Man of Steel. Nolan Superman Reboot.

And the possibility of reviving Krypton was really only an option given to him earlier that day, while using his powers carefully and responsibly is something that was ingrained in him from childhood.

Personally I think the film does well having both. We see Kal-El in a difficult moment commit to saying 'Krypton had it's chance!' and we then get to see the fall out for that. A broken orphaned General with nothing to fight or live for.

Ok, I just wanna say that I have no problem with the death scene, I was just saying why some people didn't like it. I obviously pissed, like, everyone off by saying that, and I'm sorry. I'm new to these boards, please go easy on me.

And, by the way, what's wrong with me thinking tat him being forced to kill Zod was a depressing ending? It is a depressing ending. Not bad, just depressing. I don't want to leave a Superman film feeling kinda depressed. Maybe that's what others want, but not me. Sue me, that's just how I feel.

Nothing specific against you, and we shouldn't assume you'll read 90+ pages of a thread from beginning to end, but the topic has been discussed to death. Simply put, there may have been a problem with the exact depiction but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the action itself.

No, nothing fundamentally wrong with the act itself.

And I applaud Snyder and Goyer for that, because a moral high ground that can exist only because it is never challenged is of no value.

What WOULD Superman do in that situation? "It doesn't matter because no writer should put him in that situation to begin with," is a non-answer. It's dancing around the question, and it makes Superman weaker to say that he can only be a hero because he never has to endure hard choices. That's not inspirational; that's luck.

It is not heroic to never face hardship. It is heroic to overcome.

EDIT: I also want to add that putting characters into situations they shouldn't have to deal with are pretty much the bread and butter of superhero storytelling. Comics thrive on the question, "What if?"

What if Spider-Man hosted the Phoenix Force, or fought the Juggernaut? What if Batman had to fight a shapeshifting clay monster, or a super-powered plant woman, or f*cking Darkseid? What if all the mutants - or humans - vanished? What if Superman died?

There's really no defensible argument that can be made of, "Well, the character SHOULDN'T be put in that situation," because the question, "What if Character X had to deal with Situation Y?" is pretty much the driving force of every superhero comic.

edited 15th Jul '14 8:32:34 AM by TobiasDrake

As I said in the Batman V. Superman thread, I don't have a problem with Man of Steel!Supes killing Zod because he never learned Thou Shalt Not Kill in the movie.

^^ What If? is a question that drives nearly all of fiction. Now it's true that there are some stories and scenarios that are not really feasible or too ambitious to be depicted in a satisfactory manner, but I agree exactly with your sentiment. If there is a question that should be asked, there is no reason NOT to ask it.

People have a certain view of who Superman is and who he is supposed to be, but I strongly disagree that this compromises him on a fundamental level. Unlike Batman, whose moral code sometimes seems arbitrary (he trained to have the skills to be a killer, even if he doesn't kill), Superman's entire existence is recognizing how fragile everyone is in comparison to himself. That is not something that just goes away when fighting someone like Zod. Taking his life doesn't mean he will treat it as It Gets Easier but Snyder said specifically that it will become his drive to never take a life ever again. Instead of his moral code being arbitrary, it becomes rooted in personal experience of the grief ^note regardless of how quickly the movie moved on from it.

Exactly!

Frankly, I wish both fans and writers alike would stop treating the act of taking a life as a Gateway Drug to Evil. "Well, you killed someone, now you are obligated to eat babies, rape women, and wear spiky clothing."

That's a view that might be valid for some takes on Batman, who is already on the edge (and even then, both Batmen we have seen in the Modern Age big screen- Burton and Schumacher's flims share a continuity, remember- killed without turning EEEEEEEVIL or even getting tht much flak about it), but not really for Superman, who is usually portrayed as having a much healthier approach to his own mistakes and not repeating them without torturing himself over it.

I disagree that Schumacher's Batman killed without remorse. In Batman Forever, he has that great monologue to Dick where he talks about how once you take a life, it becomes easier to just put the face of that guy over your original pain, and it never goes away. Bruce is obviously talking about his own past adventures, and if you take it to be in canon with the past two movies, it's clear he's drawing specifically on how killing the Joker didn't make his need to be Batman go away. Helps explain how he goes from casually roasting a man to death with the Batmobile's exhaust in the last one to a more pacifistic approach in Forever.

^^ It's perfectly valid, it's just that Superman is such an iconic character everyone has their own interpretation of how he should be portrayed even though there is quite a few different interpretations out there. Depending on the continuity, he can be Knight Templar at times, especially in his later years like in Kingdom Come or The Dark Knight Returns, and others show him as making a lot of juvenile mistakes before he puts on the cape. The first Christopher Reeve movie had him go on a long soul-searching experience after experiencing the inability to save Papa Kent from a heart-attack. A core facet of Superman has always been the contrast that he continues to get more powerful as time goes on but he has his limitations and regrets he can't do more. His inability to find another way to stop Zod is a natural extension of that guilt.

I never said he killed without remorse (well, at least not by the Schumacher era), but that it didn't drive him into complete sociopathy or anything like that.

He was pretty non-remorseful in Returns; he was smiling for a couple of the clowns he killed in that one.

Either way, I will go to my GRAVE defending Forever as a good Bat-Movie.

Oh, Burton's Batman is a HORRIBLE Batman. So's his Alfred. And his Batmobile.

And his everything, to be honest.

hey hey hey hey hey. do not diss the Batmobile.

Pistols at dawn, sir. Let the Gods decide your fate.

Oh, what, the rocket powered limousine that can't make sharp turns? Oh, yeah, that's a useful vehicle to use in a city.

Don't suppose I can choose a champion.

edited 15th Jul '14 10:05:52 PM by SonOfSharknado

You might. But our champion is Batman.

My champion is Captain America.◊

So it ends in a draw and they both abandon us go off to fight crime together? Where does that leave us?

You can have Batman. My champion is a guy with a picture of Bruce's parents in one hand, and a picture of his own perfectly normal and loving family in the other.

GG Batman's psyche.

Sadly, since you never specified, the Batman you get to face is Frank Miller's 'Crazy Steve'

Borrowing from Batman's own strategy for defeating Superman here:

"The best parts of The Dark Knight Rises were the scenes without Batman."

edited 16th Jul '14 7:33:49 AM by TobiasDrake