only bad thing about her was the rushed as hell romance which they either should have dropped completely or developed more, not this half-assed shit.

Also, is it just me or does his name not make sense in this movie? Before the earth knew of aliens, it made sense to call him Superman since he was indeed, a Superman. But now, that they know that he is an alien, does it make sense to call him that? He is not a man, nor is he extraordinary to his species since every kryptonian gets the same powers here. Really, they should have opened with another villain, imo.

So yeah, overall, it was...okay, I think, but could have been better. Liked nearly all of the recent Marvel films more.

6/10, maybe? Just had too many problems to enjoy it all that much during the viewing but maybe I will like it more later on. Right now, just disappointed since I expected so much more.