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

[kitsunefather]

Batman used Guns before:

Okay, this issue in context of the story, is that Batman dug up the gun that killed his parents because he was having to team up with Joe Chill (the man who killed his parents) to track down a larger threat, and when it was done, he was going to use it to kill Chill. There is a large part of the issue used to examine this choice, and how much he feels he has to avenge them.

In the end, he can't pull the trigger on the man, and the larger villain ends up shooting Chill. Batman never uses the gun to injure a person, or on a person, in the entire story.

 

[Fox12]

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.

What are you talking about? Superman would never kill. That's morally reprehensible.


He would also never be so petty as to get revenge, the way he did toward that truck driver

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

No, they don't. Even if they were monsters, they deserve some fair trial and locked up. The story "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way?" questioned this morality and works as a good character study to prove why Superman is a great character.

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.

The public does not like Superman even before Injustice because they think he's a one dimensional goody two-shoe fag that's infallable and all powerful.

Grow up.

Is that suppose to make me feel bad about myself? Because it does not.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Batman used Guns before:

Okay, this issue in context of the story, is that Batman dug up the gun that killed his parents because he was having to team up with Joe Chill (the man who killed his parents) to track down a larger threat, and when it was done, he was going to use it to kill Chill. There is a large part of the issue used to examine this choice, and how much he feels he has to avenge them.

In the end, he can't pull the trigger on the man, and the larger villain ends up shooting Chill. Batman never uses the gun to injure a person, or on a person, in the entire story.

What were the context of the other 2 issues than?

And to be honest I have so many questions. Why is Joe Chill still alive and active? Who is this larger threat that would make Batman ally with the man who killed his family? And was Year 2 Bronze Age Batman?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

This is the problem I had with MoS.

Spoiler: my evidence

The most important of the two clips is the second one, and it's not even what Superman does when he "lets loose". It's at @0:38 when the collective representatives look on in horror. The day they finally feared: What would happen if Superman played by his own rules? Who would stop the God that saved them from countless insurmountable odds? A God that deigned to listen to them like their opinion mattered as much as a man who could literally punch their planet apart if he had a bad day.

That's the problem with Superman in MoS and what actually makes those clips so thrilling. Because we spent time with Superman. We know his morals. We know his limits that he self imposes. Life could be so much easier to him if he just destroyed those who oppose him. But he doesn't look at his power as the Carte Blanche to do that. He looks at his powers as a huge responsibility he must share with the world.

That fact makes me such an interesting character to me. People keep saying "Good is so boring because everyone's good". Look around you today. Really think about what would happen if any one of these perpetually triggered, "MY OPINIONS ARE UNIVERSAL FACTS" rage machines developed a tenth of Superman's abilities. Do you think they would be selfless? Really? It's not easy to be good. It's not easy to always take the high road. It's not easy to think about the world before your wants day after day, minute after minute.

And we just don't get that with the Man of Steel. We get someone confused. We get someone that we don't identify with as the hero we came for. Almost every bit of his character isn't there. Made almost weak and pathetic by "Maybe you should have let those kids die". It's like if Batman's parents were just lost at sea due to someone trying to force a hostile take over, but him still developing a 'no guns, no deaths' policy. Nothing about his background would have warranted that, but you put it there because that idea comes with the costume. That doesn't work that way. At all.

Superman was not depicted as the center of good that we know, he's not the big blue boy scout... So that's why when Superman killed Zod, it wasn't anywhere near as shocking as people wanted it to be. Because this isn't the Clark Kent that we grew up with. Almost none of his values are there. It's like watching Superboy Prime and being told it's Superman.

But that is just one portrayal of Superman out of millions across all media.

I know a Superman thats very patronzing and can solve every problem like its nothing to him,

I know a Superman that's old, beared, and carries 5 barraled Mini Gun.

Its like James Bond, Roger Moore Bond is far and away nothing like Daniel Craig Bond.

You can believe that portrayal of Superman is THE true Superman for you, but don't deny that the character has never been a singular consistant Character across all media.

 

[King Billi]

Because there's a difference. This is meant to be Superman. He is supposed to show the benefit to mankind, show them a better light to making life better. Also there are like several ways to stop Zod without resorting to killing the guy. And any guilt we were meant to feel for him after he screamed out by his actions are completely forgotten. Consequences? What the hell is that?

Care to list a few of those 'several' ways to stop Zod without killing him?

They don't have access to the phantom zone projector in order to trap him.
They don't have access to kryptonite in order to neutralise his powers, they don't even know that it exists yet.
They have no means on Earth to restrain him.
Their is no prison Earth capable of holding him.

What is the incredible obvious solution here that you can see but I'm missing? Is Superman simply meant to hold him in a headlock for the rest of eternity or something?

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

But that is just one portrayal of Superman out of millions across all media.

I know a Superman thats very patronzing and can solve every problem like its nothing to him,

I know a Superman that's old, beared, and carries 5 barraled Mini Gun.

Its like James Bond, Roger Moore Bond is far and away nothing like Daniel Craig Bond.

You can believe that portrayal of Superman is THE true Superman for you, but don't deny that the character has never been a singular consistant Character across all media.

It's the most consistent portrayal of Superman. Decades of it. His nickname isn't the Big Blue Boy Scout for nothing. Type it in Google. He's been working with the police since the 40's.

We all know Reimaginings of characters. But that's what it is. Reimaginings.

I mean, why are we even having this conversation? You basically said it yourself.

The public does not like Superman even before Injustice because they think he's a one dimensional goody two-shoe fag that's infallable and all powerful. And looking at his Silver Age incarnation its not that far from the truth. Why do you think its Batman that always has the spotlight even at his worse?

How can the public have the opinion if he's an one dimensional goody.... the rest of what you said... if it wasn't a consistent enough of a portrayal for them to get that into their heads?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

But that is just one portrayal of Superman out of millions across all media.

I know a Superman thats very patronzing and can solve every problem like its nothing to him,

I know a Superman that's old, beared, and carries 5 barraled Mini Gun.

Its like James Bond, Roger Moore Bond is far and away nothing like Daniel Craig Bond.

You can believe that portrayal of Superman is THE true Superman for you, but don't deny that the character has never been a singular consistant Character across all media.

It's the most consistent portrayal of Superman. Decades of it. His nickname isn't the Big Blue Boy Scout for nothing. Type it in Google. He's been working with the police since the 40's.

We all know Reimaginings of characters. But that's what it is. Reimaginings.

I mean, why are we even having this conversation? You basically said it yourself.

The public does not like Superman even before Injustice because they think he's a one dimensional goody two-shoe fag that's infallable and all powerful. And looking at his Silver Age incarnation its not that far from the truth. Why do you think its Batman that always has the spotlight even at his worse?

How can the public have the opinion if he's an one dimensional goody.... the rest of what you said... if it wasn't a consistent enough of a portrayal for them to get that into their heads?

Well see I screwed up with my statements and my opinions and you beat me, all I can say is this, times change and perceptions change.

Before Dark Knight Returns and the 1989 Batman film people thought Batman was "POW, BAM, BOOM!!!" Bat-Shark Repellent campfest. Now people see him as a dark figure of the night that scares his enemies into submission.

Now I am depressed, this is why I need to stop getting into Superhero topics, especially concerning the current trend of theatrical movies. I need to stick to animation and comic books themselves. These topics now makes me hate Theatrical Superhero movies.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Well see I screwed up with my statements and my opinions and you beat me, all I can say is this, times change and perceptions change.

Before Dark Knight Returns and the 1989 Batman film people thought Batman was "POW, BAM, BOOM!!!" Bat-Shark Repellent campfest. Now people see him as a dark figure of the night that scares his enemies into submission.

Now I am depressed, this is why I need to stop getting into Superhero topics, especially concerning the current trend of theatrical movies. I need to stick to animation and comic books themselves. These topics now makes me hate Theatrical Superhero movies.

Hey, something good has come out of this convo. We have reached an accord. I freaking hate Superhero movies as well. As someone who read the comics most of these things are based off of, all I yell in my head is "THAT'S WRONG!"

Here's to Camaraderie in hating the Movies!

 

[DaCosta]

The public does not like Superman even before Injustice because they think he's a one dimensional goody two-shoe fag that's infallable and all powerful.

Grow up.

Is that suppose to make me feel bad about myself? Because it does not.

It's a plead for you to understand that people are meant to mature past the mental age of twelve.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Posted wrong thread, ignore post

 

[Tono Makt]

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.

I'd say the problem is that we don't see WHY this is his most cherished principle. In all honesty, it doesn't make much sense that this Superman doesn't kill since he was raised by people who were willing to let other kids die to protect Clark's secret. And Clark is set up to be a bit of a petulant asshole right from the very beginning - the scene where he destroys the douchebags car in Alaska - and when you have the character set up like that, killing Zod is almost an expectation. If he's willing to do something like that to a douchebag who certainly deserved to have SOMETHING done to him, why wouldn't he kill someone to literally save lives, and potentially to save the entire world?

We, as the audience, as fans of Superman, we know that killing is the line that Superman will break space and time to avoid crossing. In the comics. In other media. In any movie not involving Zack Snyder. We're supposed to take all the changes to this almost entirely new take on Superman (wandering the countryside, hiding his powers, trying to stay entirely under any and all radars while being a petulant jerk sometimes to people who deserve to be treated badly, not being a superhero, with parents who aren't nearly as moral and upstanding as their comic book characters, etc.) yet at the same time we're supposed to remember his virtue and nobility from the 75 years of history (and ignoring his penchant for anonymous vigilante justice) and apply that to the character?

Snyder tried to have his cake and eat it too, and ended up falling headfirst into it. Now it's all through his hair and beard and there's barely enough left to even taste.

 

[Natemans]

But that is just one portrayal of Superman out of millions across all media.

I know a Superman thats very patronzing and can solve every problem like its nothing to him,

I know a Superman that's old, beared, and carries 5 barraled Mini Gun.

Its like James Bond, Roger Moore Bond is far and away nothing like Daniel Craig Bond.

You can believe that portrayal of Superman is THE true Superman for you, but don't deny that the character has never been a singular consistant Character across all media.

It's the most consistent portrayal of Superman. Decades of it. His nickname isn't the Big Blue Boy Scout for nothing. Type it in Google. He's been working with the police since the 40's.

We all know Reimaginings of characters. But that's what it is. Reimaginings.

I mean, why are we even having this conversation? You basically said it yourself.

The public does not like Superman even before Injustice because they think he's a one dimensional goody two-shoe fag that's infallable and all powerful. And looking at his Silver Age incarnation its not that far from the truth. Why do you think its Batman that always has the spotlight even at his worse?

How can the public have the opinion if he's an one dimensional goody.... the rest of what you said... if it wasn't a consistent enough of a portrayal for them to get that into their heads?

Well see I screwed up with my statements and my opinions and you beat me, all I can say is this, times change and perceptions change.

Before Dark Knight Returns and the 1989 Batman film people thought Batman was "POW, BAM, BOOM!!!" Bat-Shark Repellent campfest. Now people see him as a dark figure of the night that scares his enemies into submission.

Now I am depressed, this is why I need to stop getting into Superhero topics, especially concerning the current trend of theatrical movies. I need to stick to animation and comic books themselves. These topics now makes me hate Theatrical Superhero movies.

True.

What's wrong with the Adam West show? Its goofy and campy yes, but gonna be honest, I think its brilliant. Its goofy and serious, but also offers some commentary on the time its set in along with some good ideals in fighting the villains.

Even though comics and animation relate to superhero topics. This sounds rather contradictory. How does this topic make you hate theatrical superhero films? What's wrong with arguing and discussing with people under different perspectives or interactions?

 

[Natemans]

This is the problem I had with MoS.

Spoiler: my evidence

The most important of the two clips is the second one, and it's not even what Superman does when he "lets loose". It's at @0:38 when the collective representatives look on in horror. The day they finally feared: What would happen if Superman played by his own rules? Who would stop the God that saved them from countless insurmountable odds? A God that deigned to listen to them like their opinion mattered as much as a man who could literally punch their planet apart if he had a bad day.

That's the problem with Superman in MoS and what actually makes those clips so thrilling. Because we spent time with Superman. We know his morals. We know his limits that he self imposes. Life could be so much easier to him if he just destroyed those who oppose him. But he doesn't look at his power as the Carte Blanche to do that. He looks at his powers as a huge responsibility he must share with the world.

That fact makes me such an interesting character to me. People keep saying "Good is so boring because everyone's good". Look around you today. Really think about what would happen if any one of these perpetually triggered, "MY OPINIONS ARE UNIVERSAL FACTS" rage machines developed a tenth of Superman's abilities. Do you think they would be selfless? Really? It's not easy to be good. It's not easy to always take the high road. It's not easy to think about the world before your wants day after day, minute after minute.

And we just don't get that with the Man of Steel. We get someone confused. We get someone that we don't identify with as the hero we came for. Almost every bit of his character isn't there. Made almost weak and pathetic by "Maybe you should have let those kids die". It's like if Batman's parents were just lost at sea due to someone trying to force a hostile take over, but him still developing a 'no guns, no deaths' policy. Nothing about his background would have warranted that, but you put it there because that idea comes with the costume. That doesn't work that way. At all.

Superman was not depicted as the center of good that we know, he's not the big blue boy scout... So that's why when Superman killed Zod, it wasn't anywhere near as shocking as people wanted it to be. Because this isn't the Clark Kent that we grew up with. Almost none of his values are there. It's like watching Superboy Prime and being told it's Superman.

But that is just one portrayal of Superman out of millions across all media.

I know a Superman thats very patronzing and can solve every problem like its nothing to him,

I know a Superman that's old, beared, and carries 5 barraled Mini Gun.

Its like James Bond, Roger Moore Bond is far and away nothing like Daniel Craig Bond.

You can believe that portrayal of Superman is THE true Superman for you, but don't deny that the character has never been a singular consistant Character across all media.

Yet the thing is that with a new take on the character, you still try to be consistent on the central ideal of what the character stands for. All you mentioned are Elseworld stories. There is a difference between an alternate universe and the actual character.

Except Roger Moore still applies with what the character of James Bond is along with Daniel Craig.

Then why do people see Superman as this central source of hope, cheerful optimism to the media? Oh that's right, because we have to accept the poorly written, bland and unlikable piece of cardboard that the DCEU has.

 

[happyninja42]

I never got the outrage. He kills Zod (and his goons) in Superman II as well.

It's selective amnesia on the part of fans. They've told themselves, over decades, that Superman is This Way. And anyone that deviates from that, they lose their shit over. They ignore the times that contradict their viewpoint, and continue to proselytize their belief to the masses. Wow, it just dawned on me, how much like religious apologetics various fandoms can be.

And again even the Sources they claim Superman came from is also full of inconsistancies and contridictions and with various version of the same charcater:

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superman

Almost like it's a character that is constantly evolving over decades, to mirror the culture it's being presented in. XD

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

But that is just one portrayal of Superman out of millions across all media.

I know a Superman thats very patronzing and can solve every problem like its nothing to him,

I know a Superman that's old, beared, and carries 5 barraled Mini Gun.

Its like James Bond, Roger Moore Bond is far and away nothing like Daniel Craig Bond.

You can believe that portrayal of Superman is THE true Superman for you, but don't deny that the character has never been a singular consistant Character across all media.

It's the most consistent portrayal of Superman. Decades of it. His nickname isn't the Big Blue Boy Scout for nothing. Type it in Google. He's been working with the police since the 40's.

We all know Reimaginings of characters. But that's what it is. Reimaginings.

I mean, why are we even having this conversation? You basically said it yourself.

The public does not like Superman even before Injustice because they think he's a one dimensional goody two-shoe fag that's infallable and all powerful. And looking at his Silver Age incarnation its not that far from the truth. Why do you think its Batman that always has the spotlight even at his worse?

How can the public have the opinion if he's an one dimensional goody.... the rest of what you said... if it wasn't a consistent enough of a portrayal for them to get that into their heads?

Well see I screwed up with my statements and my opinions and you beat me, all I can say is this, times change and perceptions change.

Before Dark Knight Returns and the 1989 Batman film people thought Batman was "POW, BAM, BOOM!!!" Bat-Shark Repellent campfest. Now people see him as a dark figure of the night that scares his enemies into submission.

Now I am depressed, this is why I need to stop getting into Superhero topics, especially concerning the current trend of theatrical movies. I need to stick to animation and comic books themselves. These topics now makes me hate Theatrical Superhero movies.

True.

What's wrong with the Adam West show? Its goofy and campy yes, but gonna be honest, I think its brilliant. Its goofy and serious, but also offers some commentary on the time its set in along with some good ideals in fighting the villains.

Even though comics and animation relate to superhero topics. This sounds rather contradictory. How does this topic make you hate theatrical superhero films? What's wrong with arguing and discussing with people under different perspectives or interactions?

I'll explain anyway tomorrowm right now its midnight and I need sleep.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

My problem with "that scene" was that the film completely and utterly failed to communicate to me, as someone unfamiliar with Superman lore, that killing Zod was in any way significant. Honestly, when I saw him twist Zod's neck and then scream in agony, I thought he finally saw all the damage around them and was immediately filled with regret at not having done it sooner. It was the only thing that made sense to me in that moment, because his thing against killing had not solidly been established. No he hadn't killed anyone else at that point, even though he had the power to do it. But I just kind of assumed killing was just a "last resort" thing. Nothing in the film prior made me aware that not killing was THAT important to him. I didn't learn that until after I started reading comments on the film after the fact.

After I learned that, my other problem with the film became how much gratuitous damage there was, with seemingly little effort to redirect the fighting away from the city. I mean the city was nothing less than leveled, there was nothing left to rebuild from. The least Superman could have done was clear the rubble so they can start from scratch again. The Avengers battle in New York caused a lot of damage, but unlike Man of Steel I wouldn't have called the entire city a lost cause. And then the film NEVER ADDRESSES THIS. Maybe the next one did, but I don't know because the first one felt like such an ineptly told story that I was not willing to give the second a shot.

 

[TrulyBritish]

The problem with the argument that "Oh, well Zod had put Superman in a position where thee only choice was to snap is neck" is that it is completely irrelevant. Superman was in that position because the writers had put him in that position. The idea that they couldn't have thought of any other way to end the story is absurd.
Having said that, I don't have a problem with Superman killing enemies that are near his power level, leaving them up to human authorities really isn't all that reasonable. Let's list all my actual problems with that scene:
1) It's never been established that this Superman has a no killing rule, he's never acted like he has and he makes no mention of it. This is what Jonathan Kent should have said to him rather than flip-flopping between "Don't show off your powers and let people die" and "You will be the bridge between worlds". You could argue that killing Zod caused Superman to have a no killing rule, but this is never states and Superman goes straight back to killing people/showing off his powers in BvS.
2)It makes no sense that Superman is all upset at killing a practically unstoppable, never-going-to-stop, vengeful serial killer, but not display any real guilt of, you know, basically aborting the entire Krypton race. "Krypton had their chance indeed".
3) The major mood whiplash between scenes. It's been a while since of seen the film, but I think it goes something like: Big superhero punch up wasting Metropolis --> flirting with Lois amid the rubble and destruction (Seriously, who the fuck says "it all goes down after the first kiss"?) --> Fight with Zod ending with neck-snap ---> Superman destroying military drones and cracking jokes.
4) It's simply too soon to do the whole "Metropolis destroyed/Superman kills" storyline. This should be something that happens in like his 2nd or 3rd film, after we've gotten used to a naive, good Superman and then see him be emotionally broken and confronted with an enemy he can't just restrain without more innocents dying in the process. We never got time to like Superman before he started going along his Injustice path.

 

[TrulyBritish]

Define a Psychopath because everyone just throws that term around to point that its meaningless.

We see Superman in BvS having a job at the Daily Planet having normal interactions with his co-workers, saving people in random intervals. Heck he even wanted to Stop Batman because Batman was acting a above the law vigilante that kills.

How in the fuck is that a Psychopath?!

Also there are games where I had no choice but to slay the villain. And in KOTOR's case you have no choice but to kill Darth Malgus.

You do realise that psychopaths/sociopaths aren't complete and utter arseholes their entire life? There's a whole bunch that managed to be devoted family member or upstanding members of society as well as being killers/rapists what have you.

 

[TrulyBritish]

Spoiler

One is two guys who are fighting to the death coming to a stop because their moms both share the same name, one is a situation where a man is realising that he's standing next to the person that killed his family and another who he considered a friend that knew this and withheld the information from him. You're comparing their mom's sharing names to anger at someone he discovered KILLED his mom.

The way I see it, if you pay attention and read subtext, there was more to the Batman v Superman scene than the surface.

Spoiler

Bruce repeatedly shows that he does not consider Superman to be a man, he acts like Superman is an alien invader and some thing that mimics humans. It even looks like as far as Bruce and Alfred are concerned Superman arrived on Earth the day before Zod showed up and wrecked up Metropolis. When Bruce/Batman finds out that Superman had a human mother and obviously grew up on Earth it throws his view of Superman out the window. In addition to that, there's a human that cares deeply for Superman (putting herself in front of Superman to block the spear) and knows him well enough to know his mother's name. That Clark's mother was also named Martha just kick-started the revelation.
Once batman realizes his mistake, and that Superman is more human than he first thought, he becomes embarrassed, then angry with himself (as I see it).

Spoiler

You could possibly argue that, but I still maintain that explanation doesn't work when you consider Batman was perfectly ok killing other people he knows are human, as well as lead to other people being killed by his actions. Not to mention that none of that actually vindicates anything Batman thinks Superman has and will do.