Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

[Project862006]

anyone hope lex uses this against superman something like

"you would kill your own kind that scares me what you would do to us"

 

[Shazam]

This whole concept of 'this film's for adults' is so alien to me. Sure, there's films that are not designed to play for kids, like Fight Club or anything Aaron Sorkin writes.

But if someone told the six year old version of me that I couldn't watch a Superman film because it wasn't made for kids, I'd go on a ****ing rampage. Superman is an icon for EVERYONE. Pigeon holing him into a film only for adults is as criminal as making Batman & Robin only for kids.

You absolutely do not get how important these character are to people of all ages. Yes, Christopher Nolan's Batman was mature, but you bet your ass that it played for people of all ages regardless of how vicious the villains were. Children get that.

They're not idiots who think 'ah well that enemy's on the same level as someone from Scooby Doo so he'll be harmless'. They get that the Joker's evil and it only elevates Batman to an even higher level of being hero as it were. Ditto for any rendition of Superman.

The issue with Man of Steel's finale or treatment of the action in general wasn't that it was made for 'adults'. The issue with the action is that it was bland. Regardless of how bland a life I may lead I don't want to go to the cinema and watching boring action set pieces and then get told I must enjoy it because I'm an adult. That's bonkers.



Not so long before this post you were harping on about films needing to play for adults, now you want it to play not just for kids. You really don't get it. The best films in the world are those that don't pigeon hole themselves into playing for a certain audience.

Sure, the Godfather isn't meant for kids, but that doesn't mean it's targeting a certain demographic. It's just that the subject matter wouldn't appeal to children unless they're really into discovering the true meaning behind family and loyalty. But hey, that's not the point.

Superman, Batman and countless other characters are meant for all appropriate audiences. Piegon-holing them isn't a financial mistake as much as a cultural mistake. They'd lock out an entire generation in order to please people who want exclusive access to a misguided version of a global icon.

Granted, they haven't done that in Man of Steel but that's not to say they haven't delivered a skewed representation of what it means to be a hero. But that's a different point to the non-point you're attempting to make.

The Godfather shows the true meaning of family?Bring up your kids to be gangsters? Have your own brother killed?

 

[BlueLantern]

You need to work on the faulty sarcasm-meter you have there, my friend.

 

[Lord]

As a kid i allways liked a serious tone, i was 9 years old when i watched Batman Begins, and that movie put Batman as my favorite hero, and i found it serious not because Batman killed but because of the plot itself. If killing makes a film more serious then Tim Burton's Batman films were much more mature than Nolan's

 

[BlueLantern]

Yup.

 

[Project862006]

nope

 

[BlueLantern]

Pretty mature response that. Care to elaborate on why you disagree or is that all you can say?

Monotonous responses to go with the film's monotonous third act.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about how Batman would never kill, how he would always find another way. Am I the only one who remembers him tackling Two-Face off a building?

 

[ThatGuy1988]

I'm kind of split on this.
If Superman ever killed a villain like Lex Luthor, Toyman, or even Mister Mxyzptlk I would be pissed. Physically, those guys don't stand much a chance against Superman so it's not like it would be a fair death.
If it's Doomsday or Darkseid, I'm ok with them being killed because I feel that they're such a powerful force, they would create a scenario where Superman has no choice but to kill them.
I was ok with Zod being killed in MOS because at the beginning of the fight against Superman, Zod says "Either you die or I do." He then creates a scenario where Superman had no choice but to kill him. So more than anything, Zod killed himself.

 

[Enriquespy]

He should learn from batman, you know, the fine art of making it look like an accident!

 

[Mad Love]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about how Batman would never kill, how he would always find another way. Am I the only one who remembers him tackling Two-Face off a building?

People only paid attention to Joker in that movie

 

[kalhawj]

People only paid attention to Joker in that movie

Without Heath's Joker TDK would be average movie. Joker made that movie. I was more interested in him than batman...

 

[Mad Love]

Without Heath's Joker TDK would be average movie. Joker made that movie. I was more interested in him than batman...

That's what the peanut gallery loves to say. Removing the main villian in any movie would make it not as good.

I liked Batman in TDK. He did detective work, showed more fighting, had the batpod, and the white eyes. The action scene when he had to save all the captured police disguised as shooters is probably my favorite in the whole trilogy.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Without Heath's Joker TDK would be average movie. Joker made that movie. I was more interested in him than batman...

I was more interested in Dent/Two Face than both Batman and Joker.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Anyway...

Batman killing is different.

Superman is a man of morals. He stands up for them. Yes, he breaks them, but it comes with something.

Batman is a man of morals too. Excuses really. ..he hides behind his morals in order to avoid walking down the path of becoming a serial killer. That's what he's afraid of.

 

[smallville fan]

Well I look at the Superman snapping Zod's neck like this: Was Zod ever truly alive?

On Krypton, they were all born and bred via genetic engineering and only capable of 1 function only, essentially making them "organic robots" devoid of free will. In the case of Kal-El, he was born biologically and given the choice of free will, to be more "human" despite the fact he's an alien if you will.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Well I look at the Superman snapping Zod's neck like this: Was Zod ever truly alive?

On Krypton, they were all born and bred via genetic engineering and only capable of 1 function only, essentially making them "organic robots" devoid of free will. In the case of Kal-El, he was born biologically and given the choice of free will, to be more "human" despite the fact he's an alien if you will.

For that matter, would you ask if Jor-el or Lara were alive?

 

[InJustice]

Well I look at the Superman snapping Zod's neck like this: Was Zod ever truly alive?

On Krypton, they were all born and bred via genetic engineering and only capable of 1 function only, essentially making them "organic robots" devoid of free will. In the case of Kal-El, he was born biologically and given the choice of free will, to be more "human" despite the fact he's an alien if you will.

A life is still a life regardless of how that being was brought into existence.

 

[smallville fan]

For that matter, would you ask if Jor-el or Lara were alive?

With regards to that, maybe Jor-El felt through his scientist programming that having a biological child was the most logical solution and favourable solution to Krypton's future?

 

[Bruce Malone]

It's funny cuz golden age superman didn't mess around.

 

[Jaxon]

I think a lot of people miss a very big point about this choice. This was Clark, who started to embrace being Kal-El, but had not yet learnt to be superman. This one act where he was without choice will be a defining moment for him where he starts to honour the values widely known with superman.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

I hope he's presented with a similar situation in a future movie. Maybe Lois is the one in harms way?

 

[Rodrigo90]

I hope he isn't.

Because he forgot about what he learned from Zod's death 5 minutes later after breaking satellites and smiling at Lois over his secret.

The ending wasn't dramatic enough for that drama to move into future stuff.

If it ended with him being moody over murdering Zod, then sure. But since it showed him acting like if he hadn't killed someone, then what's the point?

 

[br0adband]

I hope he's presented with a similar situation in a future movie. Maybe Lois is the one in harms way?

The way they (meaning Snyder and Goyer) resolved the issue of Superman killing was to do things in reverse: normally one would look at the situation as "Ok, this guy has a secret identity like most every other superhero that comics have brought to our attention and imaginations, and what is the universal version of "Kryptonite" for all superheroes, period:

Humanity, meaning the ultimate weakness for any superhero is protecting human lives. In spite of that, and in spite of having powers that normal people just can't comprehend, those powers are rendered basically inert and non-functional whenever a human life is put into harm's way directly as a means of control over said superhero or to be more specific:

"I've got <insert name of loved one or friend or coworker or whatever here>, if you don't do what I'm telling you to do I'm going to kill <whoever>..."

A superhero's top internal priority is protecting their secret identity (assuming they have one, i.e. Tony Stark outed himself to the world as Iron Man so he's not an example for the most part and in fact it makes him and his loved ones even bigger targets as shown in IM3, go figure) so that the people they care about the most or even love don't become targets for the bad guys to be potentially used as leverage against said superhero.

For MoS, instead of putting Kal on the spot and having Zod holding her up by the neck (more or less) and threatening to kill her if he doesn't surrender is, Snyder and Goyer looked at it somewhat like this:

a) it's been done before (literally in Superman II)
b) everyone is expecting such a situation because it's been done before so why not do it again (that makes sense, right?)
c) because it's been done before (literally) and because people are expecting it, it's time to shatter those expectations

and that's what they did. Instead of putting the focus on one person, Lois, they put the focus more on several people at one time; even better they chose a family (at least we assume it's a Father, Mother, Daughter, and Son as shown in the movie with 4 people) and Kal kills to show he's protecting us and not just one person.

Least that's how I understand it.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

I hope he isn't.

Because he forgot about what he learned from Zod's death 5 minutes later after breaking satellites and smiling at Lois over his secret.

The ending wasn't dramatic enough for that drama to move into future stuff.

If it ended with him being moody over murdering Zod, then sure. But since it showed him acting like if he hadn't killed someone, then what's the point?

Chalk that up to terrible writing. Not some of Goyer's best work here. It's one of the things I'm disappointed with in the movie.

a) it's been done before (literally in Superman II)
b) everyone is expecting such a situation because it's been done before so why not do it again (that makes sense, right?)
c) because it's been done before (literally) and because people are expecting it, it's time to shatter those expectations

and that's what they did. Instead of putting the focus on one person, Lois, they put the focus more on several people at one time; even better they chose a family (at least we assume it's a Father, Mother, Daughter, and Son as shown in the movie with 4 people) and Kal kills to show he's protecting us and not just one person.

Least that's how I understand it.

What if Superman is presented with a situation where he has to choose "us" over Lois? That's kinda what I was trying to get at with my post. In MOS, he killed Zod to save a family of 4. As these movies progress, his relationship with Lois is gonna run much deeper. That's what situation I want to see him in. Almost like Spider-Man 1 where Spidey has to choose between MJ and the kids. Only this time, Superman's choice has consequences.

edit: What I'm trying to say is, is that after watching this movie, I feel like they're gonna come back to this scene in a future movie. Where Superman is in a situation where he has to choose to either kill, or let someone be killed.