#1 Posted by danhimself (22480 posts) - - Show Bio

there's some swearing in this but I still felt like it needed to be shared

#2 Edited by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

Good stuff.

#3 Posted by danhimself (22480 posts) - - Show Bio
#4 Edited by Farkam (4875 posts) - - Show Bio

At 1:10 is why I like all of those other characters better than Superman. He did have many good points though. : - )

#5 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

Heh, he calls out Spider-Man and Batman as well.

#6 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3509 posts) - - Show Bio

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

#7 Edited by RedLantern23 (884 posts) - - Show Bio

He makes some pretty good points. City destruction has gotten ridiculous in comic movies.

#8 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

I think that was the whole point of the movie.

#9 Posted by Z3RO180 (6447 posts) - - Show Bio

He does make good points. Screw writeing movie get a job at DC take over from lobdell.

#10 Posted by RDClip (1129 posts) - - Show Bio

He seems like a smart dude and really seems to get the character of Superman. While I did love the movie, I agree that the mass destruction was quite excessive. There was no reason why the world bulilder had to be set up in Metropolis other than showing wholesale destruction. Zod didn't do it to spite Kal-El because Superman had no connection to Metropolis at this time. Ideally it should have been set up somewhere outside of Metropolis and Superman stops it just as the increasing waves are about to reach the city. Then Supes and Zod get into it and it spill to the streets of the city, they have a big fight in Metropoils Time Square and they could still have the ending in Grand Central Station.

It was a big dumb action/desctruction scene and I expect that from a big summer blockbuster; I don't expect those to be smart. I don't actually expect any movie to be smart anymore. If I want a smart story I'll read a book.

#11 Edited by Eternal19 (2076 posts) - - Show Bio

Interesting

#12 Edited by Backflip (2262 posts) - - Show Bio

@danhimself: This was actually cast a brilliant exposition on this issue of the Man of Steel. I also appreciate his acknowledgement that Superman had to kill Zod, and that it is Superman's integrity that will always allow him to make that decision; at least, for me anyway.

#13 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3509 posts) - - Show Bio

@sandman_ said:

@kal_smahboi said:

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

I think that was the whole point of the movie.

Me too. It was a coming of age story or, rather, a coming of heroism story. It was about Clark Kent becoming Superman.

The other point (the one you're referring to, I think) is that even Superman can't do everything, or prevent everything. Superman: The Movie and Superman: Brainiac accomplished this with pa Kent's death. Man of Steel did it with Zod's.

#14 Edited by novi_homines (1338 posts) - - Show Bio
#15 Posted by danhimself (22480 posts) - - Show Bio

Chronicle Writer On Why Superman Is Special & MoS

I guess your title was more enticing. Maybe I should've used the word "rant". lol, would've gotten MOS fans all riled up.

also if yours was in the right forum section then I would have saw it and just bumped yours instead of making this one

#16 Edited by novi_homines (1338 posts) - - Show Bio

@kal_smahboi said:

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

Except there was an entirely different ending to the movie, one that had zod being sucked up into the phantom zone along with the other kryptonians. Instead, it was a creative decision by Goyer to have superman kill zod, forcing Superman into the situation that he was put in. Nolan disagreed to doing this at first, but then went along with goyer.

So there essentially was an alternative in place. And ending that showed superman finding a way to end zod without killing him. Instead, goyer simply wanted to go in this route. Why? Maybe to show that he's just as human as the rest of us. But I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, and I don't agree with the decision Goyer made.

#17 Edited by novi_homines (1338 posts) - - Show Bio

@danhimself said:

@novi_homines said:

Chronicle Writer On Why Superman Is Special & MoS

I guess your title was more enticing. Maybe I should've used the word "rant". lol, would've gotten MOS fans all riled up.

also if yours was in the right forum section then I would have saw it and just bumped yours instead of making this one

I think it was. He talks about superman mostly. But he also talks about spiderman, batman, his film chronicle, and comic book movies in general. So I didn't think it should solely go in the superman section. But thats subjective.

#18 Posted by JLDoom (2310 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines said:

@kal_smahboi said:

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

Except there was an entirely different ending to the movie, one that had zod being sucked up into the phantom zone along with the other kryptonians. Instead, it was a creative decision by Goyer to have superman kill zod, forcing Superman into the situation that he was put in. Nolan disagreed to doing this at first, but then went along with goyer.

So there essentially was an alternative in place. And ending that showed superman finding a way to end zod without killing him. Instead, goyer simply wanted to go in this route. Why? Maybe to show that he's just as human as the rest of us. But I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, and I don't agree with the decision Goyer made.

That does make sense but I believe a lot of people would have complained about the anticlimatic nature of Zod's defeat and that we didn't get a final battle between him and Superman (and come on, this is a superhero movie, of course we need a final battle between the hero and the main villain, especially in a Superman flick.)

#19 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32993 posts) - - Show Bio

God I hate Max Landis

#20 Posted by War Killer (20125 posts) - - Show Bio

@jldoom said:

@novi_homines said:

@kal_smahboi said:

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

Except there was an entirely different ending to the movie, one that had zod being sucked up into the phantom zone along with the other kryptonians. Instead, it was a creative decision by Goyer to have superman kill zod, forcing Superman into the situation that he was put in. Nolan disagreed to doing this at first, but then went along with goyer.

So there essentially was an alternative in place. And ending that showed superman finding a way to end zod without killing him. Instead, goyer simply wanted to go in this route. Why? Maybe to show that he's just as human as the rest of us. But I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, and I don't agree with the decision Goyer made.

That does make sense but I believe a lot of people would have complained about the anticlimatic nature of Zod's defeat and that we didn't get a final battle between him and Superman (and come on, this is a superhero movie, of course we need a final battle between the hero and the main villain, especially in a Superman flick.)

I believe that's what Snyder, and eventually Nolan, came to realize. Having Zod sucked back into the Phantom Zone would have been too anticlimactic, not to mention pointless as he obviously would find a way to return and would simply continue killing people again. This is where I believe @kal_smahboi hits the nail on the head with the mention that this was not the skilled and experienced Superman we're accustomed to, but instead was an inexperienced Superman who up until Zod's arrival had never faced someone who could go toe-to-toe to him. This is where I feel many people's complaints are being misplaced, as they are forgetting that this isn't the Superman we've grown use to over the character's 70+ years of history. But instead is Superman at his very beginning, so much so that he wasn't even known as "Superman" yet. The plot placed this inexperienced Superman into a position where he could not think of any other alternatives to defeating Zod other than killing him, which is what he final did.

As for the whole letting the city get destroyed and people killed, even an experienced Superman would have had a hard time saving ALL of those people. Heck even in the comics he has a hard time; we saw in Justice League during the Origin storyline where Darksied destroyed a pretty good chunk of Metropolis, leaving hundreds of people injured or dead, and not even the entire Justice League combined, though yes inexperienced as well, could save EVERYONE. So to assume Superman could is a bit ridiculous when you think about it, I mean yeah he's Superman, but still that's just too much and even more so for the young Superman we saw in Man of Steel.

People simply need to come to grips that the Superman in Man of Steel was a younger, less experienced version of the one we're all so use to, accept that fact, and move on.

#21 Edited by Extremis (3344 posts) - - Show Bio

Good points overall, especially about MoS and super hero movies in general. We need to tone the scale down because its just become a pissing match at this point.

Yet, his dismissal of other heroes for being flawed is odd as that's precisely why they ARE significant to us. Flawed characters who experience cathartic changes in the face of tragedy is exactly what we can understand. That's because its real. All great change comes first from experience. And thats true for all of us. WE are the ones that have the will to be what we want, but our experiences are what drive our actions. Whether we decide to act decently or wrongly in spite of it is what makes us who we are. Someone being born good is the more nonsensical idea here. Good and evil are just things we are all capable of. It's how we take the experiences we have to better or worsen ourselves and others that really makes someone heroic or villainous. It's all part of adding dimensions to a character; character development.

Superman isn't the only one 'special' for choosing to do good, all the heroes he's dismissed are too. It's their experiences, personalities and adversities they've faced and STILL decide to do good in spite of it that really make them all uniquely special. But that's why we have more than one superhero. Superman is good, yeah, but it's goodness that wasn't born out of adversity. It really depends on how you look at it. Personally I admire those who choose to do good in spite of all the bad. What the speaker doesn't understand is that the tragedy didn't make Batman and Spiderman, their decision to be good in spite of it is what made them heroes. It was they're choice to do good that made them what they are. Heroes aren't born as goodness isn't born. They're made. It's a decision that's made time and time again, even in the face of adversity.

Also his remark that Bruce Wayne is a sociopath is wrong and makes no sense. He's definitely obsessive, cold and calculating, but there's nothing sociopathic about a man trying to save citizens. If he was empty of any empathy and saw people as pawns for him to use for his own ends then yes he'd be a sociopath. But this is a man driven by empathy, not the lack of it.

#22 Posted by drgnx (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

I lol'ed when he tried to downplay the death in Chronicle and make his story seem any different than the other superhero movies out there. Basically another bandwagon jumper on Superman not saving people in his fight to the death, or changing the battle field location! It seems to me, people looking to nitpick are going to ride that one to the finish line.... The only thing that all this commotion has done is peaked my interest on how Snyder will respond to this in the next movie.

#23 Edited by batmannflash (6214 posts) - - Show Bio

wow very interesting. thanks for sharing this! I think he understands Superman. however I don't think his criticisms about Spidey and Batman are correct. those are the reason they are both such good characters. They are relatable. They had character development which made them superheroes with such depth. Being born a complete saint like your future self in 30 years just seems too idealistic whether you are human or not. Plus, Batman is not a sociopath (A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience) <-- he has a conscience. that is why he does the things that he does. protecting the people of Gotham is not antisocial, it is accepted and praised by citizens.

#24 Edited by Kal'smahboi (3509 posts) - - Show Bio
@drgnx said:

The only thing that all this commotion has done is peaked my interest on how Snyder will respond to this in the next movie.

This is exactly my sentiment. It all rides on how Supes deals with what he did. The next movie has to be about his growth into the Superman we have all come to expect.

#25 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah I saw this, really like the first bit where he explains Superman's morality and what separates him from Batman or Spider-Man. He really does seem to understand the character.

#26 Posted by Superboy101 (61 posts) - - Show Bio

The part where he compares the fight in Chronicle to the fight in Man of Steel bothers me. The only reason "17" people died in the city in Chronicle compared to the mass destruction in Man of Steel is because its freaking Superman vs Zod!! Of course theres going to be more destruction...

#27 Posted by Superboy101 (61 posts) - - Show Bio

@war_killer: Thank you! Took the words right out of my mouth.

#28 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@sandman_ said:

@kal_smahboi said:

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

I think that was the whole point of the movie.

Me too. It was a coming of age story or, rather, a coming of heroism story. It was about Clark Kent becoming Superman.

The other point (the one you're referring to, I think) is that even Superman can't do everything, or prevent everything. Superman: The Movie and Superman: Brainiac accomplished this with pa Kent's death. Man of Steel did it with Zod's.

This appears to be very obtuse...

#29 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3509 posts) - - Show Bio

@sandman_ said:

@kal_smahboi said:

@sandman_ said:

@kal_smahboi said:

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

I think that was the whole point of the movie.

Me too. It was a coming of age story or, rather, a coming of heroism story. It was about Clark Kent becoming Superman.

The other point (the one you're referring to, I think) is that even Superman can't do everything, or prevent everything. Superman: The Movie and Superman: Brainiac accomplished this with pa Kent's death. Man of Steel did it with Zod's.

This appears to be very obtuse...

Haha. What's obtuse?

#30 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@kal_smahboi: The message this movie is trying to give, what you and War Killer wrote....And what is up with the notifications??? They are not working!

#31 Edited by lilben42 (2530 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines: I think he wanted to change the ending to make it more powerful. I mean its the typical superhero movie when the villain gets stopped without the hero sacrificing anything other than death of a friend. And to be honest I don't think I would like Man of Steel that much if he didn't choose that ending.

#32 Edited by drgnx (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

This guy shouldn't be talking about knowing Superman

He's not a billionaire. He's not a [frick]ing Amazonian princess. He's not even a particularly picked-on guy. He's not Peter Parker. He's just a dude. And to grow into a slightly smarter than average dude and find out you're Superman, that's [frick]ing interesting to me.

Still, his 'arc' sounds interesting, but seems it would be Chronicle re-branded!

#33 Edited by Mahahus64 (16 posts) - - Show Bio

Guys, we have to remember that movies aren't targeted towards fans any longer. They're targeted at the common movie-goer who likes any 'hard-core' dance film about the streets and those horrible 'fast-cars' movies. These people are the majority of movie-goers in the world, it's sad but it's true. It's sad but it's true.

The man in the video makes excellent points, but film-makers know where the money is.

#34 Posted by drgnx (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

I got to say, I wonder how many people see what he did in this video. He says nobody really knows Superman, then goes on to describe the most well known traits about the character that pretty much everyone knows... This means that less aware individuals will be tricked into getting a false sense of thinking they, and Landis, are of the elite few that actually get Superman!

Guys, we have to remember that movies aren't targeted towards fans any longer. They're targeted at the common movie-goer who likes any 'hard-core' dance film about the streets and those horrible 'fast-cars' movies. These people are the majority of movie-goers in the world, it's sad but it's true. It's sad but it's true.

The man in the video makes excellent points, but film-makers know where the money is.

Another way of looking at it! I still think some of these issues will be addressed by character growth.

#35 Posted by TheMysteriousMrBlack (8 posts) - - Show Bio

I loved MoS for precisely what it was: an origin story. It's Superman Begins and Clark is thrown into the deep end right from the start. As soon as he puts on the suit he is immediately confronted with Zod and a situation where the whole planet is endangered.

No helping Frisky the cat out of the tree, no foiling suction-cup jewel thieves on the side of skyscrapers or giving Air Force One a lift in a thunderstorm (with free cheesy salute). His first action as Superman is to defend the entire human race against Zod's plan that necessitates the annihilation of mankind to create a new Krypton on earth.

It's one thing to say that Ma and Pa Kent helped nurture Superman's character of goodness, his incredible moral integrity and high regard for justice etc, but when Zod's ship arrives Clark is outnumbered and faced with a danger beyond anything he probably every considered encountering. At the end of the day he was raised by a farmer and his wife in Kansas, not trained by Ra's al ghul in the mountains. Combat is entirely new to him!

I love the point Max Landis makes about Superman - how his extraordinary power removes all greed, fear and hate; how he always makes the right choice, being almost like an adult among children - true, that's what I love so much about the character; but in the case of MoS it's the events of the movie that help forge that person. MoS is all about how Clark becomes Superman. Personally, I think it's actually a lot more believable to have Superman born out of both the theory and the experience, rather than being an impeccable hero and faultless champion straight from the Kent Farm.

It's funny that one of the major gripes about MoS is character development. Yet this film is intended to be followed by sequels and is also the first movie in a whole new DC cinematic universe. I'd much rather begin with Rookie Superman here and have him grow with each new movie. Let his upbringing with Jonathan and Martha and also his experience with the Kryptonians in MoS serve to create the person we know as Superman, yes, including his agonising choice, in a moment, to kill General Zod.

We read hundreds of comic books over the years, containing dozens and dozens of story arcs and plot threads that unfold over time, yet we're mad because in one two-hour story on screen, an origin story no less, "he wasn't like the Superman I know."

As far as I'm concerned, MoS is issue #1. Others can throw it in the trash if they like - I can't wait for the next edition!

#36 Posted by DRUDOX19 (157 posts) - - Show Bio

I think the genius of Man of Steel is superman listen to Jor EL and the only mistake Jor EL made was telling his son he can save all of them ( he could have meant the human race) MOS Superman did care for humanity he trusted them too much he allowed the humans to go after Zods main ship and trusted mankind enough to allow them to stop zods main ship. Superman knew people died listen to the dialogue when he says "your a monster Zod and i am gonna stop you" ( he knew Zod killed many people why would he say that to sound cool -_- that wouldn't make any sense what so ever IMO) Did anyone see Supermans look on his face during the smallville battle Superman knew he made a mistake you can see it in his face when hes walking to Nam Ek and Faora he has the oh sheet i messed up look on his face. Jenny Jarvich ( shes not Jimmy Olsen he didn't even appear yet for Christ sake so i don't know why people are bashing the film for that point anyway.) Superman in MOS knew he made mistakes and we finally have a superman that made mistakes. This isn't GODMan SUPERMAN a version of the character that i never ever cared for because Superman is a man not a god he cant be a multiple locations at once.

MOS humans where heroic cause that was the freaking point Jor EL already freaking said they will join you in the sun, he never said Clark would lead them. I study philosophy and one of the critics of Superman character brought a great point in that at times even in the donner films the godman superman feels has if he is trying to create a utopian for mankind which to me is sily and impossible. Jor EL in MOS was perfect has well has his message in All Star Superman they will join meaning its humanities choice , you must trust them first and he said in Time when he said they will join in the sun, Superman guides mankind thats what he should do, Godman Superman that many writers write and it seems to me fans wanted Godman superman but dont want to admit it, is helping people left and right which at times comes off him trying to lead mankind to his version of utopia and i dont like GodMan Superman. Lex Luthor seems more of a hero in my eyes when its godman superman, what the writers have done with this superman ( i agree i think goyer is the issue for this film not Zack) is in many ways it sets up superman being better then Lex Luthor cause lex believes he is trying to be Godman Superman but Cavill Superman isnt.

He has been thought by Johnathan Kent and Jor El that mankind will join you of there own choosing and in time you will help them, when John Kent says you will stand proud with the human race or not, John Kent in this film does not want Clark to become godman he doesn't want clark to do that and in all honesty the message in MOS of the hero has to trust the people hes protecting is more powerful then like in other superhero films where the public must trust the hero i think thats brillant. Seeing the heroism of Hardy, Perry make Jor EL message more powerful of his line in time they will join you in the sun. In MOS Clark is bullied in his childhood this goes to show you and makes Jor EL message and John Message make more sense especally the heroism of Hardy, Perry White will to die with Jenny so she wouldnt feel alone dying i am suprised no one brought this up yet that Jor EL message hits home of the whole joining into the sun.

To me when superman is everywhere at once or when he is portrayed has Godman which alot of people wanted hes no different from Darkseid or Brainaic or Lex Luthor who both have a vision of the way the world or universe ( for Darkseid its control, Brainaic its Omniscient) When Superman is portayed has a being that is above us which he is dont get me wrong but aren't we putting him up i the same level Darkseid and Mongul or Brainaic see themselves? When i see people say superman is better then us, or something like that to me why are you saying this Superman was raised by good people who where humans with a great moral code, but he at times is wrong has many heros have called him out on his BS. The whole superman is better then us speech and he doesn't kill speech to me you guys put him on the same level i am sorry to say this hes biggest enemies like Darksied and Vril Dox and Lex Luthor view themselves its kinda ironic

#37 Posted by Eternal19 (2076 posts) - - Show Bio

I still think that he's trying to cool down Superman fans who hate him after that Death of Superman movie. I still find it hard to believe that he's a fan of the character.

The only problem that I had with MOS was the REASON for why Snyder and Goyer added that superman kills Zod scene. Snyder and Goyer didn't think that supes had a reason for not killing, so they thought that having him kill someone would be a perfect reason for refusing to kill. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard and it makes supes seem like a P**sy.

#38 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@jldoom said:

@novi_homines said:

@kal_smahboi said:

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

Except there was an entirely different ending to the movie, one that had zod being sucked up into the phantom zone along with the other kryptonians. Instead, it was a creative decision by Goyer to have superman kill zod, forcing Superman into the situation that he was put in. Nolan disagreed to doing this at first, but then went along with goyer.

So there essentially was an alternative in place. And ending that showed superman finding a way to end zod without killing him. Instead, goyer simply wanted to go in this route. Why? Maybe to show that he's just as human as the rest of us. But I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, and I don't agree with the decision Goyer made.

That does make sense but I believe a lot of people would have complained about the anticlimatic nature of Zod's defeat and that we didn't get a final battle between him and Superman (and come on, this is a superhero movie, of course we need a final battle between the hero and the main villain, especially in a Superman flick.)

I believe that's what Snyder, and eventually Nolan, came to realize. Having Zod sucked back into the Phantom Zone would have been too anticlimactic, not to mention pointless as he obviously would find a way to return and would simply continue killing people again. This is where I believe @kal_smahboi hits the nail on the head with the mention that this was not the skilled and experienced Superman we're accustomed to, but instead was an inexperienced Superman who up until Zod's arrival had never faced someone who could go toe-to-toe to him. This is where I feel many people's complaints are being misplaced, as they are forgetting that this isn't the Superman we've grown use to over the character's 70+ years of history. But instead is Superman at his very beginning, so much so that he wasn't even known as "Superman" yet. The plot placed this inexperienced Superman into a position where he could not think of any other alternatives to defeating Zod other than killing him, which is what he final did.

As for the whole letting the city get destroyed and people killed, even an experienced Superman would have had a hard time saving ALL of those people. Heck even in the comics he has a hard time; we saw in Justice League during the Origin storyline where Darksied destroyed a pretty good chunk of Metropolis, leaving hundreds of people injured or dead, and not even the entire Justice League combined, though yes inexperienced as well, could save EVERYONE. So to assume Superman could is a bit ridiculous when you think about it, I mean yeah he's Superman, but still that's just too much and even more so for the young Superman we saw in Man of Steel.

People simply need to come to grips that the Superman in Man of Steel was a younger, less experienced version of the one we're all so use to, accept that fact, and move on.

Hit the nail on the head with all of this. Nicely done War Killer.

#39 Edited by lilben42 (2530 posts) - - Show Bio
#40 Edited by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@lilben42: As for saving the people montage. This is what Goyer said.

Goyer: "You have to remember this is, sort of, ‘Superman Begins’, and we see him saving kids in Smallville; we see him saving those guys on the oil rig and Lois refers to other incidences in the past when he’s been doing that as this kind of anonymous savior figure. But once Zod attacks, well… Actually, a couple of people have said once Zod attacks there’s not a lot of humour in it. Well, it just didn’t seem appropriate, people cutting jokes during 9/11 or something like that. There’s some humour before and there’s some humour after, so again moving forward perhaps there’s something [in that].

"This is a movie where the world learns that he exists and he decides to assume the mantle of Superman, so by the end of the film when he has that scene with General Swanwick, in our minds, the world has only been aware of Superman a month, or three weeks or something. That montage that you’re talking about can’t really happen yet. Presumably it would happen in another film or in between the next film."

#41 Posted by lilben42 (2530 posts) - - Show Bio

@sandman_: Wow. He explained that perfectly. I will admit that I hope Goyer's writing is better on the second movie. Lord knows the first movie could have been so much better.

#42 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@lilben42: The where some problems with the script. Jonathan Nolan should do the screenplay for the second movie. They need to get rid of the shaky cam. More consistent pacing would be nice. And a mixture of action and character development and boom! We have an awesome Superman movie.

#43 Edited by lilben42 (2530 posts) - - Show Bio

@sandman_: Right but I have a feeling in the deleted scenes of MoS all the character development will be in there. At least I hope so. I agree about Jonathan Nolan also.

#44 Edited by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@lilben42: The original cut was about 3 hours long I think...Maybe ...who knows.

#45 Posted by kapitein_zeppos (341 posts) - - Show Bio

Dude really gets the character. I see where he's coming from, but I think that, the way the movie was written, there wasn't much Superman could have done. Zod was hell bent on destroying what Superman loved. Supes could have flown him to Africa, or the middle of the Atlantic, or the moon, but it wouldn't matter, because Zod would immediately travel to the nearest populated area and start again. The young, inexperienced Superman had to get to a point where enough was enough in order to get to the eventual conclusion of the fight. He didn't see himself as the "adult amongst children" at the time. He had never been the great protector before. So I think the destruction of the city makes sense.

I believe that the whole setup is purely arbitrary, the writer did it that way to raise the stakes but might not have fully thought it out. I think that the makers of Man of Steel wanted to up the ante on Avengers, by making it bigger, faster and more destructive, but didn't quite understand the implications of this wholesale nihilistic slaughter.
The core of the problem is that the makers wanted to create a more palatable version of Superman for those jaded moviegoers who are convinced Superman is a stupid character. And you can see the actual failure of what they did, they took the character of Superman which as describe by Max Landis above and then drowned him in a sea of blood, drama and tragedy, so very effectively rendered in the grand guignol of Clark drowning in a sea of skulls. I can understand why they wanted to "fix" Superman, but that scene shows they weren't really equipped to do so in a proper manner and just threw drama, violence and tragedy at the screen in the hope the audience would mistake this for a proper story.

#46 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

Heh, nitpicking...whatever.