The Big Picture: Man of Tomorrow

Ken_J

New member
Jun 4, 2009
891
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.
actually Zod is consistently superman's first/only kill in pretty much every medium he shows up in.
 

TwiZtah

New member
Sep 22, 2011
301
0
0
YES! FUCKING FINALLY!

I absolutely loathe the whole high horse bullshit in comics of not killing the supervillains. Hell, think of how many people that would not have died if say Batman killed The Joker with a bullet through the eyes. I actually think that heroes that does not kill the supervillain is a villain in themself, they have the power to end pain and suffering caused by these lunatics. But no, it's against their "moral code", making their acts not selfless like a heroes act should be, but selfish.

Therefore I love The Punisher, quick and efficient killing, the goal is to stop the bad man.
 

contla

New member
Jan 17, 2012
21
0
0
Small thing. Thank you for using "Champing at the bit" Correctly. That means a lot to me. More than it should.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
This was the best summary of why Superman killing Zod breaks the movie [http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/06/17/man-of-steel-on-my-planet-the-s-is-for-sucks-spoilers-review/]:

For me, the worst thing about Superman killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel isn't the neck-snapping itself, but that a few minutes before it happens, during an interminable fight scene through the damn near post-apocalyptic landscape of a ruined Metropolis, Zod tells him something along the lines of "this doesn't end until one of us dies." And he's right. That's what kills me about it. The bad guy tells Superman that he'll only stop if Superman kills him, and Superman proves him right. Superman proves that the bad guy is right. There's no other way. It's just violence and death as the only solution.

Superman proves that the bad guy is right.

There is nothing you can tell me that will make me think that's not a completely insane, monumentally wrongheaded way to end a Superman movie. From a character standpoint, it is the worst possible thing they could do, undermining every bit of rancid dialogue about how Superman's going to Show Us The Way and how It Stands For Hope. It doesn't. It's just dudes punching each other until one of them punches harder, the end.
 

Pat Hulse

New member
Oct 17, 2011
67
0
0
Actually, Bob, Snyder has gone on the record saying that he wanted the Superman-killing-Zod thing in there specifically to give Superman a reason to have a code against killing. He killed once, he hated it, so never again. I personally think it works. Yeah, I know Superman is supposed to be against killing for more lofty ethical reasons, but that's a privilege he gets simply through lazy writing. Once Zod is exposed to Earth's atmosphere and he gets used to it, he's just as powerful as Superman, plus he has a lifetime of training in combat and absolutely nothing to lose. He has far more leverage in that situation, so it makes sense that he could be able to force Superman into the choice he forces him to make.

This means that Superman down the road will probably fight smarter than he did here. He'll put more focus on getting people to safety, making sure villains can't use them to force him to use lethal force. He now knows the consequences of carelessness. He knows that it's not just about punching bad guys, it's about keeping others out of harm's way.

For me, it's like Spider-Man's Uncle Ben moment. He had to have a moment of irresponsibility and experience the consequences of it in order to make his dedication to it more understandable.

Let's put it this way. There's a slight possibility that this movie could share the same universe as "Arrow". In that TV series, Ollie is willing to kill and does it frequently. Imagine a scenario where Ollie is rolling his eyes at Superman's code against killing. Knowing that Superman has had to take a life and knows what it means gives additional credibility to his stance because he knows what it's like to be forced to make that decision, but he's still ashamed of it. However, if he's never had to kill anybody, it's easy to dismiss his stance as a sign of his privilege. How can he know the desperation of needing to kill if he's always been able to get out of that situation with his limitless power?
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
MovieBob said:
Man of Tomorrow

MovieBob gives us a spoiler laden look into the latest Superman movie Man of Steel.

Watch Video
I would like to see this set up a greater, long-range conflict. See, at first, Superman doesn't kill because "Superman doesn't kill." Then, when he felt like there was no other option, he does it... and he wins!

From here, we could see Superman begin to question the "Superman doesn't kill" that he'd been given. It wasn't a conviction, it was an instruction, and he's seen that instruction "proven false," to his mind. This opens the opportunity for Superman to really screw up -- an extreme rarity, in the comic world -- and actually have to earn the conviction behind the "Superman doesn't kill."

Or maybe we'll find that we've seen just that -- he has a hard time dealing with the fact that he "had" to kill Zod, even wrestling with the question of whether or not he really had to, and he begins to give real shape to his convictions.

See, in the past, Superman was just good because. It's like he was born superhumanly compassionate and morally upright. And modern audiences are just too cynical to really buy that anymore. So, it's not that we're getting a darker Superman overall. I think we're getting a "darker before the dawn" Superman, so that we can actually believe in the brighter "boy scout" Superman.
 

Mr. Q

New member
Apr 30, 2013
767
0
0
After seeing Man of Steel on Friday, I posted my review of it the next day and gave it a C+ for its efforts. However, the more I think about it, I feel like I was being rather generous. Part of that could have been due to the sensory overload from the 3rd act's Dragonball Z-ish battle. Perhaps the big reason behind my doubts that I seem to have accepted the notion that DC Comics and Warner Brothers don't fully understand any of these characters. It's rather humorous and tragic that both companies believed Superman was just a different shade of Batman and that kind of ignorance could also apply for the rest of the Justice League down the road. That thought alone does not raise my spirits for their future endeavors.

This can be traced back to previous DC Comic-based movies that have failed miserably. Steel became reason #27 why Shaquille O'Neal can't act. Catwoman was stuck in pre-production hell for so long it became an ill-conceived mess and reason #9 why Halle Berry should have noticed the warning signs rather than count the zeroes on her paycheck. Jonah Hex, perhaps one of the simplest concepts to understand (a scarred anti-hero's life during and after the civil war) got fucked up royally and became a movie about steampunk tech and mysticism (makes me wonder if the people behind it wanted to make a sequel to Wild Wild West). Hell, Bob pretty much covered the majority of flaws in Green Lantern via his review. It's a long list of evidence that tells the story of two companies that completely missed the point on these properties and failed to present them in any positive light.

This is why I tend to favor the Marvel Studio movies these days. The company made plans to bring these characters to the big screen, took a serious financial risk, brought in a certain number of directors who weren't know for being box office winners, embraced the crazier aspects of the heroes and the world around them, and the end results paid off big time. The Marvel Cinematic Universe doesn't wallow in cynicism and hopelessness or takes itself seriously. Their movies have heart and levity that makes these characters more interesting to watch. They make moviegoers want to see more of this universe and all it has to offer. Want further proof that Marvel Studios is on a better track than DC/WB? They're making a movie about a lesser known team in space where two of its main characters are a living tree and a gun-totting raccoon that talks. Meanwhile, DC still struggles to bring Wonder Woman to life after canning Joss Whedon's proposed script (betting a lot of people at WB got shit-canned after the numbers for Avengers came back on opening weekend) and almost aired a TV version of the amazon princess that made her out as a female version of Jack Bauer with mental issues... and pants to be darkened.

While I'm glad Man of Steel made major money over the weekend (I'd wait until the 2nd and 3rd week before breaking out the champagne, boys) but the fact that its not a true rendition of Superman is another major hurdle DC/WB will have to get over. Maybe the two will revise the hero in the sequel and make actual plans to bring the rest of the DCU to the big screen someday... but I'm not gonna hold my breath for that.
 

contla

New member
Jan 17, 2012
21
0
0
TwiZtah said:
YES! FUCKING FINALLY!

I absolutely loathe the whole high horse bullshit in comics of not killing the supervillains. Hell, think of how many people that would not have died if say Batman killed The Joker with a bullet through the eyes. I actually think that heroes that does not kill the supervillain is a villain in themself, they have the power to end pain and suffering caused by these lunatics. But no, it's against their "moral code", making their acts not selfless like a heroes act should be, but selfish.

Therefore I love The Punisher, quick and efficient killing, the goal is to stop the bad man.


I always thought Batman had a hero complex.People with hero complexes tend to create dangerous situations to save people , so that's why batman let them live and stuck them in Arkham. So they could escape and he can catch them again.
 

azriel2422

New member
Jul 19, 2010
57
0
0
I think even the John Byrne incarnation had Superman kill, so there is precedent in the comics. Batman used to kill, a lot, at the beginning of his comic run. Over time both characters have taken on the stance of separating themselves from those they battle because of their rule of "not killing". I thought killing Zod did a couple things; it made him choose a side, and he chose Earth and humans. And I think for an origin story and character arc, it helped set up the process of him becoming the "boy scout" that we have come to know in the movies and comics. It will most definitely shape his character. If Snyder and company made it a point to explain (however subtly) why Supes wears a damn cape (basic Kryptonian garb), then I am sure they had him kill Zod for a reason. I for one am anxious to see what they do with the inevitable sequels. I've never been a Superman fan, but I really did enjoy this version.
 

LazyAza

New member
May 28, 2008
716
0
0
Oh well guess I'll have to watch this next week, movie isnt out here till 28th =(
 

TwiZtah

New member
Sep 22, 2011
301
0
0
contla said:
TwiZtah said:
YES! FUCKING FINALLY!

I absolutely loathe the whole high horse bullshit in comics of not killing the supervillains. Hell, think of how many people that would not have died if say Batman killed The Joker with a bullet through the eyes. I actually think that heroes that does not kill the supervillain is a villain in themself, they have the power to end pain and suffering caused by these lunatics. But no, it's against their "moral code", making their acts not selfless like a heroes act should be, but selfish.

Therefore I love The Punisher, quick and efficient killing, the goal is to stop the bad man.


I always thought Batman had a hero complex.People with hero complexes tend to create dangerous situations to save people , so that's why batman let them live and stuck them in Arkham. So they could escape and he can catch them again.
Yes, and this is a frequent theory. So why do we treat him like a hero? He is just as deranged as any of the supervillains.
 

Mr. Omega

ANTI-LIFE JUSTIFIES MY HATE!
Jul 1, 2010
3,902
0
0
I didn't mind Superman killing Zod. I wish he didn't, but I also understand that in that version, there wasn't any other way. The method of opening the Phantom Zone was used up, there's no Kryptonite, nobody knew about red sun radiation, and no prison in existence could possibly hold Zod. And the scene where Zod forces Superman's hand was a good scene.

Or at least it would have been if it wasn't for the way the movie focused so much on the collateral damage and civilian death during their fight. The two had probably filled a couple graveyards at this point, 4 more doesn't seem to have the same stakes. And this could have been avoided: just take a couple seconds to show Superman blasting debris with his heat vision or scooping up a couple people to get them out of the way. A couple simple shots to establish that despite all the damage, Superman was trying to save as many as he could. The focus on collateral damage was my least favorite part of the movie, taking away from what should have been great scenes.

On a more optimistic note, it practically writes the sequel by itself: Lex Luthor rebuilds Metropolis, and all the civilian death and property damage leads to people rallying behind his anti-Superman sentiments.