Superman destroyed Metropolis

[IOwnTheSpire]

Maybe this has been done already, but someone should do a shot by shot breakdown of the action scenes and keep a tally of how much damage each combatant did, since people say Superman threw Zod into buildings, others say Zod was doing the throwing, so someone should use the film itself to determine it for sure.

 

[DrOswald]

Superman was involved in a conflict that destroyed metropolis. He did not destroy metropolis. I don't think we can reasonably expect Superman to have done any better in the situation in terms of minimizing damage. It is clear from re watching the fight that Zod was the better combatant and controlled the fight from the very beginning. This is not something Superman was prepared for, and any time he took even a second out to consider the incredible damage being done to the city Zod made him pay for it. I can think of no reasonable way Superman could have drawn Zod out of the city. If he had left Zod might have followed, or he might have just started knocking over buildings for the fun of it. I personally think the second is more likely. Zod is not stupid, he knows that he can choose when and where they fight - all he has to do is start murdering people and Superman will come.

In universe it makes plenty of sense that they would blame Superman. Imperfect knowledge of the incident, irrational hatred towards someone connected with such a terrible tragedy, and irrational hatred of the other are all perfectly reasonable explanation for why people would blame Superman for the actions of Zod. But knowing what we know I don't think any reasonable case can be made that Superman is at fault.

 

[ItouKaiji]

I think it's important to point out that the trailer shows Superman has his adherents as well. It's not like everyone universally hates him for what happened. A mixed reaction makes sense with some people fearing this god like alien being and condemning him for whatever sins they can and other hailing him as a messiah and because Synder can't do subtle I mean the messiah bit is literal, just check out them Jesus on the cross poses.

 

[Qizx]

I'm pretty sure that we hold the various public service agencies responsible for any property damage they inflict in the course of their job. Or at least there is inquiry into it, to see if it was a necessary amount of damage to accomplish the goal (catching the bad guy).

I'm sure there are clauses that can help authorities get out of responsibility, but if a cop destroyed an entire city block to try and get at one guy, that cop would have to answer for the damages inflicted. Seems reasonable to ask the same of Supes.

I mean I remember sitting in the theater and asking myself "was that really necessary?" to his various actions with Zod.

I'm not a superman fan by anymeans, quite the opposite, but there's a HUGE difference. If a cop destroys a few buildings to catch a guy who's about to detonate a nuke in the middle of Manhattan s/he'll he hailed as a hero.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

The real problem here isn't Superman ... it's the man behind the movie Man of Steel. I'm talking about the director of course, Zack Snyder. Apparently he wanted the movie to be somewhat serious, dark ... while keeping the tone of Superman clear. Yet, he somewhat failed on a few notes. For starters, I don't think it's realistic for a father (regardless of who you are) to tell someone "Yea let the kids drown. You identity of secrecy is more important" .... NO I think rather the father would be like, "I'm so proud of you son. Saving all those kids lives- we're going to be famous my boy with your powers & all."

Even if that wasn't the case, the biggest offender to me was when Superman's human dad killed himself to save a dog. ........... really? I love animals too, but the fact he, HE insisted on going alone, letting the dog out, then stand there for death was just utterly stupid. Have Clark go with you, and walk you back without the twister overtaking you. People aren't going to notice because it's a hurricane, people are going to be to busy fleeing away. So does Superman, despite losing his father- respect keeping his identity a secret?

*sigh* I'm getting real sick of seeing these same baseless criticisms over and over again.

Pa Kent DID NOT tell Clark to let those kids die, he said MAYBE, meaning I DON'T KNOW. He doesn't have all the answers, he knows that sometimes Clark is going to have to make hard decisions. He knows that the world might react negatively to him (and as shown in the BvS trailer, they will), so for him to reveal himself at such a young and impressionable age is a bad idea.

Also, Pa Kent DID NOT kill himself for a dog. He thought he could run out, free the dog, and run back; he didn't bring Clark along because he had to protect that little girl; it wasn't until his leg got crushed did he know that he wouldn't make it back without Clark's help, and since he knew Clark would save him but was convinced it wasn't time to reveal himself, he made sure Clark knew not to save him.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

snip

I get where you're coming from, I understand not liking a movie, and I welcome genuine criticisms, it just annoys me when I hear arguments or complaints (especially ones that don't hold water) thrown out again and again, even if they've been refuted (like 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example), and so I have this compulsion to comment.

I see a lot of people behave like they did when they saw the Star Wars prequels: acting like they lived through an apocalypse, when all they did was see a movie they didn't like. It's why I do my best to disassociate myself from much of the superhero/sci-fi/fantasy fanbase.

 

[happyninja42]

Pa Kent DID NOT tell Clark to let those kids die, he said MAYBE, meaning I DON'T KNOW. He doesn't have all the answers, he knows that sometimes Clark is going to have to make hard decisions. He knows that the world might react negatively to him (and as shown in the BvS trailer, they will), so for him to reveal himself at such a young and impressionable age is a bad idea.

I have zero issue with this part, as I agree with this assessment of what Pa Kent said. I thought it was a pretty good scene actually, not for what it said about Pa Kent, but what it said about Clark. The anguished way in which he asks "What was I supposed to do?! Let them die?!" It showed that wanting to help people is a fundamental part of what Clark is, even at the risk of his own existence. So I liked it.

Also, Pa Kent DID NOT kill himself for a dog. He thought he could run out, free the dog, and run back; he didn't bring Clark along because he had to protect that little girl; it wasn't until his leg got crushed did he know that he wouldn't make it back without Clark's help, and since he knew Clark would save him but was convinced it wasn't time to reveal himself, he made sure Clark knew not to save him.

The issues I have with this scene are twofold:

1. It looked stupid. I'm sorry, but that dramatic holding up of his hand, and calmly fading into the tornado....ugh, it was so totally lame. Sorry but you don't fade into the debris like a ghost, you get smacked in the face with flying debris, and hurled against the nearest object with bone breaking force. It was so cheesy and stupid it just made me laugh, and took every bit of emotional investment I had in the scene out.

2. Clark could totally have saved him without having to "Supe it Up". That truck was ridiculously close to the underpass. ANY person could've run out there to help him in the time they had, under normal human capabilities. But no, they needed a dramatic end for Pa Kent, instead of just letting him die to a heart attack, something Clark couldn't help with. Which would've been a more poignant moment, instead of being denied permission to help him, which was just stupid.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Am I the only dolt who doesn't give two fucks about collateral damage in action movies?

 

[Zontar]

Am I the only dolt who doesn't give two fucks about collateral damage in action movies?

I think a lot of people don't, but in this case it stems from the fact that the movie was going for a serious, realistic tone, which makes us think about these things.

Plus, I think it's wrong on a certain level that Marvel's light hearted Avengers gave the issue more attention then Man of Steel did.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

instead of just letting him die to a heart attack, something Clark couldn't help with.

This should provide an explanation of the purpose of the tornado scene: http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/an-explanation-of-the-tornado-scene-in-man-of-steel.html

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Am I the only dolt who doesn't give two fucks about collateral damage in action movies?

I think a lot of people don't, but in this case it stems from the fact that the movie was going for a serious, realistic tone, which makes us think about these things.

Plus, I think it's wrong on a certain level that Marvel's light hearted Avengers gave the issue more attention then Man of Steel did.

That's true, and it's especially annoying how many handwaves are thrown in Avengers 2 and Ant-Man in that respect.

 

[happyninja42]

instead of just letting him die to a heart attack, something Clark couldn't help with.

This should provide an explanation of the purpose of the tornado scene: http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/an-explanation-of-the-tornado-scene-in-man-of-steel.html

Read the article. Nope, sorry, don't buy that. It was a dumb scene, and a dumb way to kill Pa Kent, even in the context of the MoS-verse. No amount of rationalization of the nuances of what Pa Kent was supposedly doing and why is going to convince me otherwise. It was handled poorly, it was shot poorly, and it was written poorly. It was a comic relief moment for me. I literally laughed at the idiocy of it. There was nothing poignant about his death. And I don't buy that it's what caused him to be willing to sacrifice himself for humanity. I stand by the idea that Clark was like that anyway. That he felt compelled to help others was simply a part of his personality, even at a risk to himself.

Now, just to clarify. I have no issue with him going back for the dog, and I have no issue with the idea that he was too injured to escape. I personally don't buy that he was actually that injured, and that he could've easily hobbled the extra 30 yards he needed to go to get to safety, but whatever. And again, anyone could've easily run to him and helped him from the place he was at, in relation to the underpass. It was completely stupid, and felt more like the writers were like "ok so..uh...we need to kill Costner...how should we do it." *throws a dart at a list of ways someone dies* "Killed by a tornado, fine. Ooh! Let's make it look all artsy and have him dissolve like a sandcastle into the tornado! 'Cause that would look cool!"

So yeah, I just rewatched that scene, and right before they start it, Clark is talking to Lois, and talks about how his dad thought the world would be afraid of him if they found out who he was. He never taught him any lesson about sacrificing stuff you care for, to help others. He always told Clark to hide what he was, so I disagree with the assessment that it was a "lesson" for Clark about sacrifice. And yeah, sorry, a twisted ankle, or broken ankle, he could've kept moving. Humans have traveled distances farther than that 30 yards to the underpass with worse injuries.

I'm sorry it's just a badly done scene to me. End of story.

 

[SILENTSAM69]

Everyone talks about how comic book Superman wouldn't do this obviously don't read many comics. He was quite different depending on who wrote him, and if you go back to earlier comics he did do this kind of stuff.

Also him ruining that guys truck was almost out of a comic.

 

[kris40k]

Am I the only dolt who doesn't give two fucks about collateral damage in action movies?

I think a lot of people don't, but in this case it stems from the fact that the movie was going for a serious, realistic tone, which makes us think about these things.

Plus, I think it's wrong on a certain level that Marvel's light hearted Avengers gave the issue more attention then Man of Steel did.

That's true, and it's especially annoying how many handwaves are thrown in Avengers 2 and Ant-Man in that respect.

Heck, the backdrop of the first season of Daredevil is formed up from the fact that New York City was severely damaged and there is a lot of money going around in construction contracts and attempts to rebuild and/or change the city after the events of Avengers 1.

 

[JimB]

I can't seriously believe that people blame Superman for this.

Here's the thing: Kal-El didn't care about anyone getting hurt in the fight. He didn't care at all. You can blame his lack of experience all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the safety of the living, feeling people in the city of Metropolis never once occurred to him. If it had, then he would have behaved differently. Instead, his one and only goal was to win a fist fight, and be damned to all the people caught in the crossfire...or no, not even be damned to them, because he didn't think about them enough to even curse them.

Criminally indifferent manslaughter in the deaths of thousands of people sounds like a pretty goddamned accurate description of events to me, and no, it does not matter that Zod would have done worse. Kal-El's actions are not defined on a comparative scale. They speak for themselves.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

The problem with the fight was that for most people it seems like Sups didn't even bother trying to drag Zod out of Metropolis, he could have just sniped him from afar with heat vision, forcing Zod to go after him and get out of the city (the Dark Souls tactic), instead it looked like Sups actually used the city itself against Zod, slamming him into buildings.

It's more like blaming the fire fighter after they detonated a thermo-nuclear device on you house from fear of the fire spreading to the houses next door.

Zod made it quite clear that he intended to kill all the humans, if Superman had tried to fight at a distance, Zod would have just started killing people at random.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

I can't seriously believe that people blame Superman for this.

Here's the thing: Kal-El didn't care about anyone getting hurt in the fight. He didn't care at all. You can blame his lack of experience all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the safety of the living, feeling people in the city of Metropolis never once occurred to him. If it had, then he would have behaved differently. Instead, his one and only goal was to win a fist fight, and be damned to all the people caught in the crossfire...or no, not even be damned to them, because he didn't think about them enough to even curse them.

Criminally indifferent manslaughter in the deaths of thousands of people sounds like a pretty goddamned accurate description of events to me, and no, it does not matter that Zod would have done worse. Kal-El's actions are not defined on a comparative scale. They speak for themselves.

Here's the REAL thing: I just rewatched the movie, and Kal only dragged Zod across the side of a building (just the side, the glass was shattered but no evidence anyone was killed), threw him into a Wayne Enterprises satellite, then pushed him down into the station where the neck-break occured. That's it. Every other piece of damage during that fight was Zod's fault.

The claim he didn't care about anyone is ridiculous (considering he had saved a falling pilot during the Smallville fight), and the important thing to remember is that he had to stop Zod then and there, otherwise Zod would've destroyed everything he could get his hands on.

Another thing: Superman punched Darkseid through several buildings in the animated series, and he also leveled some buildings while fighting Shazam in Justice League Unlimited, yet no one seems to blame him for those who may have died there. Why is the animated, experienced Superman allowed to get away with being a borderline dictator at times and have moments of anger (such as suggesting going to war against Cadmus), yet the live-action inexperienced Superman isn't allowed to make mistakes?

 

[JimB]

Here's the REAL thing: I just re-watched the movie, and Kal only dragged Zod across the side of a building (just the side; the glass was shattered but no evidence anyone was killed), threw him into a Wayne Enterprises satellite, then pushed him down into the station where the neck-break occured. That's it. Every other piece of damage during that fight was Zod's fault.

Okay, but I don't remember saying anything about him personally causing any amount of specific property damage. I said his behavior exhibited no regard for the people of Metropolis. If he had given a shit, he'd have taken the fight elsewhere, but he didn't take the fight elsewhere because no shits were given.

The claim he didn't care about anyone is ridiculous, considering he had saved a falling pilot during the Smallville fight.

I also didn't say anything about Smallville. I specifically said the living, feeling people of Metropolis.

Another thing: Superman punched Darkseid through several buildings in the animated series, and he also leveled some buildings while fighting Shazam in Justice League Unlimited, yet no one seems to blame him for those who may have died there.

I further did not say anything about any cartoons, nor media other than the specific movie in question. If you would like to talk about things other than the specific movie in question, I must ask you to please create a different thread for it, as I feel talking about it in this thread just comes up as an attempt to excuse by comparison.

The important thing to remember is that he had to stop Zod then and there, otherwise Zod would've destroyed everything he could get his hands on.

So wait, you're arguing he was thinking of the people of Metropolis, and decided anyone who died in that fight was an acceptable sacrifice? Because if so, we're back to criminal indifference again, but I think we might have to upgrade it from manslaughter to murder.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

If he had given a shit, he'd have taken the fight elsewhere, but he didn't take the fight elsewhere because no shits were given.

He couldn't take the fight elsewhere, because as others have said, Zod would've just started wrecking things until Kal came back to fight him. Zod knew of Kal's compassion and would've exploited it.

If you would like to talk about things other than the specific movie in question, I must ask you to please create a different thread for it, as I feel talking about it in this thread just comes up as an attempt to excuse by comparison.

Critics of Man of Steel opened the door to using previous Superman works to support their arguments of how Superman should or shouldn't behave, make comparisons, and so on, therefore it stands to reason that I, defending the movie, be allowed to cite other Superman works to support MY arguments.

 

[JimB]

If he had given a shit, he'd have taken the fight elsewhere, but he didn't take the fight elsewhere because no shits were given.

He couldn't take the fight elsewhere, because as others have said, Zod would've just started wrecking things until Kal came back to fight him. Zod knew of Kal's compassion and would've exploited it.

What exactly do you believe I am proposing, IOwnTheSpire? Kal-El picking up a tennis ball, throwing it, and telling Zod to go get it? I am talking about forcing the issue; about doing one of those series of flying punches that knocked Zod back several city blocks per impact, or just plain tackling him like in Smallville. These are things within his power, but he didn't do them because he didn't care enough to think of it...or, as you propose, he thought of it but didn't care enough to do it because in order to keep Zod from killing people, he had to let Zod kill people.

If you would like to talk about things other than the specific movie in question, I must ask you to please create a different thread for it, as I feel talking about it in this thread just comes up as an attempt to excuse by comparison.

Critics of Man of Steel opened the door to using previous Superman works to support their arguments of how Superman should or shouldn't behave, make comparisons, and so on.

Then of the two examples you cited, only one of them is possibly relevant. The fight with Captain Marvel is not. The episode went out of its way to describe how the city in question was uninhabitated. The fight with Darkseid I cannot comment on, as I have never watched Superman: the Animated Series, but let us assume you're right and Superman killed thousands of people in that fight. Are you saying Kal-El's actions are above reproach or criticism because a children's cartoon has portrayed him doing the same thing, or are you trying to change the subject from Kal-El's actions by attacking the perceived hypocrisy of people who disagree with you?