Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disturbing New Theory on Why People Were Unhappy With the Killing of Zod

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Backward Galaxy
    I'll get this out of the way early, since you've expressed desire to drop the sociological and psychological aspects of the debate... but if you assert we don't know how anyone will react in a situation until they are IN that situation, it seems odd that you're asking this question at all. You've made the argument that ultra-pacifists who believe they'd be heartbroken and traumatized by having to kill someone can't make that assertion if they've never been in that situation. Based on your own argument, no matter what we know about Clark's character up to that point, his reaction could be literally anything and it would believable without the need for context.
    Nobody can tell you how they would react in a situation completely distinct to what they've ever experienced, However, sometimes we've been through sufficiently similar situations, and thus our predictions are relevant. We know comparatively little about Clark, so any extrapolation that's made needs to be large.

    They can't build up every aspect of Clark, sometimes we'll learn how he reacts to things entirely due to how he reacts to things. But given that this is supposed to be a major point, should they not have built it up better? I don't think they did, but people will buy into it because they have a preconception of who Superman should be that is imported from other continuities.

    Far better than him not fighting people would be him getting into a fight and then feeling terrible about it. That's how some people I know stopped fighting. That's how I stopped fighting too, I fought fairly often when I was 12,13,14 and I grew to hate it. I've never been in a bar fight.

    Originally posted by Backward Galaxy
    For most of his life, when bullied, he refuses to fight back, especially in a physical way. He is browbeaten by his father into being an ultra-pacifist. Up until the Smallville fight, we're given no reason to believe he has ever committed a single act of physical violence against anything or anyone. Even when he gets older, and bolder, he doesn't physically harm humans when the opportunity presents itself and when they deserve it. He'd rather break their stuff.
    Was he not going to beat up that guy in the bar until the waitress told him it's not worth it, and then he settled for breaking his truck? I think that's how we're supposed to interpret that scene. That scene is lifted from Superman II, where he did beat up the guy.

    Originally posted by Backward Galaxy
    I think that the personal and intimate nature of the kill and the way that he reacted to it speak volumes. I think that Goyer deliberately setup Superman in his story as a metaphor for Christ also goes a long way. Christ never killed anyone. He was a non-violent figure. If you're going to tell me for two and a half hours that Superman is Christ, you can't have him snap a guy's neck. He also begs Zod to stop and, again, refuses to even beat up a bully in high school when such behavior might be explainable due to a lack of maturity.

    It's a guy who has never killed in his life snapping a guy's neck. It's a Christ stand-in being upset that he killed someone with his bare hands. I have no problem whatsoever with him being upset about it and, if it's being treated as more than some popcorn Nazi James Bond henchmen kill, I would expect there to be emotional consequences.
    I don't see any coherent way of tying together the Jesus allegory and the killing of Zod. I think the shallow Jesus allegory was there in the original drafts as a form of product placement, and in a later draft they added in the killing of Zod, they don't work well together at all, and this is a cause of dissonance in the script.

    But I'm biased, I rate the Jesus allegory as the dumbest piece of the movie. I'm not against Jesus allegories: I think it worked for the matrix and the hunger games. It didn't work here because they took miscellaneous components of the Jesus story without taking any of the threads or the historical context that can tie these pieces together.

    Originally posted by Backward Galaxy
    And I don't see the ties to Krypton as being particularly strong or in any way being something this character associates with Zod. Zod wasn't even welcome on Krypton. Zod killed Jor-El. If anything, if Goyer's Superman is a character you suggest isn't averse to violence or ending someone's life, by your theory, shouldn't he receive some level of satisfaction for the revenge kill?

    I also don't see why he would have stronger ties to Krypton than to Earth. I mean, when he learns about Krypton, he runs and tells his Earth mommy (I guess he has no one else to tell, but still). And the movie ends happy. It ends with him happily accepting a job at the Daily Planet, happily accepting the role of superhero for all humanity, and happily being Superman. If his ties to Krypton were so strong, and the only thing that has changed by the end of the film is that there's nothing of Krypton left, why is he so happy?
    It's Snyder who said he has stronger ties to Krypton than to Earth, not me. I simply think that based on the movie, he really wanted to know more about Krypton, and he would be sad to see it all go.

    I think he's happy at the end of the movie because he's not a virgin anymore (J/K), I think he's happy because he's finally found his place in the world with a new job at the daily planet, a hobby of being superhero, he has a new girlfriend, and his mom's home is rebuilt. His life is going well. And now that you've acknowledged him being happy, you've undermined your position that he should be traumatised and you expect him to be traumatised, unless the trauma is only for a few hours a day, or he's faking his happiness, in which case your argument that he's happy is irrelevant.

    Which is it, is he happy or is he traumatised?

    Here's a theory:

    He's happy because those scenes were written and maybe even filmed prior to the new adding of Superman killing Zod. Goyer did not realise he would need to change the aftermath, maybe it's because he's a bad writer, maybe it's because he was too busy writing novels and video games to really dedicate himself to MoS and his mind wasn't into it. He may have had some vague idea about the "origins of the no kill rule" but it wasn't as concrete as what subsequent fan reaction would demand.

    However, when the movie came out, there was an uproar from fans, and now when the next movie starts, it might start with Clark having a nightmare, or a traumatised Superman being an ineffective Superhero, which is in fact not consistent with the character portrayal of the last 5 minutes of MoS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DA_Champion
      Nobody can tell you how they would react in a situation completely distinct to what they've ever experienced, However, sometimes we've been through sufficiently similar situations, and thus our predictions are relevant.
      I'm so confused, because I'm pretty sure this is what you've been arguing against. That was my exact counterargument to what you had been saying.

      Was he not going to beat up that guy in the bar until the waitress told him it's not worth it, and then he settled for breaking his truck? I think that's how we're supposed to interpret that scene. That scene is lifted from Superman II, where he did beat up the guy.
      Referencing Superman II is irrelevant in this discussion since we're talking about Man of Steel. And the fact is he yielded. You're assuming he would have thrashed the guy. For all we know, he was just going to intimidate him. But beyond that, his actions are what matters.

      I don't see any coherent way of tying together the Jesus allegory and the killing of Zod. I think the shallow Jesus allegory was there in the original drafts as a form of product placement, and in a later draft they added in the killing of Zod, they don't work well together at all, and this is a cause of dissonance in the script.
      It's all there. You don't have to like its execution. The point is that Superman = Jesus from Act One through Act Three. The metaphor is informative of his character and we have to view his character through that lens.

      I think he's happy at the end of the movie because he's not a virgin anymore (J/K), I think he's happy because he's finally found his place in the world with a new job at the daily planet, a hobby of being superhero, he has a new girlfriend, and his mom's home is rebuilt. His life is going well. And now that you've acknowledged him being happy, you've undermined your position that he should be traumatised and you expect him to be traumatised, unless the trauma is only for a few hours a day, or he's faking his happiness, in which case your argument that he's happy is irrelevant.
      I'm not undermining my argument, because my argument has always been that the end of the movie doesn't work. I'm saying it doesn't work for your interpretation either. But I believe your interpretation of the individual scene doesn't work either.

      Which is it, is he happy or is he traumatised?
      After the Zod kill, in all the scenes that follow, he's depicted as happy.

      Here's a theory:

      He's happy because those scenes were written and maybe even filmed prior to the new adding of Superman killing Zod. Goyer did not realise he would need to change the aftermath, maybe it's because he's a bad writer, maybe it's because he was too busy writing novels and video games to really dedicate himself to MoS and his mind wasn't into it. He may have had some vague idea about the "origins of the no kill rule" but it wasn't as concrete as what subsequent fan reaction would demand.
      After adding that scene, he would have re-drafted. Based on the fact that Goyer made it the climax of his Jesus metaphor (when Jesus takes on the sin), a metaphor that Goyer had been working on anyway, it would be my guess that he had to re-draft what came before it. It's pretty clear to me that he did. And even if he didn't change what followed, that's still a draft and I'm sure he asked himself if it still worked.

      Superman screaming and being upset in that moment does not make sense for the idea that he just severed his final connection to Krypton. If we interpret this character as he's fine with killing bad guys, then he should feel relief in that moment because he got revenge for his connection to Krypton and his roots; Jor-El. If we interpret the character as generally averse to the idea, which I have shown is clearly indicated throughout Goyer's script, then he's upset because he just had to kill someone. Either way, what follows is bad.
      Last edited by Backward Galaxy; 10-05-2013, 12:18 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Backward Galaxy
        I'm so confused, because I'm pretty sure this is what you've been arguing against. That was my exact counterargument to what you had been saying.



        Referencing Superman II is irrelevant in this discussion since we're talking about Man of Steel. And the fact is he yielded. You're assuming he would have thrashed the guy. For all we know, he was just going to intimidate him. But beyond that, his actions are what matters.



        It's all there. You don't have to like its execution. The point is that Superman = Jesus from Act One through Act Three. The metaphor is informative of his character and we have to view his character through that lens.



        I'm not undermining my argument, because my argument has always been that the end of the movie doesn't work. I'm saying it doesn't work for your interpretation either. But I believe your interpretation of the individual scene doesn't work either.



        After the Zod kill, in all the scenes that follow, he's depicted as happy.



        After adding that scene, he would have re-drafted. Based on the fact that Goyer made it the climax of his Jesus metaphor (when Jesus takes on the sin), a metaphor that Goyer had been working on anyway, it would be my guess that he had to re-draft what came before it. It's pretty clear to me that he did. And even if he didn't change what followed, that's still a draft and I'm sure he asked himself if it still worked.

        Superman screaming and being upset in that moment does not make sense for the idea that he just severed his final connection to Krypton. If we interpret this character as he's fine with killing bad guys, then he should feel relief in that moment because he got revenge for his connection to Krypton and his roots; Jor-El. If we interpret the character as generally averse to the idea, which I have shown is clearly indicated throughout Goyer's script, then he's upset because he just had to kill someone. Either way, what follows is bad.
        I can't tell what to take and what not take from the Jesus allegory given that it's superficial and that in fact does not apply evenly to most of the script. So I'm not going to bother, I don't think they've thought it through for reasons I've explained to you elsewhere, the allegory is more of an appendage than a driver of the plot, though it might drive the plot in a few instances, and then not in other instances. For example, why does he visit the priest? Because he's Jesus, and priests preach the teachings of Jesus? what? Or is it because Goyer wants to show him as unsure what to do in the choice of whether or not to destroy humanity, and as Snyder said "it's not an easy choice"? I think it's both, really it's the latter, but because of the Jesus allegory he gets advice from a priest in a church, and not someone else somewhere else, in other words the actual plot would be exactly the same.

        ETA: Everything about the Jesus allegory is superficial so I see no need to mine it. I had previously stated that the one part that was meaningful was Kal-El having a special birth, but I'm now going to retract that. It's not meaningful at all, since the other Kryptonians we meet (Jor-El and Zod) are just as capable of breaking their programming as Kal-El, they are just as capable as having "choice" which Jor-El said was the point, in fact they're arguably both shown to exercise more choice than Kal-El. So that's it for me: not one component of the Jesus allegory has a meaningful effect on the plot.

        As for Clark wanting ties to Krypton, again, it's already firmly shown. What do you make of him wanting to know why he's different as a child? What do you make of him sneaking onto the military base and putting his family into danger when it was not necessary? What do you make of him being the happiest man in the world after meeting Jor-El, the first time we ever see him smile? All in all he really wants to know more about Krypton. It is SHOWN. And then in one day he fries the innocent kryptonian embryos (which seems to bother you less than him killing Zod), destroys the fortress, sends the other kryptonians to the phantom zone, and kills zod with his bare hands. When it's all over, he screams in agony. That may not follow logically if one excludes this movie and thinks about other Superman continuities, but from this script in isolation, if we just look at what Goyer built, it follows logically and perfectly. He has severed his last tie to Krypton.
        Last edited by DA_Champion; 10-05-2013, 06:11 PM.

        Comment


        • And I've already explained in great detail how the Jesus allegory is not superficial and absolutely does shape the plot and choices of the characters. With respect to visiting the priest, it's not that difficult to imagine the corollary. Snyder tells us all the meaning of that scene by showing us Jesus at Gethsemane in the church window.

          I'm tired of this debate. I've made my point. You've made yours. We disagree.

          Comment


          • I know this is late

            So, as is everyone here is, Im a life long Supes fan since childhood. I am covered in superman tats. NOW that being said

            Im sick of critics complaining how in reallife would not trust this superman due to all the destruction "reckless" of the city. What exactly happened in the death of superman storyline? Esp the final doomsday fight? Total destruction.


            A realistic take on a comic book movie, Supes had no choice with the destruction in the city. Then with ZOD....what the hell is a guy to do when the enemy is laser eyeing toward two innocent people? NO other way to stop him, so what he broke his neck. Like the starter of this thread has pointed out all the characters supes has killed.
            I LOVED the dark theme, ive heard complaints about that. The supes films prior were cheezy, First movie, superman takes his emblem off his chest and throws it to wrassel villians in a rediculous vinyl symbol? Or a DRUNK SUPERMAN, or a supes having a kid? NO thanks
            I just loved the movie. I loved no lex (most boring villain in movies) and no kryptonite, and the different take on the lois/clark/superman relationship. Its a fresh take, and was a welcome change to me.
            Thanks for the long read, and I was so late to get to this thread.

            Comment


            • Death of Superman is a horrible comparison, if it needs explaining why I'll waste time later doing it.

              I've been avoiding this board for months so I'm late and I can't will myself to go through 170 posts on this right now or ever. Superman killing Zod is among the least of MoS's problems but putting him in that situation was cheap because they wrote themselves into a corner where they had two options and went the shock value route. I have little problem with Superman killing, he's killed in the past and he'll probably do so again. He's not as stubborn as Bruce when it comes to that but what I and others here from what I remember big problem with it was the lazy addressing that decision. At the VERY LEAST it should have carried over into the next scene with Clark and his mother talking about it and even Clark talking about how it made him feel while his mother comforts him with then and there Clark making the decision to do whatever possible to avoid having to ever do it again. It's something that could almost directly inspired by the fallout of Clark's killing of pocket universe Zod and his minions in the comics. It's ****ed up they had a scene with him and his mother and it wasn't addressed, it's as if it was shot before they finished writing the outcome of that fight and didn't bother with a re-shoot. This could have been so freaking easily addressed along with his going to the Daily Planet and all that though again like Smallville, somehow becoming a reporter without any sort of credentials. Obviously Lois got him the job and undoubtedly Perry went along with it but I'm veering away and rambling in another direction.

              Anyway, Instead we get that drone scene gag follow up that not only completely falls flat on its unfunny face but then showed another instance of Clark being reckless and not thinking about the millions of tax payer money he just wasted. He could have disabled and landed the drone without destroying it. But Snyder and Goyer had a "instead of following up this heavy scene where Clark takes a life with some sort of resolution, we need a light scene for empty laughs" mindset. But hey, Major (Major, really?) Farris thinks he's kinda hot. There was literally no room to properly digest what had just happened. I can manage sometimes to shut my brain off and be more forgiving but it's one of those things that just wind me up when I start thinking about it and what MoS could've been it the people in charge of WB didn't have their heads up their asses. I feel the same way about Returns which had a story could've been salvaged if the people in control weren't so inept.
              Last edited by PHOENIXZERO; 12-26-2013, 02:21 AM.

              Comment


              • So I was doing some research into the Golden Age Superman and discovered something interesting of Superman actually killed guys. He blew up a factory filled with people, destroyed planes with a guy inside, threw a criminal up in the air and let gravity do the rest, let a guy choke on his own poison gas, etc. Also he didn't even really think to much of it and there where a lot more kills then just the "moments" through his history that are more talked about.

                Not quite the boy scout that people think, when he first started in 1938.

                Despite this being 70 something years ago, it's still a part of Clark's history.

                Looks like Superman killing Zod is a part of Clark's history fits in after all. Just not one that's talked about it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Haggard01
                  So I was doing some research into the Golden Age Superman and discovered something interesting of Superman actually killed guys. He blew up a factory filled with people, destroyed planes with a guy inside, threw a criminal up in the air and let gravity do the rest, let a guy choke on his own poison gas, etc. Also he didn't even really think to much of it and there where a lot more kills then just the "moments" through his history that are more talked about.

                  Not quite the boy scout that people think, when he first started in 1938.

                  Despite this being 70 something years ago, it's still a part of Clark's history.

                  Looks like Superman killing Zod is a part of Clark's history fits in after all. Just not one that's talked about it.
                  It's not that Superman hasn't killed. Sure, historically the character has. The difference is in how it was handled. The Golden Age was what it was. However, it quickly evolved into the no killing, super powered boyscout. This has been the Superman the most numbers of people have gotten to know. When killing has happened, like Doomsday or the pocket universe Zod, it was a lot different than Man of Steel. Superman faced real consequences from his actions. It wasn't other people being mad at him, he personally got conflicted, and had severe issues over the taking of life. In the DC movies, Superman seems perfectly okay with what happened, it's humanities reaction he seems troubled by. That's the problem entirely. In the comics, it was heavily explored. Clark, for awhile, felt himself unworthy of being Superman. There was a whole exile story arc where he left Earth to work through the problems he was going through after killing Zod. In the movies, by all accounts, he's just been keeping on keeping on. Clark isn't conflicted over whether his actions were morally correct, or if he could have done better. He seems more worried about what humans think about his actions. He's not being the moral compass, he's trying to follow someone elses.

                  Comment


                  • I still think my analysis holds even as my underlying opinions have evolved. I'll point out that very few people cared about Batman killing in BvS, just some comic book nerds, there was no outrage, likely because it wasn't in your face so people didn't have time to process it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DA_Champion
                      I still think my analysis holds even as my underlying opinions have evolved. I'll point out that very few people cared about Batman killing in BvS, just some comic book nerds, there was no outrage, likely because it wasn't in your face so people didn't have time to process it.
                      Batman is different. Batman doesn't have a no kill rule. My biggest beef with Batman in BvS, was his being completely comfortable using guns. Batman's motivation has never been don't kill, be the light, give them hope. Batman, as a character, is the other side of the coin. Superman is the hope, show them the better path, be a better person, inspire the masses kind of hero. Batman is the bleak, intimidate people into not committing crimes, spread fear kind of hero. Batman is more of an ends justify the means guy. Canonically, Batman has looked up to heroes like Superman for being able to be "hope bringers", but he knows he can't be that. His whole schtick is in making people afraid he will get them. It's a pretty logical extension he'd end up killing at various points throughout his career. Historically, he used to. His no killing stance has been a lot more fluid than Superman's. It's not even new to the big screen. Keaton's Batman killed a lot. I personally have never viewed Batman as a character that wouldn't kill. When writers try to make him that, and give him a more "Superman" like code to follow, it just seems out of place.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      😀
                      🥰
                      🤢
                      😎
                      😡
                      👍
                      👎