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

[Cicada 5]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

 

[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.

So nothing can exist in between? I can just think Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Suicide Squad are at just meh? Not the worse thing I have ever seen?

I am just here for the action scenes of the DC movies, if I want to see the proper portrayal and stories of these Superheroes I will just stick to Comic Books themselves and Animation which are superior to any Live Action movie. I never liked Live Action for Superheroes that much compared to Animation.

I hope the action in Justice League will be awesome.

Only the action? I used to think like that, but I grew to love both the story and characters. That's what makes me interested in DC's comics, movies or animation: the story and the characters.

Judging by the way Zack directs action and based on how he directed Man of Steel and BvS, I have major doubts in JL. 300 and Watchmen didn't do it for me because I'm sick of the ridiculous "slow down, speed up" of his action scenes.

That's why I love the slowdown because it accentuates the hits and blows that makes them memorable. It just does not feel boring, Like John Wick.

Actually this is where I disagree. It doesn't accentuate the hits or blows. It just makes them more cartoonish and overexaggereated. John Wick knows how to utilize the action well and how to use it to its advantage.

Of course, hence why the slow down would go well in the cartoonish, crazy world of Superheroes.

And I just find the action boring in John Wick.

I'm fine if you don't like the action.

But this whole slow motion thing is kinda stupid since it takes you out of the experience of being immersed in a world and feel you are just watching a movie. It doesn't work with Watchmen either because its meant to a dark depiction of deconstructing the superhero genre and its trying to be overemphasis of its style. That and the slow down, speed up thing got old a long time ago.

 

[Cicada 5]

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 say that Zod is strong enough to resist Superman lifting him with his magic powers of a biology that's used to lower gravity (which is an explanation that is both stupid and unneeded), but we'll never know, because Superman that didn't even try. And that's the point. He does almost nothing to stop Zod. There were a shit ton of other ways to go about stopping Zod, but Supes goes for the neck snap. And that just makes him look like a dick.

Why does it make him look like a dick? Why does killing your enemy that IS Evil, makes you evil?!

Am I evil for slaying a Dragon that's burning down village, eating innocent people and sheeps and cows?

Because there's a difference. This is meant to be Superman. He is supposed to show the benefit to mankind, show them a better light to making life better. Also there are like several ways to stop Zod without resorting to killing the guy. And any guilt we were meant to feel for him after he screamed out by his actions are completely forgotten. Consequences? What the hell is that?

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 say that Zod is strong enough to resist Superman lifting him with his magic powers of a biology that's used to lower gravity (which is an explanation that is both stupid and unneeded), but we'll never know, because Superman that didn't even try. And that's the point. He does almost nothing to stop Zod. There were a shit ton of other ways to go about stopping Zod, but Supes goes for the neck snap. And that just makes him look like a dick.

Why does it make him look like a dick? Why does killing your enemy that IS Evil, makes you evil?!

Am I evil for slaying a Dragon that's burning down village, eating innocent people and sheeps and cows?

Because there's a difference. This is meant to be Superman. He is supposed to show the benefit to mankind, show them a better light to making life better. Also there are like several ways to stop Zod without resorting to killing the guy. And any guilt we were meant to feel for him after he screamed out by his actions are completely forgotten. Consequences? What the hell is that?

What are those dozens of ways? And how would they have stopped Zod permanently?

 

[Cicada 5]

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.

This is the absolute worst thing about the DCEU. Just two movies in and they've already ruined so many of their great storylines.

Superman kills, so you can't do "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?".

Batman kills, so you can't do "Batman: Under the Hood".

Lex Luthor is in jail, so you can't make him president and do "Superman/Batman: Public Enemies".

They already did a half-assed rushed retelling of "The Dark Knight Returns", so they can't do that again.

They already did a half-assed rushed retelling of "The Death of Superman", compressed into the last 20min of the second movie of their franchise no less, so they can't do that again.

The whole thing is a mess.

The public does not like Superman even before Injustice because they think he's a one dimensional goody two-shoe fag that's infallable and all powerful.

Grow up.

I see no great loss from not being able to do What's So Funny... it's a glorified bash fic by a writer who hates people that like the Authority more than Superman. And Under The Red Hood is just more of writers contorting themselves in knots to justify keeping the Joker alive

 

[Cicada 5]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

I'd say the problem is that we don't see WHY this is his most cherished principle. In all honesty, it doesn't make much sense that this Superman doesn't kill since he was raised by people who were willing to let other kids die to protect Clark's secret. And Clark is set up to be a bit of a petulant asshole right from the very beginning - the scene where he destroys the douchebags car in Alaska - and when you have the character set up like that, killing Zod is almost an expectation. If he's willing to do something like that to a douchebag who certainly deserved to have SOMETHING done to him, why wouldn't he kill someone to literally save lives, and potentially to save the entire world?

We, as the audience, as fans of Superman, we know that killing is the line that Superman will break space and time to avoid crossing. In the comics. In other media. In any movie not involving Zack Snyder. We're supposed to take all the changes to this almost entirely new take on Superman (wandering the countryside, hiding his powers, trying to stay entirely under any and all radars while being a petulant jerk sometimes to people who deserve to be treated badly, not being a superhero, with parents who aren't nearly as moral and upstanding as their comic book characters, etc.) yet at the same time we're supposed to remember his virtue and nobility from the 75 years of history (and ignoring his penchant for anonymous vigilante justice) and apply that to the character?

Snyder tried to have his cake and eat it too, and ended up falling headfirst into it. Now it's all through his hair and beard and there's barely enough left to even taste.

Trashing a vehicle and killing a sentient being are not even remotely the same thing.

And co spidering the first thing we see him do as an adult is rescue some guy's at an oil rig, I'm not seeing how he's set up as an asshole from the beginning. Hell, you said the triucker deserved it so how was Clark being an assholes.

And no the Kents were not okay with him letting people die. Seriously did anyone actually watch that scene?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

If he was a sociopath he would have let Doomsday splatter Lex's brains out, but no he saved him from getting punched by Zod/Doomsday.

And I am fairly certain if Supes lived through the fight he would have turned in Lex to jail anyway.

Lex did state that Doomsday was meant to kill Superman, Superman most likely saw Doomsday's initial attack meant for him, and flew in before he could attack. One difference I noted with Movie D-Day, and Comic D-Day, is that the movie version only seemed to attack perceived threats, rather than mindless rampage. As for turning Lex over to the police, Superman threatened Lex with his heat vision after Lex revealed he kidnapped his mother. I don't believe Snyder-Superman is as forgiving as comic Superman.

Because this Superman really cares about his Family and Loved Ones. Like threatening them in crossing the line. But he saw reason regardless and not killed him out of rage anyway.

And he tried to plead Batman for help and stop the fight, especially when he was begging him about Martha.

Yet that didn't stop him from saving his dad when he could easily have saved him from the tornado with super speed and cover how he looks. That or leave the damn dog. He didn't kill him out of rage, huh? Didn't stop him from murdering that terrorist in Africa.

I bought him begging and pleading, but as soon as he flew Batman through a building, up to the rooftop and then threw him into the spotlight and hit the edge, all of my signs of being on his side were gone. Dude, Batman would be dead by that point.

Did he murder the terrorist? We did not see a body. And I am of the opinion that no body, means he's not dead.

 

[Queen Michael]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

Not sure why you quoted me twice, and also there's no need to quote the entire post if you're only referring to one sentence in it, but anyway: "Eager" might be the wrong word. My point is that they need to establish Superman's aversion to killing more before he actually does kill somebody.

 

[Cicada 5]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

Not sure why you quoted me twice, and also there's no need to quote the entire post if you're only referring to one sentence in it, but anyway: "Eager" might be the wrong word. My point is that they need to establish Superman's aversion to killing more before he actually does kill somebody.

The fact that he doesn't kill anyone and actually begged Zod to stop isn't enough?

 

[Queen Michael]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

Not sure why you quoted me twice, and also there's no need to quote the entire post if you're only referring to one sentence in it, but anyway: "Eager" might be the wrong word. My point is that they need to establish Superman's aversion to killing more before he actually does kill somebody.

The fact that he doesn't kill anyone and actually begged Zod to stop isn't enough?

Honestly? Not really, IMO. We need at least one point before that situation for Superman to show some aversion to killing. Otherwise his aversion to killing comes maybe not straight out of nowhere, but close enough to be a problem.

 

[BrawlMan]

I'll let Cecil explain this one.

<spoiler=Good Bad Flicks>
I thought and still think Man of Steel is a great movie. Did it have flaws? Yes. But is not horribad like some DC or Chris Reeve fan-boys/fan-girls are making it out to be. Batman V. Superman was ok, but there are lot of stuff that could have been done better..

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

And he tried to plead Batman for help and stop the fight, especially when he was begging him about Martha.

That part always struck me as... odd. Superman (at the time) knew there was nothing Batman had that could hurt him. So why did he start throwing Batfleck around when he could have stood perfectly still (with Batman impotently punching him) and explain himself? Or he could have pushed Batman over, and sat on him until he calmed down enough to explain the situation. Either way, Superman's temper got the better of him.

 

[DoPo]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

Not sure why you quoted me twice, and also there's no need to quote the entire post if you're only referring to one sentence in it, but anyway: "Eager" might be the wrong word. My point is that they need to establish Superman's aversion to killing more before he actually does kill somebody.

The fact that he doesn't kill anyone and actually begged Zod to stop isn't enough?

Honestly? Not really, IMO. We need at least one point before that situation for Superman to show some aversion to killing. Otherwise his aversion to killing comes maybe not straight out of nowhere, but close enough to be a problem.

Indeed. Also, as mentioned before in the thread, Kal-El already practically committed genocide earlier in the movie. It kinda sorta undermines the notion that he's averse to killing.

 

[Cicada 5]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

Not sure why you quoted me twice, and also there's no need to quote the entire post if you're only referring to one sentence in it, but anyway: "Eager" might be the wrong word. My point is that they need to establish Superman's aversion to killing more before he actually does kill somebody.

The fact that he doesn't kill anyone and actually begged Zod to stop isn't enough?

Honestly? Not really, IMO. We need at least one point before that situation for Superman to show some aversion to killing. Otherwise his aversion to killing comes maybe not straight out of nowhere, but close enough to be a problem.

Indeed. Also, as mentioned before in the thread, Kal-El already practically committed genocide earlier in the movie. It kinda sorta undermines the notion that he's averse to killing.

He didn't commit genocide. Those sacs were empty and he still has the codex in him.

 

[DoPo]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

Not sure why you quoted me twice, and also there's no need to quote the entire post if you're only referring to one sentence in it, but anyway: "Eager" might be the wrong word. My point is that they need to establish Superman's aversion to killing more before he actually does kill somebody.

The fact that he doesn't kill anyone and actually begged Zod to stop isn't enough?

Honestly? Not really, IMO. We need at least one point before that situation for Superman to show some aversion to killing. Otherwise his aversion to killing comes maybe not straight out of nowhere, but close enough to be a problem.

Indeed. Also, as mentioned before in the thread, Kal-El already practically committed genocide earlier in the movie. It kinda sorta undermines the notion that he's averse to killing.

He didn't commit genocide. Those sacs were empty and he still has the codex in him.

It was the only option for Krypton to be reborn and Kal-El made the conscious decision to destroy it. Due to his actions there are very definitely not going to be any more Kryptonians.

 

[Cicada 5]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

Not sure why you quoted me twice, and also there's no need to quote the entire post if you're only referring to one sentence in it, but anyway: "Eager" might be the wrong word. My point is that they need to establish Superman's aversion to killing more before he actually does kill somebody.

The fact that he doesn't kill anyone and actually begged Zod to stop isn't enough?

Honestly? Not really, IMO. We need at least one point before that situation for Superman to show some aversion to killing. Otherwise his aversion to killing comes maybe not straight out of nowhere, but close enough to be a problem.

Indeed. Also, as mentioned before in the thread, Kal-El already practically committed genocide earlier in the movie. It kinda sorta undermines the notion that he's averse to killing.

He didn't commit genocide. Those sacs were empty and he still has the codex in him.

It was the only option for Krypton to be reborn and Kal-El made the conscious decision to destroy it. Due to his actions there are very definitely not going to be any more Kryptonians.

He still has the Codex. Just because Zod claims it was the only way for Krypton to come back does not mean he's right

 

[DoPo]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

Not sure why you quoted me twice, and also there's no need to quote the entire post if you're only referring to one sentence in it, but anyway: "Eager" might be the wrong word. My point is that they need to establish Superman's aversion to killing more before he actually does kill somebody.

The fact that he doesn't kill anyone and actually begged Zod to stop isn't enough?

Honestly? Not really, IMO. We need at least one point before that situation for Superman to show some aversion to killing. Otherwise his aversion to killing comes maybe not straight out of nowhere, but close enough to be a problem.

Indeed. Also, as mentioned before in the thread, Kal-El already practically committed genocide earlier in the movie. It kinda sorta undermines the notion that he's averse to killing.

He didn't commit genocide. Those sacs were empty and he still has the codex in him.

It was the only option for Krypton to be reborn and Kal-El made the conscious decision to destroy it. Due to his actions there are very definitely not going to be any more Kryptonians.

He still has the Codex. Just because Zod claims it was the only way for Krypton to come back does not mean he's right

As far as Kal-El was concerned, it was. And that's what matters. Or are you suggesting that he knew of a different way to resurrect Krypton that was not even hinted at anywhere? Because, if so, then that would justify his action.

 

[Natemans]

If he was a sociopath he would have let Doomsday splatter Lex's brains out, but no he saved him from getting punched by Zod/Doomsday.

And I am fairly certain if Supes lived through the fight he would have turned in Lex to jail anyway.

Lex did state that Doomsday was meant to kill Superman, Superman most likely saw Doomsday's initial attack meant for him, and flew in before he could attack. One difference I noted with Movie D-Day, and Comic D-Day, is that the movie version only seemed to attack perceived threats, rather than mindless rampage. As for turning Lex over to the police, Superman threatened Lex with his heat vision after Lex revealed he kidnapped his mother. I don't believe Snyder-Superman is as forgiving as comic Superman.

Because this Superman really cares about his Family and Loved Ones. Like threatening them in crossing the line. But he saw reason regardless and not killed him out of rage anyway.

And he tried to plead Batman for help and stop the fight, especially when he was begging him about Martha.

Yet that didn't stop him from saving his dad when he could easily have saved him from the tornado with super speed and cover how he looks. That or leave the damn dog. He didn't kill him out of rage, huh? Didn't stop him from murdering that terrorist in Africa.

I bought him begging and pleading, but as soon as he flew Batman through a building, up to the rooftop and then threw him into the spotlight and hit the edge, all of my signs of being on his side were gone. Dude, Batman would be dead by that point.

Did he murder the terrorist? We did not see a body. And I am of the opinion that no body, means he's not dead.

Uh, bullshit. That speed of his flight would be like Mach I or II and then its mixed with his super strength plus pushing him through 5 concrete walls would not leave the guy unscathed. He's dead by that impact. If he did live unscathed, I'm still calling bullshit because that's not how logic works. Telling us that he didn't kill him doesn't make him right at all.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

The point of Man of Steel was that Clark HAD no rules yet, because as you said it was his very first superhero adventure. However one thinks how effectively they were showing it, the movie was supposed to show Clark growing into a hero, not having powers and just deciding to be one with a predetermined moral code and motivation to help people as most versions of Superman just do right off. That's why Clark is spending the first half of the movie wandering the Earth, doing things like wrecking a bully's car one minute and saving the people on the oil rig the next, he hasn't really decided whether he's going to spend his life saving the world or just live his life minding his own business while occasionally using his powers selfishly. Papa Kent's role is that he's supposed to play devil's advocate for the typical Superman mythos, to show Clark that he doesn't owe the world anything and to keep himself under the radar because Papa Kent recognizes how the world will seek to exploit or destroy Clark simply because he can do what he can do. It's Zod's arrival and subsequent events that really kicks off Clark's development into a hero, that makes Clark recognize how he can no longer sit on the sidelines and that he must use his powers responsibly.

The problem is that viewers have these preconceived notions about the character, which as you said isn't even all that accurate, that Clark Kent shouldn't be allowed to develop into Superman, he should just be this perfect little Big Blue Boy Scout right out of the box and never, EVER ever!!!ever!!!ever!!!ever!!!ever!!! kill under any circumstance no matter how justified or unavoidable. The fact is, even without the neck snap scene there is literally NOTHING else Clark could have done besides kill Zod at some point, the neck snap scene is just the first point when Clark both had the opportunity to kill Zod during the fight and people in direct danger to force his hand. Zod made that more than clear he was never going to stop until he was either dead or every single human on Earth and Clark was. Even if Clark was experienced enough with his abilities and could take Zod out non-lethally there is no facility on Earth that could contain him and if they tried Zod would just break out in a manner of seconds and go back to rampaging. Zod wouldn't be stupid enough to get trapped in the Phantom Zone again either, assuming Clark even knew how to put him in there. People complain about Superman killing and the massive destruction of Metropolis, but they fail to recognize there's no other way things could have gone. This wasn't some battle hardened Superman fighting some superbeing a level or 2 below Superman with the experience and superpower advantage behind him needed to effectively control the fight or move it so damage to the surrounding area is minimal. This was a green as a cabbage field Clark Kent desperately trying everything he could to stop someone who was just as powerful as he was, who could not be bargained with, reasoned with, or captured. Zod was both determined to destroy the world and not stupid enough to fall for anything Clark could have done to get Zod out of Metropolis and if Clark tried Zod would have just stayed at Metropolis and destroyed everything. Clark's anguish over killing Zod is supposed to be the catalyst FOR the "No Killing Rule," now that Clark actually has blood on his hands.

All this development ties in nicely with Dawn of Justice on Superman's side at least. Superman (who I now refer to as such because he actually is now) tries to inspire people, to work with the government and authorities for his heroics and to answer for the destruction he unavoidably caused during the first movie, all curtailed by Lex Luthor's efforts. Superman now shows a severe aversion to killing most effectively demonstrated with his aversion to Batman, who had just started killing people willy nilly, while Superman attempts to get him to stop and talk Batman down on multiple occasions both before and during their fight, which as he said if he wanted to hurt Batman he could have done it 5 seconds into the fight.

On a side note, Batman himself is shown in the movie to have been operating for years at least long enough for the events of something similar to Death In The Family to have happened. He's become so broken by everything he's gone through that he's stopped pussyfooting around with criminals and just resorted to killing them, with marking those he can manage to capture alive so that he technically doesn't kill them as a justification in his mind for doing it. This would have probably worked a lot better if we had a couple movies to establish this Batman's character especially his own "No Killing Rule" and to give him something that would break him so completely that he would subsequently abandon it in Dawn of Justice. Ironically unlike with Superman Batman didn't get the time needed to develop and the writers tried to cram everything about Batman's character and subsequent change in said character into one movie while expecting the viewers to fill in the blanks, which is where things failed with Batman in Dawn of Justice. Having to cram all the establishment and development of a character into one movie is why each character needs at least one solo movie or multiple bit parts in other movies before they start throwing them into a team or Vs movie.

Of course, I'm probably overthinking this, but that's what threads like this are for I suppose.

 

[Cicada 5]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

Neither Killing was done with anything resembling eagerness

Not sure why you quoted me twice, and also there's no need to quote the entire post if you're only referring to one sentence in it, but anyway: "Eager" might be the wrong word. My point is that they need to establish Superman's aversion to killing more before he actually does kill somebody.

The fact that he doesn't kill anyone and actually begged Zod to stop isn't enough?

Honestly? Not really, IMO. We need at least one point before that situation for Superman to show some aversion to killing. Otherwise his aversion to killing comes maybe not straight out of nowhere, but close enough to be a problem.

Indeed. Also, as mentioned before in the thread, Kal-El already practically committed genocide earlier in the movie. It kinda sorta undermines the notion that he's averse to killing.

He didn't commit genocide. Those sacs were empty and he still has the codex in him.

It was the only option for Krypton to be reborn and Kal-El made the conscious decision to destroy it. Due to his actions there are very definitely not going to be any more Kryptonians.

He still has the Codex. Just because Zod claims it was the only way for Krypton to come back does not mean he's right

As far as Kal-El was concerned, it was. And that's what matters. Or are you suggesting that he knew of a different way to resurrect Krypton that was not even hinted at anywhere? Because, if so, then that would justify his action.

They could easily do a DNA swab to make more Kryptonians. Some of the technology still works as seen in BvS. The story isn't over yet.

 

[Cicada 5]

Okay, we all know what people who dislike Man of Steel hates the most about the movie. Superman kills a guy, even though that's something Superman isn't ever supposed to do.

But here's the thing: Almost every iteration of Superman that I know of has either killed or tried to kill somebody at some point.

Here's what's different about MoS Superman: He kills the bad guy during his very first superhero adventure. Zack Snyder probably intended the scene to show Superman being forced by horrible circumstance to break his most cherished principle. But since we've never seen a Superman adventure where this Superman doesn't kill, and he shows about ten seconds of angst about it, he comes off as a Superman who will kill whenever it's useful.

And then he kills the villain in BvS too, and firmly establishes himself as a Superman who kills in every movie.

That's the problem with DCCU Superman. Not that he killed a person. But that he was so damn eager to do it.

The point of Man of Steel was that Clark HAD no rules yet, because as you said it was his very first superhero adventure. However one thinks how effectively they were showing it, the movie was supposed to show Clark growing into a hero, not having powers and just deciding to be one with a predetermined moral code and motivation to help people as most versions of Superman just do right off. That's why Clark is spending the first half of the movie wandering the Earth, doing things like wrecking a bully's car one minute and saving the people on the oil rig the next, he hasn't really decided whether he's going to spend his life saving the world or just live his life minding his own business while occasionally using his powers selfishly. Papa Kent's role is that he's supposed to play devil's advocate for the typical Superman mythos, to show Clark that he doesn't owe the world anything and to keep himself under the radar because Papa Kent recognizes how the world will seek to exploit or destroy Clark simply because he can do what he can do. It's Zod's arrival and subsequent events that really kicks off Clark's development into a hero, that makes Clark recognize how he can no longer sit on the sidelines and that he must use his powers responsibly.

The problem is that viewers have these preconceived notions about the character, which as you said isn't even all that accurate, that Clark Kent shouldn't be allowed to develop into Superman, he should just be this perfect little Big Blue Boy Scout right out of the box and never, EVER ever!!!ever!!!ever!!!ever!!!ever!!! kill under any circumstance no matter how justified or unavoidable. The fact is, even without the neck snap scene there is literally NOTHING else Clark could have done besides kill Zod at some point, the neck snap scene is just the first point when Clark both had the opportunity to kill Zod during the fight and people in direct danger to force his hand. Zod made that more than clear he was never going to stop until he was either dead or every single human on Earth and Clark was. Even if Clark was experienced enough with his abilities and could take Zod out non-lethally there is no facility on Earth that could contain him and if they tried Zod would just break out in a manner of seconds and go back to rampaging. Zod wouldn't be stupid enough to get trapped in the Phantom Zone again either, assuming Clark even knew how to put him in there. People complain about Superman killing and the massive destruction of Metropolis, but they fail to recognize there's no other way things could have gone. This wasn't some battle hardened Superman fighting some superbeing a level or 2 below Superman with the experience and superpower advantage behind him needed to effectively control the fight or move it so damage to the surrounding area is minimal. This was a green as a cabbage field Clark Kent desperately trying everything he could to stop someone who was just as powerful as he was, who could not be bargained with, reasoned with, or captured. Zod was both determined to destroy the world and not stupid enough to fall for anything Clark could have done to get Zod out of Metropolis and if Clark tried Zod would have just stayed at Metropolis and destroyed everything. Clark's anguish over killing Zod is supposed to be the catalyst FOR the "No Killing Rule," now that Clark actually has blood on his hands.

All this development ties in nicely with Dawn of Justice on Superman's side at least. Superman (who I now refer to as such because he actually is now) tries to inspire people, to work with the government and authorities for his heroics and to answer for the destruction he unavoidably caused during the first movie, all curtailed by Lex Luthor's efforts. Superman now shows a severe aversion to killing most effectively demonstrated with his aversion to Batman, who had just started killing people willy nilly, while Superman attempts to get him to stop and talk Batman down on multiple occasions both before and during their fight, which as he said if he wanted to hurt Batman he could have done it 5 seconds into the fight.

On a side note, Batman himself is shown in the movie to have been operating for years at least long enough for the events of something similar to Death In The Family to have happened. He's become so broken by everything he's gone through that he's stopped pussyfooting around with criminals and just resorted to killing them, with marking those he can manage to capture alive so that he technically doesn't kill them as a justification in his mind for doing it. This would have probably worked a lot better if we had a couple movies to establish this Batman's character especially his own "No Killing Rule" and to give him something that would break him so completely that he would subsequently abandon it in Dawn of Justice. Ironically unlike with Superman Batman didn't get the time needed to develop and the writers tried to cram everything about Batman's character and subsequent change in said character into one movie while expecting the viewers to fill in the blanks, which is where things failed with Batman in Dawn of Justice. Having to cram all the establishment and development of a character into one movie is why each character needs at least one solo movie or multiple bit parts in other movies before they start throwing them into a team or Vs movie.

Of course, I'm probably overthinking this, but that's what threads like this are for I suppose.

Very well said. Btw, how is it Superman gets crap for failing to stop Zod wrecking Metropolis, but people give zero f**ks about Scarlet Witch setting the Hulk on a city and getting no punishment for it.