The real problem with "that scene" in Man of Steel (DCCU spoilers)

[Trunkage]

snip

Yet the thing is that with a new take on the character, you still try to be consistent on the central ideal of what the character stands for. All you mentioned are Elseworld stories. There is a difference between an alternate universe and the actual character.

Then why do people see Superman as this central source of hope, cheerful optimism to the media? Oh that's right, because we have to accept the poorly written, bland and unlikable piece of cardboard that the DCEU has.

I just gonna come out and say it. The 70s Superman movies were bad. ALL of them. People point to 4 but Reeves killing Zod so gleefully was pretty abhorrent, even when I was little. He was never really in any danger because he's a god. At least the latest movies make it feel like he's in some sort of danger. Supes is also a total stalker.

Cardboard cut for characters - definitely representative of the older Supermans too. Literally no character growth. Also, way to happy. It was disturbing.

OT: As other people point out, if you think Supes was eager to kill in MoS, go back and watch the old movies.

 

[Hawki]

Y'know, I started typing up a detailed response, but I just...can't be arsed. Not for a film that came out four years ago. All I can say is that I thought the scene was well done, and one of the most powerful scenes in a film that, while flawed (mainly in regards to editing), is still enjoyable.

 

[rosac]

I'm not bothered about him killing Zod, I'm bothered that there seems to be very little weight behind literally Superman goes "don;t do it Zod" then snaps his neck, screams "nooooooo" and that's it.

There's no build up! There's no superman establishing that he wants to avoid killing at all costs - he's shown saving everyone but not shown avoiding killing.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

This is the problem I had with MoS.

Spoiler: my evidence

The most important of the two clips is the second one, and it's not even what Superman does when he "lets loose". It's at @0:38 when the collective representatives look on in horror. The day they finally feared: What would happen if Superman played by his own rules? Who would stop the God that saved them from countless insurmountable odds? A God that deigned to listen to them like their opinion mattered as much as a man who could literally punch their planet apart if he had a bad day.

That's the problem with Superman in MoS and what actually makes those clips so thrilling. Because we spent time with Superman. We know his morals. We know his limits that he self imposes. Life could be so much easier to him if he just destroyed those who oppose him. But he doesn't look at his power as the Carte Blanche to do that. He looks at his powers as a huge responsibility he must share with the world.

That fact makes me such an interesting character to me. People keep saying "Good is so boring because everyone's good". Look around you today. Really think about what would happen if any one of these perpetually triggered, "MY OPINIONS ARE UNIVERSAL FACTS" rage machines developed a tenth of Superman's abilities. Do you think they would be selfless? Really? It's not easy to be good. It's not easy to always take the high road. It's not easy to think about the world before your wants day after day, minute after minute.

And we just don't get that with the Man of Steel. We get someone confused. We get someone that we don't identify with as the hero we came for. Almost every bit of his character isn't there. Made almost weak and pathetic by "Maybe you should have let those kids die". It's like if Batman's parents were just lost at sea due to someone trying to force a hostile take over, but him still developing a 'no guns, no deaths' policy. Nothing about his background would have warranted that, but you put it there because that idea comes with the costume. That doesn't work that way. At all.

Superman was not depicted as the center of good that we know, he's not the big blue boy scout... So that's why when Superman killed Zod, it wasn't anywhere near as shocking as people wanted it to be. Because this isn't the Clark Kent that we grew up with. Almost none of his values are there. It's like watching Superboy Prime and being told it's Superman.

But that is just one portrayal of Superman out of millions across all media.

I know a Superman thats very patronzing and can solve every problem like its nothing to him,

I know a Superman that's old, beared, and carries 5 barraled Mini Gun.

Its like James Bond, Roger Moore Bond is far and away nothing like Daniel Craig Bond.

You can believe that portrayal of Superman is THE true Superman for you, but don't deny that the character has never been a singular consistant Character across all media.

Yet the thing is that with a new take on the character, you still try to be consistent on the central ideal of what the character stands for. All you mentioned are Elseworld stories. There is a difference between an alternate universe and the actual character.

Except Roger Moore still applies with what the character of James Bond is along with Daniel Craig.

Then why do people see Superman as this central source of hope, cheerful optimism to the media? Oh that's right, because we have to accept the poorly written, bland and unlikable piece of cardboard that the DCEU has.

You wanna know what happened and why I am like this with Superhero movies?

When I first watched Man of Steel, I was indifferent, I did not come in with high expectations, I knew it had flaws watching it, but I also saw things in it I liked, Zod as a charcater (or the actors performance) Superman saving the bus, the action, etc. I thought it was "eh it was alright, not that bad, but that great either, I have seen worse from Comics books"

But than I went to youtube and I see so much videos proclaiming it to be the absolute worse thing they ever saw and I was like WHAT? Did we even saw the same movie?

This triggered me in a way, because again I have seen how low Superhero media can get, I have seen things like Superman At Earth's End and Dark Knight Strikes Again, so to put these movie into that category just baffles me, I considered it an injustice and diservice to Man of Steel to say that its the absolute Nadir of Superheroes because I have seen the nadir of Superheroes already.

I am trying to put things like Superman At Earth's End back to the pedestal of Nadir of Superhero things which the Current DCEU movies are now standing on by popular opinion, because to me its just wrong, it is absolutely horribly wrong that Man of Steel/BvS is on that pedestal and not Superman At Earth's End/Justice League Act of God/Dark Knight Strikes Again. And mind you I am not also putting the DCEU movies into a pedestal of "BEST SUPERHERO MOVIE EVER" I know there flawed, but they are not flawed enough for me to say they are up there with Birdemic and the Amazing Bulk.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I never got the outrage at Supes snaping Zod's neck. What else he's supposed to do at that point, roll charisma check? If anything, killing Zod earlier would be the right thing to do, but then we'd miss that awesome, pointless spectacle of cgi city carnage, oh well...

I think i can echo the criticism mentioned before though, that supposed "emotional" undertone of that scene felt flat, since we never learnt Supes had serious objections about killing genetically engired ubermensch warmachines. Especially after flushing down the last hope for Krypton to rebuild.

 

[Winnosh]

The problem isn't that he kills Zod. He's killed Zod in almost every comic or movie that Zod appears in. The problem is what surrounds the killing. The reason for by the director which shows a fundimental lack of understanding of the character. The Reason he kills Zod as given by the director is to instill in him a hatred of killing... Well that isn't Superman. Superman hates killing because of the values he grew up with. It's not something he needed to learn by killing someone. He knows it because he's a good person.

Though there's also the fact that in the comics when he killed Zod. Zod had just finished wiping out all life on an entire planet killing billions. And Supes had no way of imprisoning him.

That and well everything else about the movie is bad too.

 

[Winnosh]

I never got the outrage at Supes snaping Zod's neck. What else he's supposed to do at that point, roll charisma check? If anything, killing Zod earlier would be the right thing to do, but then we'd miss that awesome, pointless spectacle of cgi city carnage, oh well...

I think i can echo the criticism mentioned before though, that supposed "emotional" undertone of that scene felt flat, since we never learnt Supes had serious objections about killing genetically engired ubermensch warmachines. Especially after flushing down the last hope for Krypton to rebuild.

When people complain about a character doing something we're not blaming the character, we're blaming the writer for putting the character in that situation. No one is saying. Superman shouldn't have snapped Zod's neck. We're saying that the script shouldn't have had the character in that situation.

 

[Natemans]

This is the problem I had with MoS.

Spoiler: my evidence

The most important of the two clips is the second one, and it's not even what Superman does when he "lets loose". It's at @0:38 when the collective representatives look on in horror. The day they finally feared: What would happen if Superman played by his own rules? Who would stop the God that saved them from countless insurmountable odds? A God that deigned to listen to them like their opinion mattered as much as a man who could literally punch their planet apart if he had a bad day.

That's the problem with Superman in MoS and what actually makes those clips so thrilling. Because we spent time with Superman. We know his morals. We know his limits that he self imposes. Life could be so much easier to him if he just destroyed those who oppose him. But he doesn't look at his power as the Carte Blanche to do that. He looks at his powers as a huge responsibility he must share with the world.

That fact makes me such an interesting character to me. People keep saying "Good is so boring because everyone's good". Look around you today. Really think about what would happen if any one of these perpetually triggered, "MY OPINIONS ARE UNIVERSAL FACTS" rage machines developed a tenth of Superman's abilities. Do you think they would be selfless? Really? It's not easy to be good. It's not easy to always take the high road. It's not easy to think about the world before your wants day after day, minute after minute.

And we just don't get that with the Man of Steel. We get someone confused. We get someone that we don't identify with as the hero we came for. Almost every bit of his character isn't there. Made almost weak and pathetic by "Maybe you should have let those kids die". It's like if Batman's parents were just lost at sea due to someone trying to force a hostile take over, but him still developing a 'no guns, no deaths' policy. Nothing about his background would have warranted that, but you put it there because that idea comes with the costume. That doesn't work that way. At all.

Superman was not depicted as the center of good that we know, he's not the big blue boy scout... So that's why when Superman killed Zod, it wasn't anywhere near as shocking as people wanted it to be. Because this isn't the Clark Kent that we grew up with. Almost none of his values are there. It's like watching Superboy Prime and being told it's Superman.

But that is just one portrayal of Superman out of millions across all media.

I know a Superman thats very patronzing and can solve every problem like its nothing to him,

I know a Superman that's old, beared, and carries 5 barraled Mini Gun.

Its like James Bond, Roger Moore Bond is far and away nothing like Daniel Craig Bond.

You can believe that portrayal of Superman is THE true Superman for you, but don't deny that the character has never been a singular consistant Character across all media.

Yet the thing is that with a new take on the character, you still try to be consistent on the central ideal of what the character stands for. All you mentioned are Elseworld stories. There is a difference between an alternate universe and the actual character.

Except Roger Moore still applies with what the character of James Bond is along with Daniel Craig.

Then why do people see Superman as this central source of hope, cheerful optimism to the media? Oh that's right, because we have to accept the poorly written, bland and unlikable piece of cardboard that the DCEU has.

You wanna know what happened and why I am like this with Superhero movies?

When I first watched Man of Steel, I was indifferent, I did not come in with high expectations, I knew it had flaws watching it, but I also saw things in it I liked, Zod as a charcater (or the actors performance) Superman saving the bus, the action, etc. I thought it was "eh it was alright, not that bad, but that great either, I have seen worse from Comics books"

But than I went to youtube and I see so much videos proclaiming it to be the absolute worse thing they ever saw and I was like WHAT? Did we even saw the same movie?

This triggered me in a way, because again I have seen how low Superhero media can get, I have seen things like Superman At Earth's End and Dark Knight Strikes Again, so to put these movie into that category just baffles me, I considered it an injustice and diservice to Man of Steel to say that its the absolute Nadir of Superheroes because I have seen the nadir of Superheroes already.

I am trying to put things like Superman At Earth's End back to the pedestal of Nadir of Superhero things which the Current DCEU movies are now standing on by popular opinion, because to me its just wrong, it is absolutely horribly wrong that Man of Steel/BvS is on that pedestal and not Superman At Earth's End/Justice League Act of God/Dark Knight Strikes Again. And mind you I am not also putting the DCEU movies into a pedestal of "BEST SUPERHERO MOVIE EVER" I know there flawed, but they are not flawed enough for me to say they are up there with Birdemic and the Amazing Bulk.

So your attitude is just because you don't agree with someone for not liking a movie you did? That's kinda dumb. Dude, opinions are different and people can like or dislike whatever they want.

Saying its an injustice to say that Man of Steel is a bad movie and one of the worst things in the superhero comics or films isn't a disservice. All of those comics are bad too and I can apply BvS on the list of worst things to happen to DC because I found them to be awful. If you didn't, that's fine. Subjective opinions.

Again difference of opinion. Personally I found Birdemic to be hilarious to watch and Amazing Bulk I find forgettable more than one of the worst I've seen.

 

[Natemans]

Oh no, I have been debating about this with people for some many years now, and you bring this argument BACK?!

Sigh.

My opinion is this as of now.

I don't care that Superman kills, infact I am glad he is man that now Kills his enemies, I don't care if it goes against his character. I grew up with characters in DBZ that kills their enemies and yet no one complains.

I play RPGs where I kill my Enemies, I killed the Lich King in my playthrough of WOW as a holy paladin of the light, I killed Ragnaros the Firelord, in KOTOR I killed Darth Malgus.


And characters like Doomsday, Zod, and Darkseid derserves to die. And that's pretty much my thoughts, Some people derserves redemtpion and fair trial, and some people derserves to die for their evil.

You are glad he kills enemies now? Dude, this goes completely against his moral code. The whole point of Superman is to show a better light or way for humanity to get better. DBZ is different in terms of its moral ethics.

The difference is that those games have different morality choices. Superman in the DCEU had no choice and is just a bland character with no depth and acts like a psychopath.

No, they don't. Even if they were monsters, they deserve some fair trial and locked up. The story "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?" questioned this morality and works as a good character study to prove why Superman is a great character. Plus even in the new 75th anniversary comic of Wonder Woman, she stopped someone, but the crowd was bloodthirsty for his death due to his actions. The thing was she stopped the crowd, let the authorities take him and await for a fair trial.

Define a Psychopath because everyone just throws that term around to point that its meaningless.

We see Superman in BvS having a job at the Daily Planet having normal interactions with his co-workers, saving people in random intervals. Heck he even wanted to Stop Batman because Batman was acting a above the law vigilante that kills.

How in the fuck is that a Psychopath?!

Also there are games where I had no choice but to slay the villain. And in KOTOR's case you have no choice but to kill Darth Malgus.

By psychopath, I mean that Superman is an unlikable God who has no moral stance and just only listens to what people tell him to do without thinking, murders people without a care, look miserable and threaten death. Batfleck is a psycho because he loves to murder and torture criminals like he's the goddamn Punisher and has no remorse.

We barely see Clark at that job. What interactions? The only people we see him talk to on a regular basis is only Lois and Perry. That and most of the time, Perry chews his ass out for not doing his job. Yet when he saves a little girl, he looks miserable when people look at him. Dude, why the hell are you miserable? You just saved someone! He wanted to stop Batman because he acts like a law vigilante that kills? That's kinda hypocritical since Superman does that too.

KOTOR doesn't count in this situation. Nor does Malak.

 

[Natemans]

I agree with the OP, but not only was it too soon, it was sooo poorly executed.

For a last resort situation, there sure were a lot of things that could have been done other than neck snapping. Those dumbshit civilians could have, you know, walked out of the way. Superman could have turned his neck the other way, considering he had the power to snap it. He could have flown Zod up, choked him into unconsciousness, hell, he could have covered his eyes with his hand.

And there's that it didn't change him in ant foreseeable way. He still kills people all the time.

Problem with the Flying Zod up Argument is that Zod is just as strong as Superman so he could have just held his weight down making it difficult for Superman to pull him up, and don't bullshit me that Superman is stupid strong in the comics because Comic Book Super is established to move planets.

Man of Steel Superman has not been showcased to do feats of stregnth that ridiculous.

I agree with the OP, but not only was it too soon, it was sooo poorly executed.

For a last resort situation, there sure were a lot of things that could have been done other than neck snapping. Those dumbshit civilians could have, you know, walked out of the way. Superman could have turned his neck the other way, considering he had the power to snap it. He could have flown Zod up, choked him into unconsciousness, hell, he could have covered his eyes with his hand.

And there's that it didn't change him in ant foreseeable way. He still kills people all the time.

Problem with the Flying Zod up Argument is that Zod is just as strong as Superman so he could have just held his weight down making it difficult for Superman to pull him up, and don't bullshit me that Superman is stupid strong in the comics because Comic Book Super is established to move planets.

Man of Steel Superman has not been showcased to do feats of stregnth that ridiculous.

You know Superman can just punch him while flying up to prevent Zod from escaping his grasp. That or you know block the heat vision with his hands.

No, but he can lift a truck, a bus and overcome a beam of gravity from the World Builder thing.

That's the thing, Zod is just as strong as Superman overcoming that.

Here's a thought: fly up, block his sight with his hands, beat him repeatedly to keep him down. Hell, the laser was barely on them and the civilians could easily get out without dying.

 

[Natemans]

So I never even made it to that scene. I stopped watching Man of Steel way before that scene.

No, Man of Steel is a bad movie. Maybe worse than BvS, which at least had a few scenes that I legitimately liked. MoS didn't have a single scene that I liked.

Oh, it had a scene that was almost amazing. It was almost one of the best Superman scenes I've ever seen. We had Clark in a bar. He encounters a man who is basically just a bully. And for a moment Clark is tempted to put the man in his place, but he doesn't and simply walks away. And the scene was great. But then the movie kept on going. And we see that Superman had crucified the man's truck. And now we know that the real bully of the scene was Clark. He didn't walk away because he is a good person. He walked away because he couldn't act without killing the guy, so instead he took it out on his truck. Seriously, fuck this scene.

And there was not a single moment that could save the movie after that. But it only got worse. John Kent telling him that maybe he should have let kids die. John Kent sacrificing himself to "protect" Clark. And don't even get me started on the bad CGI that was used in the Smallville fight scene. You ever wonder why people pointed out all the obvious advertisements? Because their attention was drawn to those as the rest of the scene was a Goddamn cartoon. I would have believed Goku was there before Superman, and Goku is an actual animated character!

Incidentally, the Smallville fight bored me so much, I stopped watching the movie after that. I know the rest through reputation and videos I've seen. I didn't miss anything.

No, Superman didn't have to kill Zod. And there was no meaning in the act. Superman was making out with Lois moments later. And BvS didn't even try to capitalize on that idea (even Nostalgia Critic pointed that out).

Oh, and speaking of Superman making out with Lois. Yeah, that happened in the devastated Metropolis. Where buildings were rubble. And you just know there were people dead and dying around them. People crying for help in the rubble. People Superman could hear while he kissed Lois. Superman is no hero. Man of Steel did nothing to make him a hero. It merely claimed the "S" stood for hope. It used Jesus imagery all over the place, but who did Superman save?

Man of Steel is a terrible movie. And thus far the DCCU has only lived up to that reputation.

Really Superman is that badguy in that Bar scene?

I hate this logic that enacted retribution against the bully makes you the bully. It pisses me off that when the victim acts against their abuser, the victim gets in trobule.

Because like I keep saying, Superman is meant to be a better person than this. Not like an immature child and wreck his truck like its another kid's favorite toy. Also how the hell did he wreck that truck that quickly without anyone hearing or noticing it?

Fighting against bullies isn't always a good resolve. With me, I've gotten bullied, but I turned the other cheek, ignored and walked away from the fights like a real rational person would do.

Because This isn't the Superman you read in the comics, he was never conceived to be that Superman, the whole point of this Superman is to basically be a Nolanized version of Superman. The Dark Knight movies have made WB billions of dollars that they want almost all thier Superhero properties to emulate it even if it does not fit the source (a Source which lets be honest is full of alternate realities and contridictions)

Heck not even Nolan's Batman is the same Batman we knew from Comics or animation.

I mean Nolan Batman killed Ra's Al Ghul "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" dude you killed him by letting him die, if you were the classical Batman of yore you would have just catched him and turn him in to the Cops

Yet even Nolan's Batman is conceived to be like the comics. The whole idea of deconstructing Superman by making him more like Batman is completely stupid. Superman can still be used in a realistic world, but this didn't work. So what if its full of contradictions? John Byrne's Superman was a fresh reboot that offered an interesting take on the character and worked beautifully. When you adapt the character, you want to have something to convey or embrace for who the character is. Man of Steel did none of that and just gave us a boring, lame and poorly written movie.

That is a moment that was stupid. Then again the train actually killed him so not Batman's fault. batman didn't kill ra. ra put himself of the train and set up everything, batman didn't knock ra out he gave him plenty of time to escape. its like if a terrorist set up a bomb in a building then fight a person the you escape before the bomb explodes. you didn't plant the bomb you didn't handcuff on knock the person out all you did was escape before the bomb exploded, ra killed himself 

 

[Natemans]

Batman used Guns before:

Okay, this issue in context of the story, is that Batman dug up the gun that killed his parents because he was having to team up with Joe Chill (the man who killed his parents) to track down a larger threat, and when it was done, he was going to use it to kill Chill. There is a large part of the issue used to examine this choice, and how much he feels he has to avenge them.

In the end, he can't pull the trigger on the man, and the larger villain ends up shooting Chill. Batman never uses the gun to injure a person, or on a person, in the entire story.

What were the context of the other 2 issues than?

And to be honest I have so many questions. Why is Joe Chill still alive and active? Who is this larger threat that would make Batman ally with the man who killed his family? And was Year 2 Bronze Age Batman?

The others feel like propaganda for WWII.

The same thing can be said about why the Burglar that killed Uncle Ben is left still alive and why doesn't Spider-Man kill him? Here's the thing: both are established as characters who want to use their family deaths as a motivation to stop injustice and keep the world safe. Both are different in their ideals or methods to fight crime, but both want to make life better. Making them kill crosses the line who they are or what they want to stop.

 

[Winnosh]

I agree with the OP, but not only was it too soon, it was sooo poorly executed.

For a last resort situation, there sure were a lot of things that could have been done other than neck snapping. Those dumbshit civilians could have, you know, walked out of the way. Superman could have turned his neck the other way, considering he had the power to snap it. He could have flown Zod up, choked him into unconsciousness, hell, he could have covered his eyes with his hand.

And there's that it didn't change him in ant foreseeable way. He still kills people all the time.

Problem with the Flying Zod up Argument is that Zod is just as strong as Superman so he could have just held his weight down making it difficult for Superman to pull him up, and don't bullshit me that Superman is stupid strong in the comics because Comic Book Super is established to move planets.

Man of Steel Superman has not been showcased to do feats of stregnth that ridiculous.

I agree with the OP, but not only was it too soon, it was sooo poorly executed.

For a last resort situation, there sure were a lot of things that could have been done other than neck snapping. Those dumbshit civilians could have, you know, walked out of the way. Superman could have turned his neck the other way, considering he had the power to snap it. He could have flown Zod up, choked him into unconsciousness, hell, he could have covered his eyes with his hand.

And there's that it didn't change him in ant foreseeable way. He still kills people all the time.

Problem with the Flying Zod up Argument is that Zod is just as strong as Superman so he could have just held his weight down making it difficult for Superman to pull him up, and don't bullshit me that Superman is stupid strong in the comics because Comic Book Super is established to move planets.

Man of Steel Superman has not been showcased to do feats of stregnth that ridiculous.

You know Superman can just punch him while flying up to prevent Zod from escaping his grasp. That or you know block the heat vision with his hands.

No, but he can lift a truck, a bus and overcome a beam of gravity from the World Builder thing.

That's the thing, Zod is just as strong as Superman overcoming that.

Here's a thought: fly up, block his sight with his hands, beat him repeatedly to keep him down. Hell, the laser was barely on them and the civilians could easily get out without dying.

Another thought is to not have the family there. Have Superman taunt Zod into following him and have the explosion of the phantom zone engine still going on into the background. Trick Zod into fighting near it and have him get sucked in.

 

[circularlogic88]

There's no emotional weight because, like many others have pointed out: there is no set-up for this being a moral line he isn't willing to cross. Man of Steel should be a classroom discussion on how badly you can mess up narrative flashback storytelling. I don't think anything of value is told throughout those flashback sequences that isn't contradicted or ignored later on in the film. His mother gave him the only good advice to help him control and focus his powers. Cool, given any other movie, this would have had a pay off scene where Zod while being more adept at trained fighting wouldn't be able to keep up with their brawl because he has too much sensory overload. This doesn't happen. His mother also implies that it took Clark "some time" to get used to the Earth's atmosphere. Personally, I took that to mean more than 30 seconds of exposure to the Earth's atmosphere. But Zod pretty much ignores any of the side effects mentioned previously. Then you have the flashbacks with Jonathan, who is an asshole in every scene he's featured in. He doesn't impart words of wisdom or inspire his son to greatness...he sort of does, but he's pretty much gaslighting Clark up to the bitter contrived end where he would rather die in a tornado than have his son save him because Snyder and Goyer have some strange sensibilities as to what constitutes a noble and selfless act of fatherly love.

In order for Zod's death to have had the emotional weight Snyder and Goyer were expecting it to have, there had to be something from those flashbacks that showed Clark's aversion to killing. Maybe they had a cat or a dog that he accidentally killed and Clark is acutely aware for the first time just how powerful he actually is and vows not ever needlessly harm or kill a living thing if he can help it. Maybe Jonathan had to put down a cow or a horse, and Clark doesn't understand why it has to die. Jonathan could have explained that it's not something he wants to do, but it needs to be done to put the creature out of its misery. Then you would have some parallels between the past and the present and give it some actual emotional weight. The movie as it was had nothing to imply that Clark had any qualms about killing and showed that he wasn't above petty revenge. So it kinda falls flat when after he destroys the Genesis pods on the Kryptonian ship and says "Krypton had its chance," we're meant to believe that he has any remorse for killing Zod who had already established that he was ready willing and able to raze the entirety of humanity to the ground.

 

[Tanis]

The real problem is that the WHOLE MOVIE was a downer.

The Kents were assholes.
I mean, next level assholes.

Clark killing Zod wasn't the issue.
It was everything leading up to it.

The DCCU has sucked from the first movie onward.
No 'fun', no 'hope', no 'can't wait for the next one'.

One brutally boring bromance between bad script writers and the Hot Topic marketing department.

 

[Trunkage]

Snip

I am trying to put things like Superman At Earth's End back to the pedestal of Nadir of Superhero things which the Current DCEU movies are now standing on by popular opinion, because to me its just wrong, it is absolutely horribly wrong that Man of Steel/BvS is on that pedestal and not Superman At Earth's End/Justice League Act of God/Dark Knight Strikes Again. And mind you I am not also putting the DCEU movies into a pedestal of "BEST SUPERHERO MOVIE EVER" I know there flawed, but they are not flawed enough for me to say they are up there with Birdemic and the Amazing Bulk.

Don't you understand? If you don't absolutely hate MoS and think its the worst, then you actually think its the best. There are only worst and best (which is even funnier when you consider that there are like 7 superman movies and two point of appraisal doesn't cut it)...

*Scrolls down to the next part of the discussion*

So your attitude is just because you don't agree with someone for not liking a movie you did? That's kinda dumb. Dude, opinions are different and people can like or dislike whatever they want.

Saying its an injustice to say that Man of Steel is a bad movie and one of the worst things in the superhero comics or films isn't a disservice. All of those comics are bad too and I can apply BvS on the list of worst things to happen to DC because I found them to be awful. If you didn't, that's fine. Subjective opinions.

Again difference of opinion. Personally I found Birdemic to be hilarious to watch and Amazing Bulk I find forgettable more than one of the worst I've seen.

Well at least now there is a list of bad things. Makes it seem like there is a whole pile of terrible with one on top. So... yay to score granulation!?

Maybe we can get a third point of appraisal. May I suggest mediocre. (This is a bit. From all the things Samtemdos has said, I'm guessing that they would have appraised MoS as mediocre. You are try to dismiss someone's opinion by dismissing their opinion. MoS being a bad movie is an opinion - a popular one granted. You started this with a YouTube linl provided as evidence of how right you were. As if its the only possible conclusion you can draw from the situation.)

Also, insulting anyone's opinion will not get you anywhere.

 

[Natemans]

Snip

I am trying to put things like Superman At Earth's End back to the pedestal of Nadir of Superhero things which the Current DCEU movies are now standing on by popular opinion, because to me its just wrong, it is absolutely horribly wrong that Man of Steel/BvS is on that pedestal and not Superman At Earth's End/Justice League Act of God/Dark Knight Strikes Again. And mind you I am not also putting the DCEU movies into a pedestal of "BEST SUPERHERO MOVIE EVER" I know there flawed, but they are not flawed enough for me to say they are up there with Birdemic and the Amazing Bulk.

Don't you understand? If you don't absolutely hate MoS and think its the worst, then you actually think its the best. There are only worst and best (which is even funnier when you consider that there are like 7 superman movies and two point of appraisal doesn't cut it)...

*Scrolls down to the next part of the discussion*

So your attitude is just because you don't agree with someone for not liking a movie you did? That's kinda dumb. Dude, opinions are different and people can like or dislike whatever they want.

Saying its an injustice to say that Man of Steel is a bad movie and one of the worst things in the superhero comics or films isn't a disservice. All of those comics are bad too and I can apply BvS on the list of worst things to happen to DC because I found them to be awful. If you didn't, that's fine. Subjective opinions.

Again difference of opinion. Personally I found Birdemic to be hilarious to watch and Amazing Bulk I find forgettable more than one of the worst I've seen.

Well at least now there is a list of bad things. Makes it seem like there is a whole pile of terrible with one on top. So... yay to score granulation!?

Maybe we can get a third point of appraisal. May I suggest mediocre. (This is a bit. From all the things Samtemdos has said, I'm guessing that they would have appraised MoS as mediocre. You are try to dismiss someone's opinion by dismissing their opinion. MoS being a bad movie is an opinion - a popular one granted. You started this with a YouTube linl provided as evidence of how right you were. As if its the only possible conclusion you can draw from the situation.)

Also, insulting anyone's opinion will not get you anywhere.

Yeah, sorry about that. Its just sometimes this guy acts a little too.....what's the word? I don't wanna be insulting, but sometimes his attitude is a bit odd in terms of discussing.

 

[kitsunefather]

Batman used Guns before:

Okay, this issue in context of the story, is that Batman dug up the gun that killed his parents because he was having to team up with Joe Chill (the man who killed his parents) to track down a larger threat, and when it was done, he was going to use it to kill Chill. There is a large part of the issue used to examine this choice, and how much he feels he has to avenge them.

In the end, he can't pull the trigger on the man, and the larger villain ends up shooting Chill. Batman never uses the gun to injure a person, or on a person, in the entire story.

What were the context of the other 2 issues than?

And to be honest I have so many questions. Why is Joe Chill still alive and active? Who is this larger threat that would make Batman ally with the man who killed his family? And was Year 2 Bronze Age Batman?

I'm not sure, but they were pre-Crisis on Infinite Earths, where the "rules of being Batman" were a lot less concrete.

As to Year 2, it is a further expansion on Batman's early stories as he existed in the post-Crisis on Infinite Earths universe, and the Bruce Wayne in the story is still finding himself and dealing with the idea of his legacy. This is the first appearance in this continuity of Joe Chill, and I'm not going to say the story is handled well.

As to the larger threat, the post-Crisis universe (in this story only) apparently included a Gotham vigilante a generation earlier, who called himself "the Reaper" and he used big scythe-y blades on spike ball maces for gloves, that also had guns in them. His typical MO is to kill all criminals, and he's butchering muggers and gangsters alike. Since the police aren't able to help, Batman goes to the mob to enlist their aid, where they basically assign Joe Chill to Batman to make sure he's not working with the Reaper.

It is in no way really well written, though there are some interesting points and decent character beats in the story. It introduces a lot of the themes and ideas that later stories and movies will make much much better.

 

[Kyrian007]

To everyone in this thread, especially

What are you talking about? Superman would never kill. That's morally reprehensible.

Slowly sliding down an ice wall is an automatic death sentence? There's without a doubt no way that couldn't slowly flatten out starting about a foot below the fog? Or just be a couple of feet deeper than the fog? The intent of that scene was NEVER to suggest the Kryptonians were being killed. A deleted scene shows all three being walked away by police in handcuffs. The young me watching that movie absolutely never questioned for once that Superman had just murdered Zod. Yes, Superman killed in the comics. Yes, Superman having to kill to keep some really terrible thing from happening could be made into a great dramatic movie turning moment. In a good movie. But MoS wasn't good, so that didn't happen. AND, there's no indication that the Donner movies had a Superman kill anyone. That's just an awful example.