Man of Steel. Nolan Superman Reboot.

@Tusk - Oh yes, limb injuries are much common because most circumstances don't allow neck twisting anyway, even in fields like MMA.

Anyhow, you are holding someone by neck, and if you let go just for a sec a whole lot of people are gonna got incinerated. Besides, this person has proven himself to be absolutely incapable of persuasion, while capable of and very much willing to kill everyone.

I can't see any reason why the neck snap was wrongful.

Now, the writing placing him in the situation that didn't allow anything other than that, yeah, that certainly is worthy of criticism.

edited 20th Nov '15 1:37:07 PM by dRoy

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

Everything is artificially crafted by a writer, you get into the whole "The story put him in a position where that was the only choice" argument and you're picking apart ALL stories.

Superman The Movie had Lois' car get submerged by the faultline, it's the writers fault. Tony Stark happened to land over top the Stark Building arc reactor just so he could use it to finish off Stane, it was contrived by a writer. Ultron creates a floating island from a city and Fury happens to have the helicarrier fully prepared with civilian evacuation transports, only a writer would have been ready for that.

All that really matters is where the story goes. Superman being forced to kill Zod is not a pleasant thought (except for those who WANT Superman to become The Punisher). But if you're going to go that question, how else would it play out?

In most other Superman stories (or others with a Thou Shalt Not Kill rule) there would be a convenient loophole to escape the morality associated with keeping a murderer from harming anyone else. Man of Steel already used that in the Phantom Zone vortex taking care of the Black Zero and every other Kryptonian. But now Man of Steel offered the question, "What if you didn't have a convenient solution?" Superman was actually on the ropes for the majority of his fight with Zod and it seems the only reason he only got the upper hand was by being more familiar with flying (he's not exactly doing a running commentary of the fight like Tony Stark does). Zod even stated there was only one solution, and any attempts at finding a creative escape from the problem would only result in more destruction and death. The end message is that whatever happens, Superman is accountable.

That's a very mature story to tell. I was never hoping Superman would kill someone, but I am interested in how this plays out.

Hmm...never thought about it like that. Not quite sure if I agree or not, but definitely a new perspective.

At least, for me. I didn't watch the movie nor get myself involved with the discussions until fairly recently.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

Well, here's the thing: that's not a question I want answered, especially not in the very first film in a franchise.

But it happened anyway. Okay, fine, I don't like it, but even not liking the concept, I could still like the execution (no pun intended). Except, man, they botched that, too. For one thing, Superman doesn't actually show any regard for the lives lost in the movie - aside from the couple at the end and, perhaps, one person in the many, many battles, we don't see him try to actually save anyone aside from Lois. He crashes into buildings and he throws Zod into buildings, but he never actually tries to get people out of the way.

Another thing is that there is just so much fighting and so much death that when Superman kills Zod, it seems like he did it just because it was the end of the fight. Because, seriously, it was fight after fight after fight and by the time of the necksnap, I think most of the audience just wanted it to be over. Add into that the fact that the fights were often hard to understand — is Superman throwing Zod or Zod throwing Superman? — and you get an ending that seems both tired and also come out of nowhere. "Well, now that you are threatening these two random people, I have to kill you, unlike all those other times when you killed people."

edited 20th Nov '15 2:04:18 PM by alliterator

"All that really matters is where the story goes. Superman being forced to kill Zod is not a pleasant thought (except for those who WANT Superman to become The Punisher). But if you're going to go that question, how else would it play out?"

No it is not where the story goes. It's where the character drives insert story ahead, which did not happen under Zack Synder's wing. If you let your protagonist go along with whatever the plot wanted then they would have no agency of their own. Que not a 3D character -___-'. Que not someone worth investing in. Que no reason to trust them. They have a faux existence, doing whatever the events around them say. Now it's okay to have a puppet, but in Man of Steel's context we needed someone with more UMF. You just can't assume the audience would care about Superman breaking someone's neck without the dramatization and hard work to earn it, immediately following up with a reflection. If it was meant to be tragic then Man of Steel's director should have done more than make Superman release a narm squall. Such an important moment. Oh woe Superman... boo, hoo, hoo.

Let's look at Final Fantasy Crisis Core. It came out years after Final Fantasy 7, yet I didn't use my preexisting knowledge of Cloud Strife to fill in any blanks of his relationship to Zack. When Zack got gun down I felt sad because they had a bond that wasn't just there. It had a purpose. There was an emotional beat behind it.

When Superman kills Zod, all previous scenes told me nothing about his connection to the sanctity of life. Why is death so hard when he had no problem disposing his entire species (codex)? When he was little he said he wanted to hit the bully to feel better and once Zod shows up guess what is his action? What really drove him to waffle over his own violence? And it only happened at that moment.

Meanwhile, Zod's motivation was murky and inconsistent to match what the plot wanted for him. A savoir, a vengeance seeker, a loner, a genetically predisposed fascist... pick one.

The best way to establish ethos is through the characters you create. A society is characterized by the inhabitants living in said society. Man of Steel took shortcuts to make me care about those who live in its universe. The result did more harm than good.

You just can't have things on the scene. Those are events, which need to impact characters. Man of Steel had a low impact. Things just occur and a lot are because the source material says so. Don't assume the audience automatically cares this Superman can break Zod's neck. As the person in charge, Zack needed to give us a reason. Being Superman and having Superman related stuff isn't enough. This is why some people think Zod's death was done for the edgy factor, so the film could be different from the idealistic heroism associated with his comic counterpart.

Unless Zack wanted us to fill in the gaps. I don't know what purpose the technique has here.

edited 20th Nov '15 2:47:01 PM by xbimpy

I feel as though the reverse is true in this case, which is a problem: not even strictly related to this specific issue, imo one of the main issues Man Of Steel had was that the characters were often driven in directions by the plot rather than the plot developing organically from the characters' actions - many of the characters lack personality as a result (especially Clark).

Zod's death is one of those times (in particular, how suddenly and egregiously the situation is stacked in that direction), but certainly isn't the only time it happens. Where the writers want the plot to go and the message they're trying to get out clearly drives the movie more than the characters themselves, and the film suffers as a whole because of it.

edited 20th Nov '15 2:19:50 PM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

It's a problem with most stories, once the villain has their plot in motion all the heroes can do is react to the problem. We have a trope for it, Villains Act, Heroes React.

Man of Steel had plenty of structural problems, but my interpretation of events is just as valid as anything else. What other purpose would having a big fight with Zod at the end serve other than to make sure Superman feels something? If the climax of the film was the Phantom Zone vortex with Zod included and nothing else was changed, would that have been satisfactory? Would Superman fall to his knees and scream in agony because of the destruction and death? Would it have any impact or would it just be A Million Is a Statistic?

I honestly feel the filmmakers chose the stronger ending, even if they didn't do it properly. Especially since going forward with any sequels, Superman will still not be able to save everyone in the battles to come. That won't change, but he can change his approach.

Of course he should change his approach. It was just as violent as his opponent lol. Is he gonna keep on ramming head first into everything like an angered Hulk? He's partly responsible for property damage. At least Batman VS Superman tackles that angle or seems to try

edited 21st Nov '15 2:28:28 PM by xbimpy

That's the thing: something else would have changed. I'm not saying "Oh, send him to the Phantom Zone and that's it." I'm saying that there are structural problems, including the overabundance of fight scenes.

Once you get rid of the overabundance of fight scenes, you can actually get to real character development and then when Superman sends Zod back to the Phantom Zone, it can be actually poignant and sad.

Speaking of pacing out fight scenes... imagine if Tarantino were given a Superman movie to make?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Probably not that good. That monologue takes for granted things that haven't been relevant since the Silver Age - though I suppose not getting past that and basing the writing more on the idea of Superman than on the character himself is a problem all of the films have in one way or another.

The idea that "Clark is a goofy act, Kal-El is the man" was tossed out ages ago, for good reason (it doesn't make for good characterization unless the writer is very good at their job). They might have brought it back in the Nu52 (I don't really know), but even Man Of Steel (which imo didn't do a great job with Clark's personality) has it more that neither Clark nor Kal-El is real or an act, but that he's more of a drifter unsure of his identity.

edited 23rd Nov '15 1:53:27 AM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

I don't know exactly what it is, but this scene is one of the most memorable scenes in any superhero film for me. The music and the acting, especially from Michael Shannon, just brings out so much pathos from me. That begging voice...just damn.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

The actors are great, but they're working with shit material.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Eh, I don't think the movie was that bad.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

My view is retroactively colored by BVS. And SS.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

My view is colored by Man of Steel, so there's that.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

It must be pretty grey and drab, then.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

-shrugs- Being dull and drab doesn't automatically mean bad. Just different.

edited 16th Mar '17 11:28:24 PM by dRoy

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

Not that it's much use when colors are so dark and desaturated. One might be better off with a Black & Chrome coloring.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

And it could be desaturated. Or black and white. I've seen plenty of colorful movie that's still bad anyway.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

True, I guess it's all about how you lose color. For instance, Marvel movies mostly have a very boring and unremarkable palette because they never really highlight their shadows. Except for Guardians Of The Galaxy, which as a result has colors that pop and a truly memorable look and feel.

In MOS, color (or the lack thereof) was used to say "EVERYTHING IS SAD AND GRAY AND DREARY AND AWFUL!" Combined with the pompous, humorless, yet ultimately insubstantial script, the result was less than it could have been.

What I want from a Superman story is to feel uplifted, proud, noble, optimistic, bright. Like so:

Instead it's the Doomed Moral Victor Martyr Messianic Archetype over and over again. "BEING A HERO MEANS GIVING EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO UNGRATEFUL PRICKS WHO MAYBE WILL MAKE A STATUE OF YOU" seems to be the mood in so many Superhero movies. It's almost Randian.

edited 17th Mar '17 1:05:45 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

When exactly did looking like a Crayola set become a vital component of film qualitiy ?

I dunno, when did anyone ever suggest that?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I'd say Man of Steel and the DCEU in general present a different kind of optimism, one rarely seen in superhero films. Typically, there are a lot of sacred cows about how superheroes should act, which by necessity restrict the challenges they can face, at least without a ton of convenient contrivances to avoid an actual conflict. Consequently, the result is not so much optimistic, as blatantly sugarcoated.

Instead, the DCEU so far has presented heroes with challenges as great to them as those in real life are to ordinary people. And this requires sacrifices - not just the typical martyrdom, but an actual compromise between ideal principles and practical necessities. Optimism here stems not from never having to make difficult decisions, but from not losing one's humanity afterward - a notion that I find quite welcome in an age of either unblemished capes or utterly amoral anti-heroes.

The hysterical whining over this movie having scenes take place under an overcast sky seems to suggest so.

I've also seen complaints about the new Power Rangers movie not being bright enough. Because apparently movies shouldn't have diffferent lighting based on whether the scene is in the sun or in a dark room.