The Big Picture: Man of Tomorrow

[Therumancer]

The problem I see with a lot of the DC material is that there is a tendency to want to try and humanize the various super heroes being created, without realizing that this defeats the purpose of a "super hero" to begin with. Yet it worked for "Smallville" when it was a relatively new idea, and there is no disputing the "Nolanverse" (which got away with it by pretty much having Batman be the only hero in his universe and taking liberties with pretty much everything else which made them great stand alone movies, but criticized as being fairly bad for establishing any kind of continuity based around Batman and the rest of a super-hero themed universe). I think "Superman Returns" failed on a lot of levels for the same reason, even if "Man Of Steel" did better, because they simply humanized Superman too much and didn't really make him "Super" enough.

That said I think they were on the right track with having him fight an enemy worthy of him rather than pulling out Kryptonite, of course by starting with that, in a franchise it's going to make it less "wow" worthy if they toss out enemies who can fight Superman on equal terms flat out, without having to resort to some obscure trick.

As far as the code vs. killing goes, well they could always say that this is why he has it. As far as which villains he kills and which he doesn't, there is always the question of whether he can kill them. Some of the enemies like Bizzaro arguably have an entire dimension full of themselves, Darkseid is pretty much the easiest character there is to justify regenerating himself (and Superman fighting him one on one is a craps shoot, in some stories he has taken him, but typically Superman needs help, which is kind of the point of Darkseid), Brainiac can always have downloaded himself into something else or simply show up from yet another timeline, and so on. Heck even with General Zod justifying bringing him back isn't all that hard to do.

It will be interesting to see where this goes, but honestly as much as I like Superhero movies, I'm not totally psyched up for them to play "follow the leader" with "The Avengers". Especially seeing as "Avengers" seems to be a victim of it's own success, with the studio complaining about the amount of money needed to pay Robert Downy Jr. due to his contract, and the other actors already demanding bigger paydays in response to what he's getting. I kind of suspect the entire Marvelverse might self destruct because it was successful... and that could very well leak down to tainting the properties. It would be nice to see that not happen with DC.

 

[vid87]

I wasn't really up to speed on the "don't kill" thing, but I think the animated series somewhat did away with that by the time Darkseid showed up - in the episode where, after being brainwashed, Supes has a final battle with him and was fully ready to finish him off when...I'd really rather not give it away, it's weird.

However, I'm still bugged by that part in the movie where he says "Krypton had its chance!" and blows up the ship - the show, onscreen, the pods with unborn Kryptonians being destroyed. Unless I'm mistaken, SM is a baby murderer and no one had brought it up.

 

[Osaka117]

I don't read comic books, so I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that Superman has caused collateral damage in his fights before, possibly killing civilians in the process, so why is everybody whining about that happening in Man of Steel? There are plenty of other reasons to find fault in the movie, but I don't think that the Zod fight was one of them. That said I liked the movie overall, it just had some problems, but once again, I don't think the ending was one.

As for killing him at the end, I didn't mind it. I don't fully buy the "never kill" policy. Sure that works fine for comics, and of course I don't think Superman should be a god powered version of the Punisher, going around ripping dudes heads off and throwing them into the sun, but I think he was right to kill Zod in that situation. Zod said himself that we was gonna kill every last human on earth, and the fact he tried to eye lazer civilians during the fight proved he wasn't just taunting supes.

So for me, I'll be fine if Kal just limits his no killing policies strictly to humans and beings weaker than him, and for everyone else killing is fine only as a last resort.

 

[Realitycrash]

Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

I was equally confused. I always found the 'do not kill' rule to be utterly stupid, but it's now so integrated into the character that removing it seems..Bizarre. I mean, heck, is BATMAN the traditional 'good guy' now of the future Justice League?

Meh. I honestly find it boring if Superman is a "Perfect" Man. People fuck up, if he kill someone, who cares. I am honestly sick and tired of seeing every superhero not kill a single person. Then again, I find it just bad writing to keep someone around when they killed hundreds, possibly thousands of people.

Kill the fucker and move on.

'Every superhero'? Man, you must be blissfully unaware of the 90's. I envy you.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

Huh? what? I don't remember Superman ever killing Zod. Again don't read the comics so...

 

[el_kabong]

I agree about the tone of the original and how it brought down the experience as a whole. I didn't see the film as "broody", but just really muted. There's only a few parts where strong emotions are on display. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if the movie kept that restrain the entire way through, but it's punctuated and broken up by action scenes with a scale and energy that hasn't been seen by myself in a while. It's quite dissident in that way.

That being said, if there's one thing I'm looking forward to the sequels, it's that Lois knows Clark is Superman right from the start. This helps eliminate one of the dumbest things about the Superman incarnations where a pair of spectacles is enough to fool people into not believing you're Superman, particularly because Lois has such a close relationship to "both". HOW CAN SHE NEVER PUT IT TOGETHER!? Not having to deal with that in the sequels is an interesting prospect. Doesn't explain everyone else's ineptitude, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I'm with you, Bob. Superman is the Great Dane complex writ large, where his regular duties are protecting fuzzy kittens in a world of cardboard. You didn't spoil how the circumstances forced Superman to kill Zod, so I don't know if Sups was coerced by circumstances or genuinely chose the easy way out in choosing the simple option.

From a writing standpoint this may be an attempt to represent that not even Superman gets to be perfect, but is confined to the foibles of being a real person (within the fictional context). Most of us dip into the the dark side before we realize that there are reasons we don't do that. Sherlock Holmes was outwitted three times in his career as a detective. Not even Jesus gets to be Jesus.

Interestingly, Superman also killed Zod (unnecessarily) in caricature [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_II] that was Zod then, that once he punched his way to the White House, he was content to sit there and let human civilization go on so long as everyone called him king and kneeled appropriately. He didn't so much as ask for tea or even a humongous statue to be built in his likeness.[footnote]Contrast: Aku, the Shapeshifting Master of Darkness who demanded regular tribute in the form of gargantuan statues.[/footnote]

238U

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Why would he lighten up?
He *killed* somebody... That's the perfect thing to get MORE broody after doing. :\

 

[Gatx]

I think the scene itself was really good, or it would've been if it had proper build up. This entire movie seemed to at the same time turn it up a notch, and start from scratch at the same time. Superman fighting a massive alien threat doesn't have as much wow factor as, say, Iron Man and Cap fighting those guys in the Avengers did because it didn't have a stepping stone to notch it up from. It would've worked as a sequel though - first movie establishes Superman as an inherently good person coming to grips with his powers and deciding what to do, but the enemies and problems faced should very much be human only. That way you have the build up to meeting these guys who can fight on even footing with him, forcing his hand to make him kill. Maybe the collateral damage caused when he cuts loose would even scare him and turn public perception against him. That would even lead into a third movie where he tries to get over it (Maybe with the help of BATMAN and the JUSTICE LEAGUE?). But of course that will never be because they messed this one up, and too many reboots leaves bad tastes in mouths.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

well... if i had to get super nerdy with you there was this big blow out battle with doomsday where they killed each other.
and i'm sure you can find one other example.

And guys I loved the 1990s super man.

I'm glad we got kent in one small bit sized portion.

THANK GOD!

Yes. I read the novelization of that. So ok, I'll grant you that. Although didn't Doomsday eventually come back from that battle?

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.

Huh? what? I don't remember Superman ever killing Zod. Again don't read the comics so...

MAybe this needs to be spammed till people READ THE GOD DAMN THing.

Read what "God damn" thing? The comics? No, I couldn't be asked. Is his character in the comics that inconstant with other mediums?

 

[zvate]

I liked it but... It was not so much that superman killed that bugged me nearly as much as the number of people he failed to (and failed to try and save). The bodycount just seemed way to high for a superman movie. If I saw him flying overhead I wouldn't be yelling 'yay superman' I'd be yelling 'the stupid war you brought here killed my cousins you $%#&' (still not fair but from the point of view of the guy on the street...)

I mean as superman (in costume at least) I don't think he actively rescued a single civilian he didn't already know. Even the family he saved at the end was only targeted by Zod because Superman seemed to care about them. I liked the movie more then bob did but Superman didn't seem that super in it. I mean he's supposed to represent this grand ideal and that S is supposed to symbolize hope. Hope for what? Seriously can someone tell me what that hope is because I want to know.

 

[weirdsoup]

Ok, supernerdy point. Early Superman did tend to fling bad guys out of windows and do other things to them that would likely cause, if not death, then certainly life crippling injury. And the whole "no killing" thing was less about being able to bring back characters and more to do with things like the Comics Code.

But anyway, on to "Where can Man of Steel 2 go". The most obvious place is Lex Luthor. The way I'd go with it is that if they want to continue in the gritty Nolan-style then you need to think about how the world would react to the news that there's a godlike Alien in a blue suit wandering about as well as the fact that Smallville has been in large parts wiped off the map as well as a huge chunk of Metropolis being turned into a hole. There's going to be fear, paranoia possibly even propaganda showing Superman killing. And Lex is the perfect character to be the architect of a machiavellian plot to get under Sup's cape.

 

[faefrost]

Actually I think that the movie proves Superman should be killing, or did you not see Zodd murder half the population of Metropolis? I've never thought it was acceptable for mor innocent people to die in the next issue just because the "hero" didn't wan to get his hands dirty. And even if it wasn't against it's moral code, it would still suck to end the only other member of your species.

But once Superman kills once? Then what? Especially in his intro movie. Once he has taken that step. Killed, even to simply protect his world and society, there is nothing that separates him from Zod. That has always been one of the most critical things is the Superman mythos. It was his personal ethics and morality. That farm raised Kansas common sense that thou shalt not kill, thou shall help they neighbors etc, that was a far greater check on Superman's unlimited powers than Kryptonite ever was. He was power exercised with restraint and responsibility. And between the Daddy lecture on "letting a school bus full of kids die" and the final solution to the Zod problem, well guess what. Superman quickly morphs into a world ruling despot. It's Marvel's Hyperion or Mark Waid's Irredeemable. Not so much Superman.

A friend summed up his issues with this movie very succinctly to me. He said it seemed to be two completely separated movies. The origin tale and backstory. and the arrival of the Kryptonians and the battle with Zod. And they never fully meshed. If they had done it as two back to back movies it would have been perfect. Allow the first to set the standards, establish the character and his moral compass and THEN have the second movie where he is faced with that single option. That would have been spectacular. But this all in one as part of his intro? It just felt wrong.