|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 3, 2019 0:18:40 GMT
To this day it baffles me that out of all the instances in superhero films of the heroes killing the bad guy, Zod’s death in MoS was somehow the most controversial, up until BvS. I mean, really? Superman killing Zod in MoS was worse than when he killed a completely powerless Zod in Superman II, or when Bruce killed a bunch of members of the League of Shadows in Batman Begins, and flat out left Ra’s Al Ghul to die? That’s not even getting into the fact that Burton’s Batman not only killed criminals, but actually seemed to take pleasure in doing so, yet even that is generally overlooked these days. I’m not saying that I think Superman should kill people, but in the context of MoS, why is him killing Zod so awful? I’ve heard people argue that the problem with the scene isn’t that the killing is unjustified, but that the film put Superman in a situation where he was forced to kill, with no other alternative, and honestly, I don’t get that. Comic books have explored difficult ethical decisions and their effects on the heroes on numerous occasions. Even in the context of the film, at least Superman clearly wasn’t happy about killing Zod.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jun 3, 2019 0:41:14 GMT
Apparently a Super Hero isn't allow to kill a villain to save someone, even if the Villain attempted Genocide.
But i guess to be fair the hardcore Anti killer Superman are still stuck in 1978.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 3, 2019 0:47:06 GMT
Apparently a Super Hero isn't allow to kill a villain to save someone, even if the Villain attempted Genocide. But i guess to be fair the hardcore Anti killer Superman are still stuck in 1978. As I said, though, not only did the Christopher Reeve Superman kill Zod, but he did so after Zod had been completely drained of his powers, thereby making him no different from any ordinary human. Superman easily could’ve just handed Zod, Ursa and Non over to authorities and let them handle things, but he didn’t do that. Hell, it’s actually pretty difficult to find superheroes in movies who don’t kill. Most of the heroes of the MCU (not counting the Netflix shows) have no qualms about killing, nor does Wonder Woman.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 3, 2019 2:13:34 GMT
I guess it's just because that was the most memorable moment to contrast an already divisive film from earlier depictions of Superman.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 3, 2019 4:39:46 GMT
Maybe they don't bitch it about it now since it's 30 years old, but I remember as far back as when Begins came out that Bale Batman's no killing rule was repeatedly praised in comparison to Keaton's serial killing.
As for the question, I suppose because it was so in your face and brutal. We don't see Zod's corpse splat like an old tomato in Superman II (and indeed, you see him arrested in some cuts). Hell, within MoS's own universe, you don't really see anyone complain about Superman driving the African kingpin through 12 walls.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 3, 2019 9:56:13 GMT
I think the main problem is that it didn't make sense to me to have Superman kill Zod after he was about to kill four humans.
Did Clark forget that Zod had killed thousands already? He should've killed Zod the moment they started fighting... But I guess we needed a epic superfight between two Kryptonians.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 3, 2019 14:53:49 GMT
I think the main problem is that it didn't make sense to me to have Superman kill Zod after he was about to kill four humans. Did Clark forget that Zod had killed thousands already? He should've killed Zod the moment they started fighting... Because there's a difference between killing to defend or save innocent lives vs killing to execute someone. Killing Zod as Zod was attempting to kill a family of 4 humans is killing in the act of defending or saving innocent lives. Killing Zod AFTER Zod killed thousands would be an execution. Now it may be that Zod deserved to be executed for killing thousands, but that would've been a decision for a judge and jury, not Superman, to decide. That's why Superman doesn't kill Zod UNTIL Zod attempted to kill a family of 4 humans and Superman acted to save innocent lives. Unlike MCU, where the Avengers don't believe in trial by a jury of the people and believe that the Avengers should be judge and jury, Superman has always believed in and respected the justice system and won't make himself judge an jury like the Avengers routinely do.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 3, 2019 15:04:32 GMT
I think the main problem is that it didn't make sense to me to have Superman kill Zod after he was about to kill four humans. Did Clark forget that Zod had killed thousands already? He should've killed Zod the moment they started fighting... Because there's a difference between killing to defend or save innocent lives vs killing to execute someone. Killing Zod as Zod was attempting to kill a family of 4 humans is killing in the act of defending or saving innocent lives. Killing Zod AFTER Zod killed thousands would be an execution. No it may be that Zod deserved to be executed for killing thousands, but that would've been a decision for a judge and jury, not Superman, to decide. That's why Superman doesn't kill Zod UNTIL Zod attempted to kill a family of 4 humans and Superman acted to save innocent lives. Unlike MCU, where the Avengers don't believe in trail by a jury of the people and believe that the Avengers should be judge and jury, Superman has always believed in and respected the justice system and won't make himself judge an jury like the Avengers routinely do. Yes, if Superman had killed Zod immediately, he would've saved thousands of people. Instead he let thousands of people die and only killed when four people were about to die. It's not really about Superman being judge and jury. It's about preventing the deaths of innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 3, 2019 16:40:27 GMT
Who in the blue hell is Zod?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jun 3, 2019 17:23:00 GMT
I forgot that Superman murdered General Zod in Superman 2. It is particularly bad that he killed Zod after Zod was rendered helpless against him.
Then Superman returned to the diner where he picked a fight and got his ass kicked by an old truck driver, just so he could get revenge for being humiliated.
What a dick.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 3, 2019 17:48:05 GMT
It's NOT controversial. But lots of people wanted to pounce on it as being a bad thing or a wrong thing about the movie MOS, because "Superman doesn't kill".
This has all been said before, but there are two reasons why we shouldn't be so surprised...
1) Superman HAS killed in the comics. Its very rare, and always under the most extreme of circumstances, but its fair to say this was one of those circumstances. Zod had been very clear that he was not going to stop. 1B) I think Zod WANTED to die. He was kind've putting Superman on the spot. As Zod sees it, his people had died. He had no people. So why live?
2) MOS was intended as a modern take on Superman, not just a continuation of previous takes on the character. So this version kills.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 3, 2019 17:57:04 GMT
I think the main problem is that it didn't make sense to me to have Superman kill Zod after he was about to kill four humans. Did Clark forget that Zod had killed thousands already? He should've killed Zod the moment they started fighting... But I guess we needed a epic superfight between two Kryptonians.Uh... duh!
A) We needed to see that climactic fight. How much more would people have hated that movie if we didn't have that? One more thing for people to complain about!
B) And how much more would people have hated it if Superman had just killed Zod immediately, without the fight?! Are you nuts!
It didn't make sense to you because you're looking at it the wrong way. It wasn't JUST the four people, it was everyone that had already died that day. The four human were just the last straw. That fight was always going to end that way. With no more access to the Phantom Zone and no discovery of Kryptonite yet, what prison do you think could have held Zod? In this version of Superman he doesn't even have a Fortress of Solitude!
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 3, 2019 18:00:25 GMT
Who in the blue hell is Zod? Overrated clothing brand.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 3, 2019 18:37:47 GMT
I think the main problem is that it didn't make sense to me to have Superman kill Zod after he was about to kill four humans. Did Clark forget that Zod had killed thousands already? He should've killed Zod the moment they started fighting... But I guess we needed a epic superfight between two Kryptonians.Uh... duh!
A) We needed to see that climactic fight. How much more would people have hated that movie if we didn't have that? One more thing for people to complain about!
B) And how much more would people have hated it if Superman had just killed Zod immediately, without the fight?! Are you nuts!
It didn't make sense to you because you're looking at it the wrong way. It wasn't JUST the four people, it was everyone that had already died that day. The four human were just the last straw. That fight was always going to end that way. With no more access to the Phantom Zone and no discovery of Kryptonite yet, what prison do you think could have held Zod? In this version of Superman he doesn't even have a Fortress of Solitude!
A) I agree that we should've seen the fight but I still don't understand what was Superman trying to do. Restraining him? How? He should've gone for the kill the moment Zod was stuck there without anything to hold him off.
B) Shit he was willing to make out with Lois Lane in the middel of a destroyed Metropolis. It looked like he didn't care that much about all the other humans that died that day until he actually saw four about to die.
I like Man of Steel but the third act is problematic IMO.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 3, 2019 19:00:26 GMT
Uh... duh!
A) We needed to see that climactic fight. How much more would people have hated that movie if we didn't have that? One more thing for people to complain about!
B) And how much more would people have hated it if Superman had just killed Zod immediately, without the fight?! Are you nuts!
It didn't make sense to you because you're looking at it the wrong way. It wasn't JUST the four people, it was everyone that had already died that day. The four human were just the last straw. That fight was always going to end that way. With no more access to the Phantom Zone and no discovery of Kryptonite yet, what prison do you think could have held Zod? In this version of Superman he doesn't even have a Fortress of Solitude!
A) I agree that we should've seen the fight but I still don't understand what was Superman trying to do. Restraining him? How? He should've gone for the kill the moment Zod was stuck there without anything to hold him off.
B) Shit he was willing to make out with Lois Lane in the middel of a destroyed Metropolis. It looked like he didn't care that much about all the other humans that died that day until he actually saw four about to die.
I like Man of Steel but the third act is problematic IMO.
A) Superman DIDNT know what to do. This is a Superman at the beginning of his career; inexperienced. And he's getting his ass kicked by a guy who CAN kick his ass. This may be the first real ass kicking he's EVER gotten! I don't blame him for not thinking straight. You ever get slammed through a building? I would imagine that it wouldn't be ones finest thinking moment. LOL!
B) Zod made himself known after the kiss. And the whole kiss happened after he'd thought the Kryptonians were defeated. Its not like he said "wait, the world killer is right there, but suck my face real quick first, we got time." He probably thought "Son of a bitch, I'm trying to get my kiss on and this mother####er is still here!? He's gotta die!"
The movie's not perfect, its just not as bad as its made out to seem.
|
|
|
Post by thenewnexus on Jun 3, 2019 19:01:07 GMT
Would it have been better if Supes beat Zod by dancing or have him be trolled by a cat?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 3, 2019 19:15:04 GMT
Uh... duh!
A) We needed to see that climactic fight. How much more would people have hated that movie if we didn't have that? One more thing for people to complain about!
B) And how much more would people have hated it if Superman had just killed Zod immediately, without the fight?! Are you nuts!
It didn't make sense to you because you're looking at it the wrong way. It wasn't JUST the four people, it was everyone that had already died that day. The four human were just the last straw. That fight was always going to end that way. With no more access to the Phantom Zone and no discovery of Kryptonite yet, what prison do you think could have held Zod? In this version of Superman he doesn't even have a Fortress of Solitude!
Shit he was willing to make out with Lois Lane in the middel of a destroyed Metropolis.
That happened after Superman destroyed the World Engine and they thought the battle and the end-of-the-world crisis was over. At least, it wasn't as bad as Steve Rogers going back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter while letting Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Rogers had the ability to travel back in time so he could've traveled back to before World War II started and taken out Hilter before the war started, but instead Rogers decides to travel back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter and just lets Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 3, 2019 20:55:13 GMT
Shit he was willing to make out with Lois Lane in the middel of a destroyed Metropolis.
That happened after Superman destroyed the World Engine and they thought the battle and the end-of-the-world crisis was over. At least, it wasn't as bad as Steve Rogers going back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter while letting Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Rogers had the ability to travel back in time so he could've traveled back to before World War II started and taken out Hilter before the war started, but instead Rogers decides to travel back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter and just lets Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Traveling back in time for the specific purpose of killing Hitler wouldn’t have made any difference, since the film already established that when you travel through time, it doesn’t alter the present, it just creates a new alternate reality.
|
|
dnno1
Sophomore
@dnno1
Posts: 321
Likes: 151
|
Post by dnno1 on Jun 3, 2019 22:40:21 GMT
Apparently a Super Hero isn't allow to kill a villain to save someone, even if the Villain attempted Genocide. But i guess to be fair the hardcore Anti killer Superman are still stuck in 1978. Unless he is a Marvel superhero.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jun 3, 2019 23:21:23 GMT
Apparently a Super Hero isn't allow to kill a villain to save someone, even if the Villain attempted Genocide. But i guess to be fair the hardcore Anti killer Superman are still stuck in 1978. Unless he is a Marvel superhero. Marvel superheroes aren't supposed to be boyscouts. Quite the opposite. That is one reason why MCU movies are so popular. Superman is supposed to be the ultimate goody two-shoes. Except when he murders his enemies, even when they are defenseless against him.
|
|