|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Oct 27, 2013 11:48:11 GMT -5
I see what MOS was going for, but the execution---IMO---sucked.
If I didn't known Superman strictly didn't kill, this moment in MOS would be no big deal as it exists.
They should've built up to it and made that moment a much more powerful one.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 27, 2013 12:53:13 GMT -5
Crap writing. Wasted opportunity. They could have legitimised it and it could have gone down in Superman history as an "event" or milestone or whatever. They could have built up his character more to get to that point so we know, through the parameters of the film and not of the generic Superman character, that it would be a painful/huge decision.
Instead, its a throwaway moment
But I bet he's going to fucking mope about it in the sequel.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Oct 27, 2013 13:22:05 GMT -5
I don't care if he killed Zod or not, but that whole fight was so boring and unengaging. It was like watching a video game.
A good idea for a fan cut would be to just have Zod die when the scout ship crashes. After Superman and Lois kiss, cut straight to the surveillance drone scene.
|
|
Melv
New Member
Posts: 546
|
Post by Melv on Oct 27, 2013 16:21:42 GMT -5
I don't mind him killing when necessary but I just don't think they did enough with it with MOS.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 27, 2013 20:01:31 GMT -5
Pretty much what everyone in the thread has said so far. It's a controversial thing but it could have meant something important. Instead they came up with a "cool" idea they liked and worked their way backwards in trying to shoehorn it into the movie. They should have presented it as a powerful moment of growth for the character and put in a level of quality writing to reflect that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 22:46:59 GMT -5
I don't remember who said it originally, but "Superman doesn't kill" is a rule that exists outside of that fictional universe. If you watch these movies, the old Reeve movies or the newer ones, it's a rule that's never implicitly conveyed. It exists in our world.
So, Cavill's Superman killing Zod isn't a big deal. I don't care that he killed, but it doesn't have impact when nothing comes before to show how big of a deal it would be. No little speech from Jon Kent or Jor-El or Kal-El on the sanctity of life, blah blah blah. Now, the bit of acting after the kill is fine, but it didn't have as much meaning because there was no set up. It's like getting the punch line without knowing what the heck the joke was about. Sure, he looks like he felt really bad about killing. But has he killed before? Or does he feel like this every time he snaps a spine in the upper vertebrae? I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Oct 27, 2013 22:53:30 GMT -5
I like your punch line analogy because it helped me understand my disappointment with MOS even more.
Superman killing was like punch line without establishing the joke.
The realistic alien/they won't accept you angle was a joke without a punch line. They never really showed it. Makes you wonder why Jonathan Kent died for it.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 28, 2013 17:34:08 GMT -5
I don't remember who said it originally, but "Superman doesn't kill" is a rule that exists outside of that fictional universe. If you watch these movies, the old Reeve movies or the newer ones, it's a rule that's never implicitly conveyed. It exists in our world. So, Cavill's Superman killing Zod isn't a big deal. I don't care that he killed, but it doesn't have impact when nothing comes before to show how big of a deal it would be. No little speech from Jon Kent or Jor-El or Kal-El on the sanctity of life, blah blah blah. Now, the bit of acting after the kill is fine, but it didn't have as much meaning because there was no set up. It's like getting the punch line without knowing what the heck the joke was about. Sure, he looks like he felt really bad about killing. But has he killed before? Or does he feel like this every time he snaps a spine in the upper vertebrae? I don't know. David Goyer said it and its bullshit. It DOES exist within the fictional universe as well. Just not Goyers movie universe. But he was talking about the comic books too when he said that. Superman himself has brought it up may times. And if he does kill it has huge implications. I remember in Superman vs Aliens he even refused to kill one of them after what happened with the pocket universe version of Zod. As usual Goyers pulling stuff out of his ass to support his ideas. Superman a killing in the past has been used before to make a powerful point and great story. Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow is a great example. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Oct 28, 2013 21:19:50 GMT -5
Goyer is proving more and more that he's WRONG for Superman.
He just doesn't get it.
Why then doesn't Bale's Batman walk around with a .44 Magnum??? He already kinda sounds like Eastwood, why not give him a .44 Magnum? Shit, why not just give Batman a poncho while you're at it?
CUZ IT'S NOT FUCKING BATMAN, THAT"S WHY.
I'm all for breaking rules as long as it's done right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 21:56:00 GMT -5
I don't remember who said it originally, but "Superman doesn't kill" is a rule that exists outside of that fictional universe. If you watch these movies, the old Reeve movies or the newer ones, it's a rule that's never implicitly conveyed. It exists in our world. So, Cavill's Superman killing Zod isn't a big deal. I don't care that he killed, but it doesn't have impact when nothing comes before to show how big of a deal it would be. No little speech from Jon Kent or Jor-El or Kal-El on the sanctity of life, blah blah blah. Now, the bit of acting after the kill is fine, but it didn't have as much meaning because there was no set up. It's like getting the punch line without knowing what the heck the joke was about. Sure, he looks like he felt really bad about killing. But has he killed before? Or does he feel like this every time he snaps a spine in the upper vertebrae? I don't know. David Goyer said it and its bullshit. It DOES exist within the fictional universe as well. Just not Goyers movie universe. But he was talking about the comic books too when he said that. Superman himself has brought it up may times. And if he does kill it has huge implications. I remember in Superman vs Aliens he even refused to kill one of them after what happened with the pocket universe version of Zod. As usual Goyers pulling stuff out of his ass to support his ideas. Superman a killing in the past has been used before to make a powerful point and street story. Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow is a great example. I was keeping to the movie universes. I know it exists in the comics. Top of my head, the example that comes to mind is Superman vs. the Elite or "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" ... whatever you want to call it. But movie universes, yeah, it's never explicit that he's vowed not to kill. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 29, 2013 10:02:18 GMT -5
David Goyer said it and its bullshit. It DOES exist within the fictional universe as well. Just not Goyers movie universe. But he was talking about the comic books too when he said that. Superman himself has brought it up may times. And if he does kill it has huge implications. I remember in Superman vs Aliens he even refused to kill one of them after what happened with the pocket universe version of Zod. As usual Goyers pulling stuff out of his ass to support his ideas. Superman a killing in the past has been used before to make a powerful point and street story. Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow is a great example. I was keeping to the movie universes. I know it exists in the comics. Top of my head, the example that comes to mind is Superman vs. the Elite or "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" ... whatever you want to call it. But movie universes, yeah, it's never explicit that he's vowed not to kill. But the problem there is he's never killed before and never done ANY of this before. In the movie it shouldn't be that easy for him to cross that line but it was. He's a naive rookie who flinched when he got SHOT the first time because he's never put his skin up to that test so killing should be a very difficult choice to make. The mov is massively inconsistent. Zods scheme probably kills thousands but Superman crosses the line for one family? Then he lets out one scream and that's it? If I killed somebody even if it was justified Id be shaken up over it a lot more than that. Plus Goyers "he has to kill to learn not to" explanation makes no fucking sense. You'd think he'd know killing was a heavy burden in the first place. Even if it's not a rule it should be something he feels responsible for with his kind of power. It's his morality that makes him Superman and he was learning about that long before he knew he was from Krypton or put on that suit. That's taking this "no killing rule" excuse Goyer uses misses the point entirely. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 29, 2013 10:06:01 GMT -5
Goyer is proving more and more that he's WRONG for Superman. He just doesn't get it. Why then doesn't Bale's Batman walk around with a .44 Magnum??? He already kinda sounds like Eastwood, why not give him a .44 Magnum? Shit, why not just give Batman a poncho while you're at it? CUZ IT'S NOT FUCKING BATMAN, THAT"S WHY. I'm all for breaking rules as long as it's done right. Its Goyers bullshit. He's just using these excuses because he's said he doesn't like characters like Superman. The Dark Knight films were Nolan's films whereas unfortunately MOS was more Goyers film. Nolan understood the importance of delving into and understanding the Batman characters morals and ethics and that's also why he was the one that was hesitant to let Superman kill. Deep down in his gut he probably understands what the characters about more than Goyer and Snyder. |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Oct 29, 2013 12:12:29 GMT -5
Look on the bright side. At least he didn't furrow his brow, turn into a plank of wood, and ask "What have I done?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 13:47:22 GMT -5
I was keeping to the movie universes. I know it exists in the comics. Top of my head, the example that comes to mind is Superman vs. the Elite or "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" ... whatever you want to call it. But movie universes, yeah, it's never explicit that he's vowed not to kill. But the problem there is he's never killed before and never done ANY of this before. In the movie it shouldn't be that easy for him to cross that line but it was. He's a naive rookie who flinched when he got SHOT the first time because he's never put his skin up to that test so killing should be a very difficult choice to make. The mov is massively inconsistent. Zods scheme probably kills thousands but Superman crosses the line for one family? Then he lets out one scream and that's it? If I killed somebody even if it was justified Id be shaken up over it a lot more than that. Plus Goyers "he has to kill to learn not to" explanation makes no fucking sense. You'd think he'd know killing was a heavy burden in the first place. Even if it's not a rule it should be something he feels responsible for with his kind of power. It's his morality that makes him Superman and he was learning about that long before he knew he was from Krypton or put on that suit. That's taking this "no killing rule" excuse Goyer uses misses the point entirely. I'm with you on the point that the kill was poorly executed (pun heavily intended). I just don't have a problem with the concept that Superman can occassionally kill. So, uh, why are we going around in circles? |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Oct 29, 2013 14:09:40 GMT -5
context, and consequence.
superman is not wolverine or punisher- but then captain america and other "noble" heroes do kill as needed.
its a slippery slope- but not a deal breaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Oct 29, 2013 14:20:27 GMT -5
Does Superman kill Nuclear Man? Yes. WHERE IS THE FAKE OUTRAGE?!
|
|
Melv
New Member
Posts: 546
|
Post by Melv on Oct 29, 2013 14:37:33 GMT -5
Zods scheme probably kills thousands but Superman crosses the line for one family? I saw it as the point where he realises what he must do. The family represents everyone and what Zod is willing to do to us all. It's not that Superman doesn't care about anyone else, he was just too wrapped up in his fight to remember what was at stake. A little dialogue after would have been nice though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 16:47:25 GMT -5
Does Superman kill Nuclear Man? Yes. WHERE IS THE FAKE OUTRAGE?! he also crushed a powerless Zod's hand and threw him to his death, but he smirked afterwards so it's cool! |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Oct 29, 2013 17:31:42 GMT -5
Typical Kristopher response:
Attempts to redirect the conversation AWAY from MOS.
And why are we comparing SIV to MOS? Everyone thinks SIV sucks.
I thought we were discussing MOS.
Why are we shifting the conversation back to Reeve? I thought everyone agreed that this was a new version seperate from Reeve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 18:01:45 GMT -5
Well, as if it wasn't completely obvious I'll explain it anyway.
a few of us were wondering why Superman killing is an issue in MOS but not as issue in previous films
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Oct 29, 2013 18:10:11 GMT -5
Well, as if it wasn't completely obvious I'll explain it anyway. a few of us were wondering why Superman killing is an issue in MOS but not as issue in previous films Maybe I need to do the spelling out. You've spent months bitching about people comparing MOS to the Reeve films because it's obvious that the first two Reeve films are superior to MOS. But it's interesting that you redirect the conversation back to Reeve when you feel it suits your argument. As a kid, I didn't take Superman throwing Zod into the cloud as outright killing. I took it as Superman throwing him into another dimension/prison of some kind. It's also handled in a Silver Age, tongue in cheek kinda way so it doesn't come across as murder. In the modern age, Superman killed Zod in the comics but was remorseful as heck. There was none of that in MOS. Last I checked, this is a modern updating of Superman. But the writers wrote it like they didn't know/understand Superman. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 18:17:22 GMT -5
HAHA!!
aw diddums, so you just assumed it wasn't murder? and yet you criticize the writing in MOS, where was the remorse in SII? I await tallo to come along and pull you up for your Goyeresque bullshit excuse. Lay off the drink for once
|
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Oct 29, 2013 18:19:18 GMT -5
Well, as if it wasn't completely obvious I'll explain it anyway. a few of us were wondering why Superman killing is an issue in MOS but not as issue in previous films Maybe I need to do the spelling out. You've spent months bitching about people comparing MOS to the Reeve films because it's obvious that the first two Reeve films are superior to MOS. But it's interesting that you redirect the conversation back to Reeve when you feel it suits your argument. As a kid, I didn't take Superman throwing Zod into the cloud as outright killing. I took it as Superman throwing him into another dimension/prison of some kind. It's also handled in a Silver Age, tongue in cheek kinda way so it doesn't come across as murder. In the modern age, Superman killed Zod in the comics but was remorseful as heck. There was none of that in MOS. Last I checked, this is a modern updating of Superman. But the writers wrote it like they didn't know/understand Superman. To be fair, Kris was responding to UF's comment about Superman killing Nuclear Man, not redirecting the conversation. And honestly, as a kid, I though Superman killed Zod by throwing him in that "abyss". It's the Arctic. It's freezing and they're wearing vinyl. Not going to survive. |
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Oct 29, 2013 18:22:19 GMT -5
Enrique the question you posed is "How do you feel about Superman killing?" Don't get mad at people for answering it. Maybe you should have worded the question differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Oct 29, 2013 18:36:48 GMT -5
Kris didn't answer the question. He just redirected the conversation to bash the Reeve era, which is IRRELEVANT to the question at hand. It's not a prick waving contest between SII and MOS. It's a question about how you feel about Superman killing, not which version of the movies you prefer.
To me, Superman didn't kill Zod in SII. I grew up on the extended version. I always assumed the "abyss" thing was another variation of a jail/dimension. And then I became aware that Zod and co. were arrested by the Arctic police.
Besides, this is Silver Age Superman pretty much and---like I said---it was handled with more of a tongue in cheek manner so it didn't come across as flat out murder.
We're talking about MOS. The modern version. And he didn't throw Zod into some nebulous, wishy washy abyss. He SNAPPED HIS FUCKING NECK. He *KILLED* Zod.
So the question is: did you like seeing it, did you think it was handled well, and how you feel about Superman KILLING.
|
|
