I don't remember that part, but then I haven't seen Superman 2 in quite some time. I remember the Fortress of Solitude, but I don't remember Superman actually throwing Zod into a chasm.80sboy said:
The Big Picture: Man of Tomorrow
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would much rather see Clark develop into a better man by struggling over an impossible decision early in his career than automatically be held to a contrived morality that only exists because of the antiquated and obsolete Comics Code.
I totally agree, SuperMan shouldn't kill. But I think it kinda worked here. Yeah, Batman esque SuperMan is kinda a drag. But in that moment of panic, I get why he killed Zod, plus, where the hell would they put the guy? He probably wouldn't spend too long in custody. I'd hope that now SuperMan thinks "Okay, theres got to be a better way to deal with this".
But yeah, Man of Steel, was pretty damn amazing! The city destruction was pure adrenaline fulled carnage! (But having not read any SuperMan comics, I was thinking, Man this reminds me of Image's Invincible (I know that that takes influnce from SuperMan))
But yeah, Man of Steel, was pretty damn amazing! The city destruction was pure adrenaline fulled carnage! (But having not read any SuperMan comics, I was thinking, Man this reminds me of Image's Invincible (I know that that takes influnce from SuperMan))
I would think that this younger and less experienced Superman would carry the weight of his violence into future iterations. It would flavor an older and more savvy Superman who has disavowed killing.
Did we forget Superman killing another version of Zod? Superman II depicts a far worse death of Zod than Man of Steel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0
Did we forget Superman killing another version of Zod? Superman II depicts a far worse death of Zod than Man of Steel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0
Well count me as one of the people who doesn't really have a problem with Superman killing Zod. First of all Zod kinda of forced Superman's hand and it was a very heat of the moment kind of thing. Plus Superman does show regret over killing Zod. Now while people are right in that this does create a slippery slope its possible that this will play a part in future Superman movies and is not a sign of the writers just casually dismissing Superman's "thou Shall not Kill" code.
As for the whole collateral damage argument, hasn't this happened countless timeless in the cartoons and comics? This more or less done for a stylized effect. Now yes he probably could have drown Zod out into a desert, but given how Zod wants to make Superman suffer he would have just stayed back and slaughtered innocents to draw Superman back. I suppose there could have been a scene or two where he rescues some people form debris, but it doesn't really bother me.
If anything my only complaint about the whole killing issue is that the movie doesn't really explore or explain why its bad for Superman to kill, why he has this code (as if its something we are suppose to assume or already know).
As for the whole collateral damage argument, hasn't this happened countless timeless in the cartoons and comics? This more or less done for a stylized effect. Now yes he probably could have drown Zod out into a desert, but given how Zod wants to make Superman suffer he would have just stayed back and slaughtered innocents to draw Superman back. I suppose there could have been a scene or two where he rescues some people form debris, but it doesn't really bother me.
If anything my only complaint about the whole killing issue is that the movie doesn't really explore or explain why its bad for Superman to kill, why he has this code (as if its something we are suppose to assume or already know).
The way I see it, the reason why it was never mentioned that he had a strict "no killing" rule before in the movie, was because he didn't. I mean, he'd just "been Superman" for a matter of days. Isn't it logical that killing Zod was the defining moment that made him decide never to kill again. Also, I'd like to point out that killing someone with your hands is a lot different to accidentally killing someone out of view as collateral. Remember, Clark is not a rational guy like Bruce Wayne (well, not Nolan's Bruce, but that's another issue..), he's emotionally driven; a virtue ethicist.
This movie's main issue was the complete lack of screen time dedicated to character development (Clark & Lois after meeting each other like two times, with no chemistry at all..). I bet sometime during the production, they said "Hey, our character development is pretty weak, but the action sequences are awesome. Let's half the former and double the latter."
This movie's main issue was the complete lack of screen time dedicated to character development (Clark & Lois after meeting each other like two times, with no chemistry at all..). I bet sometime during the production, they said "Hey, our character development is pretty weak, but the action sequences are awesome. Let's half the former and double the latter."
It actually depends on the version of Superman 2 you watch. In the Richard Donner version, they get sent back to the Phantom Zone. If you watch the movie studio edit version, I believe he gets thrown down a pit or something.canadamus_prime said:
I'd disagree on a few things (and it's okay to disagree). Maybe it was the fault of lousy editing, but Superman, yes, shows he didn't WANT to kill Zod and lets out that pained "what have I done?" scream... but it was only a few mere minutes later that he and Lois are cracking jokes and flirting and the repercussions of what he's done seem to have almost instantaneously dissipated. In the comics, the moment he does what he does in the 1980s story, he flees from Lois in disgust because he can't even bear to look her in the eyes because of what he had done. He flat out disappears for two years. Obviously, the movie wanted to wrap things up on a comparatively "happier" note, but the way the scenes played out didn't make me think "wow, this is totally going to linger with him for years to come", not when he seemed to be coping with it just fine shortly thereafter.Mcoffey said:
And the argument that he was "on equal footing" with Zod to make it okay doesn't convince me either. It wasn't because they were equal in strength; you admit yourself it was because Zod was threatening civilians and Superman saw no alternative (though, seriously, those civilians should've MOVED. Stop standing there, morons!) Any villain can put Superman in that situation, no matter if they're strong or normal. Joker could have Lois hooked up to a bomb with his finger on the trigger, or Luthor could have arranged a deathtrap for Jimmy that only his death would prevent. Their strength doesn't matter, especially when intelligent villains can outsmart Superman to put him in a position of vulnerability. It was a REALLY BIG DEAL when Wonder Woman snapped a powerless human's neck because he had mind controlled Superman to go on a rampage and only his death could stop it... and even though it was "justified", both Batman and Superman were horrified with what she had done, even if her position was understandable.
But, well, if Brainiac is next... Brainiac isn't a person. He is not technically "alive". He's a cold computer program, and by all means Superman can "kill" him all he wants because he's neither alive nor even a physical being (hence why he keeps "dying" in the comics and has so many back-up copies of himself). So I fully expect, if Brianiac shows up, that he'll be "killed" just like Zod.
And, I don't know, that's a huge part of Superman the movies failed to grasp; apart from him barely spending a second to help the THOUSANDS of people no-doubt killed in their fight (seriously, lure him out of the city! Even DBZ characters are THAT smart), the fact that Superman resorts to basically pummeling the villain to death as his only means of victory shows how little they know or understand Superman. He's not a brute. He's smart, cunning, intelligent, resourceful, and he'll always use his fists as a last resort. At least in the two decades of comics I read, he made plans, set traps, outsmarted villains MORE often than he out-muscled them, and he managed to go all that time without ending a single life.
The Superman in the movies is the "punch him to death but feel bad about it" type, neither raised with the moral convictions that Pa Kent should've given him (seriously, go to hell, Pa Kent... you're like a Bizarro version of Uncle Ben's "great power comes great responsibility"), the brains to use his powers in ways that don't cause wanton destruction, or the charm and humor he always brought to those around him. Superman, more than any other hero, was a hero not because of some tragedy in his life, not because he has no choice but to stop the villains, but simply a means to do his civic duty with the abilities he had. He became Superman long before he had a villain to fight. He saved kittens from trees as equally as stopping aliens from conquering the planet. One of my favorite stories was when he just saved a bankrupt local deli by eating there and making people go "wow, Superman eats there? I want to eat there too!" so the old couple that ran the place wouldn't lose their income.
That, to me, is what makes Superman "super". Doing something like that speaks volumes more to him as a hero than snapping Zod's neck, but feeling really bad about it for a few minutes.
Ok, I'm going to have to see that movie again because I'm having difficulty remembering just how he finally dealt with Zod apart from the red sun radiation thing.Trishbot said:
Okay, my problem with that scene? Supes and Zod just fell from ORBIT! And yet, hardly two minutes later, Lois Lane walks up and hugs Superman... I went, "Shouldn't he be radiating heat?"
I figure in the sequel that is bound to come, Superman will become more brooding because he killed Zod. Then somewhere in the movie he will become less brooding and upset when he says, "No more killing." From there I don't know what Warner Brothers would do, but I can almost guarantee that will happen.
As you may be able to guess, serious spoilers ahead.
I had a lot of problems with Man of Steel honestly, but in terms of killing Zod, my biggest problem was Superman's lack of... well, heroism. I never got the impression that Superman really cared about ANYONE other than Lois and his family. We never see him really bother to try and help anyone except in for one flashback and that incident with Zod. And then Superman SUDDENLY has a dilemma about killing which had no build-up whatsoever.
At no point does Superman really sacrifice to help anyone. I know being indestructible means it's harder for him to do so, but he could have at least TRIED to stop Zod. I was honestly expecting him to put his hand over Zod's eyes, similar to this scene.
Instead we have the sudden neck snap and Zod's dead. No build up beyond the 2 minutes the scene lasts. It's just sort of sad in my opinion.
I had a lot of problems with Man of Steel honestly, but in terms of killing Zod, my biggest problem was Superman's lack of... well, heroism. I never got the impression that Superman really cared about ANYONE other than Lois and his family. We never see him really bother to try and help anyone except in for one flashback and that incident with Zod. And then Superman SUDDENLY has a dilemma about killing which had no build-up whatsoever.
At no point does Superman really sacrifice to help anyone. I know being indestructible means it's harder for him to do so, but he could have at least TRIED to stop Zod. I was honestly expecting him to put his hand over Zod's eyes, similar to this scene.
Instead we have the sudden neck snap and Zod's dead. No build up beyond the 2 minutes the scene lasts. It's just sort of sad in my opinion.