No. I'm serious. I dislike those two pictures so much that I really WOULD cut you for mentioning them again. Granted, it'd be paper cuts...but still!

No not paper cuts! I hate getting paper cuts so much! You evil sadistic monster! :P

It was interesting to see Nolan's thoughts and they were as I thought.

Thanks for posting this. I agree with his thoughts on the film. "Kinda liked it, kinda didn't" was a good summary.

Those were Morrisons's thoughts...

BB

Yea,I know but I was thinking about Nolan and accidentally wrote his name.

I completely agree with him.

The way I see it, by the end of the fight either Superman would have ended up dead or Zod. What other way could an unexperienced Superman defeat Zod without killing him? And if Zod had killed Superman..either Zod would just kill everyone on the planet, or would rule with an iron fist. Idk I liked the ending. Just my opinion.

Grant Morrison couldn't be more right about Man Of Steel.

I totally agree with everything he just said.

This turned into another debate about MOS.

I like Grant Morrison's response pretty well.

But, and maybe Im reading to much into this, I think the point in showing Superman dealing with that impossible choice was to actually explore this incredibly important thing we fanboys take lightly everyday. We often say, "Well why doesnt he just kill him?" like its no big deal, well, Supes was cornered and had to do this, and it was a big deal. Zod was an evil monster, but killing him was still the "wrong" thing to do. But wasnt the other option even worse? And if they hadnt cancelled the sequel for a Batman film, they could have explored how this made Superman value every single life and consider it sacred. It could have showed him always vowing from then on to find another way.

A lot of people dont consider this, but in a way, Zod won. He got his honourable warriors death, and made Superman betray his ideals. That is interesting, that makes our heroes, even our greatest hero, more interesting, to see him really overcome something like that. The studio would never have the balls to do it with Batman (even though it seems contrived for him to be against killing), but they did it with Supes, and it gave him the potential to be the most complex hero put to film.

The movie later showed them getting arrested....well the one I saw at least.

@ultrastarkiller: The was probably the Richard Donner cut. You can treated it as an alternative sequel to the first Superman movie. The theatrical version had a better ending, I really didnt want to see that time travlering trick agian....

Yeah...that's kinda how I felt about this movie too. Really, I was just hoping that that the movie did well and that the audience was digging it more than I was about how I liked it though because I want more.

Mark Waid, now Grant Morrison. Two superman comic book writers. Ouch.

Batman really shouldn't be in MoS2. Goyer and Snyder should've been worrying about the clean up. Don't think we get one now.

Ok not a lot of people are gonna like what i will say but i will say it and its true, its good to like Superman's idealism but i am sorry ,has much has i like superman's idealism i also have to be realistic and not border on utopia thinking which IMO a lot of writers always try pulling that crap on Superman. Grant Morrison said why to people want batman to kill joker well because he keeps repeating the process of killing other innocent people over and over and over again. Wait a minute Grant didn't you make batman slit some dudes throat in Arkham Asylum House on Serious Earth -_- yeahhhhh so why did you bring up people wanting batman to kill joker ( story is canon by the way and no batman fan in 1989 didn't lose there crap over it in fact )

Has i was saying to me this moral idea of Superheros shouldn't kill ever not even superman really really bothers me and this idea that if a hero kills he is somehow tainted to me this type of thinking disrespects are officers and solders from all around who always have to make such moral choices like this every time in duty. So has a Superman fan yes i think it is kinda BS that Superman and Batman should not ever take a life, however noble it maybe. So they are going to risk the lives of other due to there own Self Righteousness ( has the Joker told batman in the Dark Knight you will let me live cause out of your own warped idea of Self Righteousness)

Killing is wrong but sometimes you have to do what is necessary.Has i said countless times this is only a issue because Zod LOOKS HUMAN!!!!!!! If this was Darkseid we wouldn't have this conversation thus there is some hypocritical BS going here IMO i am glad that this film brought to light something that is a issue in the comic book circles of hero's killing and such. Superman is about him guiding mankind to the light not forcing them to the light. Humans should make there own better place superman is just a helping hand to humankind. I am sorry but WW at least does what is necessary yes she at times comes off has self righteous but she doesn't let it cloud her judgment on taking a villain out if she sees that villain wont stop hes going. This is just how i feel if Superman and Batman think holding there own self righteous attitude makes them better then there villains i am sorry there just like there villains there enabling them to start chaos and kill innocents i am i not correct. Seems to me Superman is willing to do what is necessary when its Darkseid and Brainaic so for some reason those villains are fine if Superman offs them but Zod its a problem O_o i don't get that crap. When did Zod become more popular then those two?

Again. I think people have their panties in a bunch about Superman killing Zod because of how it was done. Not that he actually killed him.

Having someone in a headlock and snapping their neck is a very personal way of killing someone and it doesn't sit right with people.

Not saving a bad guy that is about to die? No problem. Implying death by cutting off screen? No problem. Making some stupid plot device to otherwise allow the hero to not kill them? No problem!

Snyder and Goyer were probably more brave about not only having Superman kill Zod, but doing it in a way that felt personal. Which makes you feel irked. And it should. Killing someone is not suppose to be a good thing, but quite frankly it has to be done sometimes. I know this is a cliche excuse, but if you could go back in time and kill a mass murder (Hitler is a common example) are you telling me you wouldn't, even knowing that person would go on to kill other human beings in the dozens, or perhaps hundreds and thousands? If you couldn't do that, you'd be a coward. Snyder and Goyer weren't cowards with that scene.

But like I said, the difference is because how Zod is killed. Pepper kills the Mandarin with a grenade and an iron man blaster and no one cared about that. Tony and Rhody leave Whiplash to die off screen via a big explosion, in Iron Man 2 - no one cares. Captain America was seen carrying a gun and shooting at Hydra Nazi's and no ones cares. In Spiderman 3 Spidey throws weird looking grenades at several people (including Harry!) and death is implied for Sandman and Venom - no one cares. Batman leaves Ras al'ghul (prolly spelled that wrong) to die on the train in Batman Begins - I don't remember a big uproar about that.

Why? Because again imo. The scene in Man of Steel is a very personal death. It was a pretty brave thing to show it that way. Its not suppose to be something you celebrate about. Its suppose to be something you understand had to happen.

I don't think Snyder and Goyer ruined Superman. Characters can and will change, not only for the purposes of movie adaptions, but also in comics and as time progresses and society changes. The isn't the first time Superman has killed under difficult circumstances, be it in movie, TV, comic books, or probably even cartoons. I doubt it will be the last time either. Its not something he wants to do unless absolutely necessary, but sometimes it is absolutely necessary. And usually those moments tend to be key moments in the characters history, personality, ideals and growth.

@ultrastarkiller: Ya probably

Aslo I totally agree with Morrison he's a G

im pretty sure killing in self defense of others is perfectly legal, especially if you're protecting others from super heat beams of death. also im not sure if our laws apply to aliens

But it's a young inexperienced superman so it's OK that he killed! Or so some people say....

@lvenger said:

Keeping in mind he actually sabotaged the train Ra's was on, ensuring Ra's wouldn't be able to get off the train, it should actually be considered murder.

I respect Grant Morrison's opinions. But quite frankly if I'm in Kal-El's shoes I snap his neck too. It's him or the entire human race. Batman made the same choice when he used the radion gun on Darksied. Don't hear too much talk about that. Killing may not be a choice we're faced with every day, but its the tough choices we make in life that shape us. For Kal-El, that was the hardest choice. And he'll grow from it, and ensure that choice need never be made again.

The number of people who are fine with that scene is quite disheartening really. It betrays a lack of understanding about who Superman really is and that he always finds another way.

You took this words right out of my mouth. Couldn’t put them any better. Thanks, man.

The latest "Super Cafe" video also includes a very insightful criticism of Man of Steel that encapsulates my concern with it: It was not inspiring.

Again, not that I didn't like it, but this is why it didn't feel like a Superman film to me and I'm more looking forward to the next film.

Also, I just find the Super Cafe stuff entertaining.

Well, what is the end result of decency if not Utopia?

Your write. Superheroes killing doesn't make them not heroes. It just doesn't make them SUPER heroes. I also wouldn't call policemen and soldiers "heroes." That they don't perform heroic actions or duties necessary for society to function, just that I wouldn't call them, "heroes" (especially not the latter ones). I'd call them more public functionaries, like the trash-man or the dudes who have to repair the highway when it gets damaged.

Oh my god. The video is fantastic. I didn't even know there were seperate super cafe videos, I thought they were just as the end of HISHE video.

In 2 minutes, they get so much right as to the cores of both characters and encapsulate all the nerdiness of the arguments we have on these forums. It's also the best and most respectful parody of batman I've seen for a while.

Thank you for posting it :)

Also, the gripe you have is also my biggest gripe with the movie. Far more so than the killing.

Superman is pretty hard to make inspirational, that satisfy the general audience. Superman is already powerful, have good looks and he stiil have his mom. The movie choosed to focus on him being not from this World, feeling alienated by nearly everyone, an outsider, an immigrant. If he were to inspire the mass by doing a good deed, they would probably try make him end famine, or a find a cure for cancer, or stop global Warming, than saving a guy from a Cliff. Stopping an alien invasion was probably closest to a global threat that might fit better with Supermans lore. Which also gives opportunity to show of his superpowers more than solving HIV epidemic. Even though i kinda actually want to see that...

@superend said:

@fodigg said:

The latest "Super Cafe" video also includes a very insightful criticism of Man of Steel that encapsulates my concern with it: It was not inspiring.

Loading Video...

Again, not that I didn't like it, but this is why it didn't feel like a Superman film to me and I'm more looking forward to the next film.

Also, I just find the Super Cafe stuff entertaining.

Superman is pretty hard to make inspirational, that satisfy the general audience. Superman is already powerful, have good looks and he stiil have his mom. The movie choosed to focus on him being not from this World, feeling alienated by nearly everyone, an outsider, an immigrant. If he were to inspire the mass by doing a good deed, they would probably try make him end famine, or a find a cure for cancer, or stop global Warming, than saving a guy from a Cliff. Stopping an alien invasion was probably closest to a global threat that might fit better with Supermans lore. Which also gives opportunity to show of his superpowers more than solving HIV epidemic. Even though i kinda actually want to see that...

I think showing him struggling yet always making the right choices is inspiration. Seeing idealism pay off is inspirational. Seeing him submit to harsh reality and having to dirty his hands? Not so much.

@fodigg: As I said, having him be inpirational to the general audience, not just comic book fans.

His idealism isnt something that catches on, when people first see Superman. Also his Idealism had been changed over the years, much like his powers, costume and personality even his religion at one point. Though imo killing Zod was probably the most horrible thing he could do to himself, which shows us that he would always choose humanities safety, even if it Means doing Things he doesnt want to do, making that act a selfish thing, a self sacrifice. Though if you dont agree with that, I wont try to change your opinion on that matter. In the end, we have our own personal Superman to look up to and adore. Man of Steel might have made someone their Superman, in a way that Richard Donners Superman films have made people their Superman, and they will both be right.

Oh I disagree. I think you look at the positive response to the inspirational messages of the Marvel films proves there's a following out there for that type of superhero still. They don't have to be darker and grittier. In fact, it's almost braver to play their idealism straight these days.

@fodigg: What inspirational message does the marvel movies have (Im guessing, its the cinematic universe you are refering, right?). Nobody i have talk with weither in person or in the forums have ever mentioned the inspirational part of these movies. They talked more about the action and the funny moments, rather than have a philosophy debate about it. You are right that Superman doesnt need to be darker and grittier, but he can be, if people are willing to write him as such. You can look at Adam's West Batman and at the current Batman as an example, he doesnt need to be like that, he could might aswell stick to the old Adam West Batman persona. And when he was introduced people either liked the new Batman or hated him, but what can they do, either you gain some fans or you dont.

I think they're pretty consistently idealistic. Iron Man turning against weapons manufacturing to save the day and even sacrificing his own arsenal in the latest film to show that he doesn't need it to make a difference. The coming together of heroes to save the day in Avengers with the emphasis on being willing to sacrifice yourself, not being willing to kill. The Captain America film kind of doesn't need explanation.

Even outside of the Marvel Cinematic stuff though, the X-Films while grittier at times were still about unity and believing in hope for a better future without bigotry. The Fantastic Four films were positively campy. Spider-Man is the extreme idealist. Even the Ghost Rider films were pretty upbeat.

We could argue (without any actual data) if that's why people liked those films (the ones people liked), but I think it's simply notable that they were idealistic and a good portion of them were liked. And as for philosophical debates, why ignore the outrage over Superman killing someone? (or the lesser debate that surrounded the ending to Batman Begins?) That's a clear indication people care.

It's not that wishy-washy even for the companies with a stake in this. They care about what will sell. I get that there's a market out there for killer superheroes, but I think there are better properties to cash in on that with. To try and twist Superman around to fit that mold just seems like a waste.

@fodigg: Well Supers wont become an anti hero in the sequel, after he had killed Zod, he remained uncorruptable, unlike other media of Superman which made him the easiest person to become evil.

So he wont be a killer Superhero, according to Goyer and Snyder. As it was, according to them, the origin of his no kill policy.

People seem to like this Superman, and some even called it the best Superhero movie, even those who are a fan of him in the 50's. So it has effected them, and have gain some new fans along the way. So weither you are a fan of Golden age, John Byrne era, Donnor's Superman or TAS or even MoS they have all right to be called Superman. Even if it isnt yours or my Superman, it might be someone elses Superman.

Off-topic did Frank Miller say that he wanted the Golden age Superman back, or was that a rumor?

Ha, to think one day we will look back on these MoS debates and laughs. Or not.

I agree with every point you made in your last post. However, I felt that I should point this part out because, without some SERIOUS tampering with people's minds (IE, neural resocialization) and some SERIOUS rewriting of the definition of humanity, good and bad, and some SERIOUS amount of force from some form of dictatorship, that's probably the most idealistic and unlikely thing in there and something I'm not sure SHOULD happen to as great a degree as they want.

I pointed this out to support your point of how idealistic it is, Fodigg.

I think it probably would be. Grant isn't one to really hold back his opinion, and the level headed delivery here sounded pretty authentic for him. Then again, I could just be pandering because I completely agree with everything he said.

THIS. MORRISON IS AWESOME!

Good to hear. Hopefully the next film will feel more like a Superman flick to me.

/fistbump

But yeah, it's an unfortunate fact that hope for a better future—just in general on some of the most basic levels—is considered incredibly idealistic.

At the end of the day I still stand by the notion that no Superman movie will ever live up to anyone expectations. He's almost too big, too iconic and too attached to people's hearts that any real rendition of him is never going to live up to expectations. And because the movies will always fail in that regard people will hate on it more.

For example. Rottan Tomatoes (not that I consider them the end-all-be-all movie critic) gave Man of Steel 56% and Pacific Rim 71%. I mean really? ...Just really? I enjoyed watching Jaegers smash Kaiju as much as the next guy, but thats literally the only positive about Pacific Rim and its gets 71%. Man of Steel isn't perfect, but 56% is silly.

I agree 100% with what he said. My thought exactly. Bravo! Mr. Morrison. Bravo!

@fodigg: But Superman did have his ideals straight. He has mostly these two in the comics, to not kill and to protect humanity. And in the those comics, Superman was willing to sacrifice Lois, to make sure he had a kill ratio of 0. Insense he value the life of a phycopath, and himself higher, than Lois, or any other innocent lives. In Man of Steel he did the opposite, he chosed the family's lives and the rest of the humanity instead.

Possibly, but he also might be nice about the movie because he likes Superman.

BB

The story was about the idealist being broken down by harsh reality. He was forced to compromise his ideals instead of finding another way. Worse, it felt contrived because he apparently had the strength to snap Zod's neck but not the strength to turn his head away. Or, you know, step in front of it. Or anything else. He's Superman.

^This.

@superend said:

@fodigg said:

The latest "Super Cafe" video also includes a very insightful criticism of Man of Steel that encapsulates my concern with it: It was not inspiring.

Loading Video...

Again, not that I didn't like it, but this is why it didn't feel like a Superman film to me and I'm more looking forward to the next film.

Also, I just find the Super Cafe stuff entertaining.

Superman is pretty hard to make inspirational, that satisfy the general audience. Superman is already powerful, have good looks and he stiil have his mom. The movie choosed to focus on him being not from this World, feeling alienated by nearly everyone, an outsider, an immigrant. If he were to inspire the mass by doing a good deed, they would probably try make him end famine, or a find a cure for cancer, or stop global Warming, than saving a guy from a Cliff. Stopping an alien invasion was probably closest to a global threat that might fit better with Supermans lore. Which also gives opportunity to show of his superpowers more than solving HIV epidemic. Even though i kinda actually want to see that...

Why the hell should people think this movie was going to be inspiring? Seriously? Batman Begins wasn't inspiring either.

@sandman_: Superman is an inspiring character mate. I certainly wanted to be inspired by this film.

Interesting. Always wondered what he thought.