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

[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.

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.

Again, at the point when Kal-El does the destruction in Man of Steel, he very likely didn't know about this. Is that not true? If it is, then he would have consciously and deliberately made the decision to destroy any chance of future Kryptonians. Again, as far as he is aware.

 

[COMaestro]

I found MoS to be an okay movie. Nothing I really feel like actively watching again, but it could be on in the background while I'm doing something else and I wouldn't mind, or when there's just nothing on TV, if MoS was playing on a station, it would work. Hardly the worst thing ever (though BvS is close to that). Regarding the scene in question, I also have no real problem with Superman killing Zod. It was pretty much the only thing he could do, as Zod threatened to extinguish all life on the planet, and it's not like he was just going to be talked out of that.

But like many others in this thread, the emotional impact that such a scene should have contained just wasn't there. The family huddling there just waiting for death was stupid, as they did have the space to run away while Zod was being restrained. The character development was just not good enough. And this is from someone who somewhat enjoyed the morally ambiguous Kents. I liked the idea of these parents who expressed care for their child over the safety of the rest of the world, as I feel this is how most parents SHOULD feel. Jonathan being uncertain whether or not letting the kids in the bus die in order to protect Clark's abilities, knowing how the world would react to them were they made public was believable, as I think most parents would be willing to sacrifice pretty much anything to protect their child. Even himself, though that doesn't change the fact that Jonathan's death was horribly done and utterly pointless, as Clark had the time to save the dog and get back even without using super speed. Clark being told that he doesn't owe the world anything by his mom also feels real to me. Something a mom might say when seeing a threat to the safety of her child.

The problem is, this outlook from the Kents only supports Clark killing Zod if Clark has chosen to take humanity as a whole as something he needs to protect, in the same way his parents wanted to protect him. There was never an emphasis on self-sacrifice, which I think is important to the character of Superman as he is generally perceived by the public. This does gets emphasized by his turning himself in to protect the Earth, and then again at the end of BvS, but there it was in a stupid way that was unnecessary, so it felt forced and ham-fisted by the writers/director. Still, we are left with a Superman who has learned that any sacrifice is acceptable in order to protect those under his charge. Hence the obvious (despite lack of a body) killing of the African warlord and the initial assault on Batman which could have easily been avoided if he had just stayed floating a couple dozen feet in the air and asked for help. Sure, Batman threw the first punches, so to speak, but it did nothing to Superman and he could have simply said, "Please stop, I need your help," rather than pushing Batman around, flying him through a building and then throwing him into the spotlight. It would have been a lot more effective than the again ham-fisted "Martha". Yes, I get how that scene managed to humanize Superman for Batman, but it was still terribly done.

Eh, I've ranted enough on a series of movies that in hindsight really isn't worth the time.

BvS was just a mess overall, and is by far the worst of the DCEU to this point.

 

[Natemans]

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?

Yeah, as opposed to all of the people he fought Zod while flying through the buildings they destroyed or crushed. That and the death of Zod was pointless nor add anything to his character.

 

[Natemans]

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.

At this point, I want this cinematic universe to be over with after JL. Its not working out at all.

 

[Trunkage]

I found MoS to be an okay movie. Nothing I really feel like actively watching again, but it could be on in the background while I'm doing something else and I wouldn't mind, or when there's just nothing on TV, if MoS was playing on a station, it would work. Hardly the worst thing ever (though BvS is close to that). Regarding the scene in question, I also have no real problem with Superman killing Zod. It was pretty much the only thing he could do, as Zod threatened to extinguish all life on the planet, and it's not like he was just going to be talked out of that.

Maybe this is a real solution. Do something else while watching the DCEU.

I watched Gotham's first season. I had to watch it while doing something else because if you put any brain power into thinking about what's going on, it turns into a pile of crap. Many of the plots don't make sense, nor is the character reactions. After a while, I watched it while playing a game. My enjoyment of the series went up measurable. It could just be without being criticised.

Maybe everyone needs one of those spinners going into Justice League so they are distracted from plot holes and terrible characters.

 

[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?

Yeah, as opposed to all of the people he fought Zod while flying through the buildings they destroyed or crushed. That and the death of Zod was pointless nor add anything to his character.

Okay watch that fight again. The damage is all caused bt Zod smashing Superman into things or throwing stuff at him. One tenth of the damage is not even Clark's fault. Failure to prevent death is not the same thing as deliberately killing somebody. Christ, Scarlet Witch set the Hulk loose on a populated area on purpose yet where was all this wailing and gnashing of teeth when she became an Avenger?

 

[Kyman102]

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.

I just wanted to quote this for truth, because honestly THIS is my biggest problem with the movie universe. They blew their load far too early. Like, yes, many of the events in the movie DO happen in the comics.

They had their own separate issues. The writers and Zach Snyder, in my opinion, deserve all the scorn they can get for deciding to throw ALL of those events into one goddamn movie.

Especially, to quote a friend of mine, for killing Superman in BvS when "Most of us haven't figured out if we like the guy"

 

[COMaestro]

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?

Yeah, as opposed to all of the people he fought Zod while flying through the buildings they destroyed or crushed. That and the death of Zod was pointless nor add anything to his character.

Okay watch that fight again. The damage is all caused bt Zod smashing Superman into things or throwing stuff at him. One tenth of the damage is not even Clark's fault. Failure to prevent death is not the same thing as deliberately killing somebody. Christ, Scarlet Witch set the Hulk loose on a populated area on purpose yet where was all this wailing and gnashing of teeth when she became an Avenger?

Mostly because Scarlet Witch isn't Superman. They don't have nearly the same symbolism in the public consciousness (for that matter, until that movie, Scarlet Witch probably had no symbolism in the public consciousness. No one knew who she was.) so if she is shown killing people or wrecking a city it does not have the same impact as seeing Superman do the same thing. Her being an Avenger is a way for her to make up for her mistakes, using her powers for good and to save lives, rather than destroy them.

 

[hermes]

My problem with that scene is not really that he killed Zod, but that they failed to build on Superman as a character that is against killing or against someone being killed in front of him. There is also very little buildup to Clark and Zod bonding for any other reason than Zod being from a planet Clark only heard stories about. There is no indication that Clark has some sort of nostalgia for Krypton, which would justify him being reluctant to destroy the codex or kill Zod. So, when Zod threatens to kill the family (with the dumbest Goldfinger trap copy ever) and Clark is forced to kill him instead, there is nothing in the movie that begets the angsty reaction that follows.

After a fight were hundreds of people were killed as collateral (and yes, he dragged Zod through the side of buildings, and dodged exploding trucks instead of catching them, so it is not like at least some of the deaths weren't caused/couldn't have been prevented by him) and after trying to kill Zod and his minions for half a movie (he dragged a depowered Zod through dozens of miles, punching him in the face all the way, clearly with murdering intent), they actually established Clark as someone that is not afraid of being brutal or reckless to protect the ones he cares about. And that is fine, if that is what they wanted to portrait, but then the neck breaking reaction feels unearned. My problem is not with "the murder" (although I think the setup is pretty contrived), but with the crying that followed.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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.

Not that many people care about that. At all. Like the hardcore fans/DC geeks, sure, but the majority of cinema-goers and even fans of previous Superman shows and films, really don't care one bit. We disliked the fact that it was an awful film, badly told, badly written, badly acted, badly directed, badly shot and bloody boring. It was another 9/11 metaphor with city-destruction porn, a main character we couldn't care less about who underwent no arc or growth, fell for a Lois Lane that is somehow even less interesting than Bosworth's and a film with far more SFX than it needed.

The only thing I disliked about killing zod was that he was the only remotely interesting character in the film, and he won't be back despite being more interesting than Superman. It was not only a bad superhero film, it was a bad Superman film and more than that, a bad film. The "scene" was not the reason. DC have taken a stupid direction with their CU and put a mediocre director in charge of it.

 

[Natemans]

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?

Yeah, as opposed to all of the people he fought Zod while flying through the buildings they destroyed or crushed. That and the death of Zod was pointless nor add anything to his character.

Okay watch that fight again. The damage is all caused bt Zod smashing Superman into things or throwing stuff at him. One tenth of the damage is not even Clark's fault. Failure to prevent death is not the same thing as deliberately killing somebody. Christ, Scarlet Witch set the Hulk loose on a populated area on purpose yet where was all this wailing and gnashing of teeth when she became an Avenger?

Mostly because Scarlet Witch isn't Superman. They don't have nearly the same symbolism in the public consciousness (for that matter, until that movie, Scarlet Witch probably had no symbolism in the public consciousness. No one knew who she was.) so if she is shown killing people or wrecking a city it does not have the same impact as seeing Superman do the same thing. Her being an Avenger is a way for her to make up for her mistakes, using her powers for good and to save lives, rather than destroy them.

That and upon rewatching the fight with Hulk and Iron Man, there were no casualties in the fight at all. Seriously even when he took down the construction building, just before he dropped him into it, he did a scan and there was no one near it. As for the fight with Zod, bullshit. He and Zod just punched each other constantly through parking lots, buildings, cars, trucks, etc. And loaded with tons of people.

If you are gonna bring up the climax in Avengers 2, at least they tried to evacuate the city and save as many as they could. Unlike Superman.

 

[Natemans]

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.

Even though they put her on the team as it kinda feels like they are keeping her in check to not go nuts.

Also in Civil War, they kept her under house arrest after the accident in Lagos.

 

[Cicada 5]

Okay watch that fight again. The damage is all caused bt Zod smashing Superman into things or throwing stuff at him. One tenth of the damage is not even Clark's fault. Failure to prevent death is not the same thing as deliberately killing somebody. Christ, Scarlet Witch set the Hulk loose on a populated area on purpose yet where was all this wailing and gnashing of teeth when she became an Avenger?

Would it kill him to try to save people; you know, that thing he's capable of and SHOULD be doing? Negligent inaction is also a crime, I recall. As Comaestro described, joining the Avengers is Scarlet Witch's community service.

Seeing as how he was in a fight to the death with an opponent with far more experience and growing stronger by the minute, it probably would have.

Siccing a living weapon on a populated area does not get you community service. It gets you the electric chair.

 

[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?

Yeah, as opposed to all of the people he fought Zod while flying through the buildings they destroyed or crushed. That and the death of Zod was pointless nor add anything to his character.

Okay watch that fight again. The damage is all caused bt Zod smashing Superman into things or throwing stuff at him. One tenth of the damage is not even Clark's fault. Failure to prevent death is not the same thing as deliberately killing somebody. Christ, Scarlet Witch set the Hulk loose on a populated area on purpose yet where was all this wailing and gnashing of teeth when she became an Avenger?

Mostly because Scarlet Witch isn't Superman. They don't have nearly the same symbolism in the public consciousness (for that matter, until that movie, Scarlet Witch probably had no symbolism in the public consciousness. No one knew who she was.) so if she is shown killing people or wrecking a city it does not have the same impact as seeing Superman do the same thing. Her being an Avenger is a way for her to make up for her mistakes, using her powers for good and to save lives, rather than destroy them.

This excuse does not fly for me. Symbolism should mean nothing when judging a character's actions.

 

[Natemans]

Okay watch that fight again. The damage is all caused bt Zod smashing Superman into things or throwing stuff at him. One tenth of the damage is not even Clark's fault. Failure to prevent death is not the same thing as deliberately killing somebody. Christ, Scarlet Witch set the Hulk loose on a populated area on purpose yet where was all this wailing and gnashing of teeth when she became an Avenger?

Would it kill him to try to save people; you know, that thing he's capable of and SHOULD be doing? Negligent inaction is also a crime, I recall. As Comaestro described, joining the Avengers is Scarlet Witch's community service.

Seeing as how he was in a fight to the death with an opponent with far more experience and growing stronger by the minute, it probably would have.

Siccing a living weapon on a populated area does not get you community service. It gets you the electric chair.

Really? He couldn't save a single person while in the fight? That's stupid. The guy has super speed and he can still save those people or take the fight away from populated areas.

Even though they try to trust her and keep her in check not to do bad. Hell, in Civil War, when the accident in Lagos happens, she's put under house arrest by Vision. Hell, there were no casualties from the Hulk fight. It gets you the electric chair? Then why the hell aren't any of the supervillains already dead in the comics with that logic?

 

[Natemans]

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?

Yeah, as opposed to all of the people he fought Zod while flying through the buildings they destroyed or crushed. That and the death of Zod was pointless nor add anything to his character.

Okay watch that fight again. The damage is all caused bt Zod smashing Superman into things or throwing stuff at him. One tenth of the damage is not even Clark's fault. Failure to prevent death is not the same thing as deliberately killing somebody. Christ, Scarlet Witch set the Hulk loose on a populated area on purpose yet where was all this wailing and gnashing of teeth when she became an Avenger?

Mostly because Scarlet Witch isn't Superman. They don't have nearly the same symbolism in the public consciousness (for that matter, until that movie, Scarlet Witch probably had no symbolism in the public consciousness. No one knew who she was.) so if she is shown killing people or wrecking a city it does not have the same impact as seeing Superman do the same thing. Her being an Avenger is a way for her to make up for her mistakes, using her powers for good and to save lives, rather than destroy them.

This excuse does not fly for me. Symbolism should mean nothing when judging a character's actions.

So wait, a good point that she can't do everything is wrong? That's bullcrap. She is working with them to atone for her sins.

 

[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 I 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?

Yeah, as opposed to all of the people he fought Zod while flying through the buildings they destroyed or crushed. That and the death of Zod was pointless nor add anything to his character.

Okay watch that fight again. The damage is all caused bt Zod smashing Superman into things or throwing stuff at him. One tenth of the damage is not even Clark's fault. Failure to prevent death is not the same thing as deliberately killing somebody. Christ, Scarlet Witch set the Hulk loose on a populated area on purpose yet where was all this wailing and gnashing of teeth when she became an Avenger?

Mostly because Scarlet Witch isn't Superman. They don't have nearly the same symbolism in the public consciousness (for that matter, until that movie, Scarlet Witch probably had no symbolism in the public consciousness. No one knew who she was.) so if she is shown killing people or wrecking a city it does not have the same impact as seeing Superman do the same thing. Her being an Avenger is a way for her to make up for her mistakes, using her powers for good and to save lives, rather than destroy them.

This excuse does not fly for me. Symbolism should mean nothing when judging a character's actions.

So wait, a good point that she can't do everything is wrong? That's bullcrap. She is working with them to atone for her sins.

So you're willing to forgive her for deliberately hurting people because she's trying to atone (never mind her atonement is basically taking no responsibility and being protected from legal consequences) but not Superman who at worst fails to stop deaths?

 

[Cicada 5]

Really? He couldn't save a single person while in the fight? That's stupid. The guy has super speed and he can still save those people or take the fight away from populated areas.

Zod has super speed as well. Have you ever been in a fight to the death? It?s a little hard to focus on multiple things at once. Hell, even when he took the fight into space, Zod still brought it back to Earth.
Btw, that fight in MoS is really not that different from your average super hero brawl. Very rarely are the heroes shown thinking about the civilians.

Even though they try to trust her and keep her in check not to do bad. Hell, in Civil War, when the accident in Lagos happens, she's put under house arrest by Vision

She?s put under house arrest for a completely separate incident, one that makes her look like a victim being persecuted. There is no acknowledgement of what she did in South Africa.

Hell, there were no casualties from the Hulk fight.

I?m sorry did we watch the same fight?

It gets you the electric chair? Then why the hell aren't any of the supervillains already dead in the comics with that logic?

Because the comics are a) dumb and b) an ongoing series that will never end so the villains either aren?t killed or are resurrected.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Really? He couldn't save a single person while in the fight? That's stupid. The guy has super speed and he can still save those people or take the fight away from populated areas.

Zod has super speed as well. Have you ever been in a fight to the death? It?s a little hard to focus on multiple things at once. Hell, even when he took the fight into space, Zod still brought it back to Earth.
Btw, that fight in MoS is really not that different from your average super hero brawl. Very rarely are the heroes shown thinking about the civilians.

Even though they try to trust her and keep her in check not to do bad. Hell, in Civil War, when the accident in Lagos happens, she's put under house arrest by Vision

She?s put under house arrest for a completely separate incident, one that makes her look like a victim being persecuted. There is no acknowledgement of what she did in South Africa.

Hell, there were no casualties from the Hulk fight.

I?m sorry did we watch the same fight?

It gets you the electric chair? Then why the hell aren't any of the supervillains already dead in the comics with that logic?

Because the comics are a) dumb and b) an ongoing series that will never end so the villains either aren?t killed or are resurrected.

Its that last part that hits the nail on the head.

That's why these Superheroes have no kill rule, even though sometimes the villain does such horrific and diabolical things that not killing the villains is the dumbest copout thing you could ever possibly do.