DC Extended Universe

For that I just note that he took no pleasure in the moment, and in fact screamed in agony afterwards. The movie does become a bit more upbeat in its closing moments, but it is far from goofy and flippant. One line I liked from the '09 Star Trek film was (roughly) "If you think crew moral would be best served by my roaming the halls wallowing in misery, I will gladly consider it."

What do you expect? Clark sitting in a room in a 5 minute scene trying to convince himself he is okay with killing Zod? The government putting him on trial for killing a genocidal alien warlord?

That's hyperbole: that isn't close to only way such a thing could be expressed in a plot.

edited 19th Mar '15 2:35:47 PM by KnownUnknown

Maybe him receiving a letter/email to join an online support group for cops who had to kill someone else in self defense(there was a Lois and Clark fanfic with that as a conclusion to a story about the aftermath of one of the episodes)? Or something to show him dealing with it and not just going: OHNO!IHADTOKILLHIM... off I go to work today! Mood Whiplash?

Well certainly there are other ways of handling it, but moving on with your life after a trauma is an established (and often recommended) way of dealing with it. The movie had to establish a new status quo by showing how the world has changed, which is done through the three follow-up scenes: talking with the General about his potential threat to the United States, talking to his mom about finding a new path in life and showing up at the Daily Planet.

Clark's journey through the movie is not solely about whether or not to kill enemies, but the responsibility he holds with the power he has. Considering the destruction that had just occurred, killing Zod is a personal trial that he may never overcome and the big question is what he does now.

edited 19th Mar '15 4:21:14 PM by KJMackley

I was thinking more about the crater in the center of Metropolis. The destruction wreaked by their battle is seemingly ignored, and even thought the Daily Planet was near the giant laser of death from Zod's ship, it seems to be fine. Something where the characters muse about the rebuilding efforts and about having to find hope again in the midst of the chaos following would have been far more meaningful, in my opinion, than talking about kid Clark in a cape and about it was supposedly caused by his "Kryptonian heritage".

What are the themes the movie set up at the start of the movie? Superman having to make a decision to either hide his abilities or to help people, and the fear that humanity won't accept him (along with a lot of other minor ones, but let's stick to the big ones). Well, the decision if Superman will help people or not is already made when the issue is brought up because the scene when he rescues the people on the oil rig as an adult happens before the big talk with Pa Kent. And the scene with the tornado is even more useless because we already know that he will help people, we already know that he might not use his abilities openly but will ready sneak around and spear trucks. So, great, Pa Kent died for nothing. And that is depressing, big time. The question of humanity will accept him or not is never an issue because the first contact contains of "give us this one guy and we wont destroy the earth" and Superman saying "yup, I'm the dude, and I am ready to do this". The army would have send him on the alien ship no matter what he is or isn't. And after that...well, I guess the military accepts him, but all those people on the street, you know, the real public? They only see a random dude who fights another random dude. Superman means nothing for them, neither as alien nor as hero. Again, depressing. I really feel for those people who lost everything because some random aliens decided to use their home as a battle ground. You know which theme was NOT set up in the movie? If Superman should kill or not. At no point the issue is addressed. But I am supposed to believe that this is this big event which cuts him to the b....oh, never mind, he is already kissing Lois and everything is okay again. I mean, there are only ruins and a lot of rubble but everyone is so cheerful. So I should be cheerful, too....or not. Nothing is resolved, nothing really gets addressed and I am left with a feeling of hollowness.

So I stand by my opinion that this is a really depressing movie.

To me the problem was that Man of Steel thought it had a happy ending when Fridge Horror turned it into a somber one. There's high triumphant sounding music, Sup's is joining the Daily Planet, his mom is telling him how proud she is and how he was destined for this, and meanwhile the viewer is wondering about the death toll of Metropolis and if snapping necks is going to be Sup's new modus operandi.

Is it really that worse than The Avengers ending with triumphant sounding music, Tony Stark planning for the future, and all that, while we're wondering about the death toll of New York, the team is splitting, the shady forces behind SHIELD are still out there (and we know how things turn out for SHIELD afterwards, even if that isn't this movie's own fault), the public opinion on the heroes is mixed, and we're teased to a cosmic genocidal madman smirking about the challenge the human species poses?

edited 19th Mar '15 6:48:43 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

The Avengers battle had a far smaller death toll, more contained damage, heroes with better control of their powers, and visible reactions by the wider world about the Avengers, with some suspicion but mostly positive. And it didn't have triumphant music playing over Thanos's reveal.

The clearest comparison of this is the fate of the Daily Planet vs. Stark Tower. The Daily Planet? Perfectly fine, operating and undamaged, even though it didn't look more than a few blocks away from the death zone. Stark Tower? Visible damage all over it, yet there's also rebuilding in progress and a visual promise that something new and good will be made out of it.

edited 19th Mar '15 7:14:40 PM by Tuckerscreator

I'm hoping Dawn of Justice will remedy the confused tone of Mo S by having Batman give supes a What the Hell, Hero? or better yet Batman pulls some of his own signature Grimdark crap and Clark has a moment of self-realization, discovering that he most definitely does not want to be the type of hero Batman is, and strives to be more approachable and come to terms with the confident, uplifting identity he should have.

I don't mind a broody moment or scene - but I don't care for a whole movie about it. Man of Steel generally felt more about Clark discovering his Kryptonian identity rather than establishing his human one - if that makes sense. To me, Superman is all about being a godlike figure brought down to humanity's level and someone who strives to embody the best of it - but Man of Steel homed in on the bad side of it a lot - which is fine. Yes, the realistic solution for Zod was something as mundane and crude as snapping the guy's neck; that's actually a great, humanizing message. But I don't feel there was an idealistic contrast to it anywhere in the movie that had the same weight.

The remembrance wall confirms that there was a high death toll though, and an outright battle in Manhattan should definitely have a high civilian bodycount. And it doesn't matter if there wasn't "triumphant music", Avengers still ended with goddamn Thanos sneering at humanity.

And enough with Superman breaking Zod's neck. Not only did it show that he was horrified, but he had to do it. The Phantom Zone is sealed off (presumably for good now) and there is no prison in the world that can hold Zod. Even if Superman covered his eyes to stop the heat vision or flew off with him through the roof, Zod himself said that it would not stop until one of them was dead. ENOUGH WITH THE NECK SNAPPING DEBATE.

Here's the thing. A lot of people think that it ''doesn't matter' it "had to be done". That's not how Superman rolls. He's The Cape, the ultimate symbol of idealism. Superman's purpose is to find a way to do it without killing. It doesn't matter if it's impossible, Superman the hopeless idealistic, would have found a way.

Okay, you come up with another way to stop Zod in that scenario for more than two minutes in a way that wouldn't strike the audience as to have been pulled directly out of someone's ass, then.

Even though he was being forced a no-win scenario?

Of course, the writers didn't have to force him into a no-win scenario in the first place, but then, it's very easy to write a morally upright-no-matter-what character when you are conveniently placing him inside of morality safety zones all the way through.

edited 19th Mar '15 8:05:00 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

I'd rather write the climax such that its not be a scene specifically constructed so that the hero isn't boxed into such an action. If anything, that sort of thing really ought to have been saved for later, not a first movie kind of climax - after Superman is, then have him be forced to kill someone like Darkseid as a major moment of crisis (though I personally don't think Goyer wrote Man Of Steel to be open to sequels or a greater universe or anything, even if that's what DC wanted).

Either way, that's the main thing I found conspicuous about the scene: it was very specifically contrived so that Superman would have no other options, and in the end it doesn't feel organic but rather forced. They could've at least given the moment some foreshadowing if they expected it to have actual weight.

I honestly don't mind the scene, at least not in comparison to the rest of the movie, if only because this version of Superman wasn't really established to have any problems with killing in the first place (or the extent of his powers in general, really), but as it is, the actual kill came somewhat out of nowhere after a huge fight where such stalemates didn't seem to matter to either opponent - it's one of those rare moments where it's really obvious that events were stopped so they could be constructed by a writer, so as to make things happen as desired (which fits with the rest of the movie, which was often more concerned with the plot happening or the symbolism being delivered than it was with having its characters being adequately developed).

edited 19th Mar '15 8:13:02 PM by KnownUnknown

He could have turned Zod's head so he was facing down and not at the civilians. Choked him until he passed out. Broken his limbs instead so he'd have a harder time trying to harm people. Exiled him to that spot in India where the new Kryptonian atmosphere would have depowered him.

Frankly, though, my problem with that scenario is not that Superman had to kill him. It's that he didn't do it sooner. What was Sup expecting to do the whole fight? Did he think he'd punch Zod for long enough that the bad guy would just give up and fly away?

edited 19th Mar '15 8:23:36 PM by Tuckerscreator

I still don't get the complaints about him killing Zod. I thought it was fairly obvious that they were going to make that the reason he adopts his Thou Shalt Not Kill code.

Superman probably figured if he punched him enough he'd eventually knock him out and have time to devise a more permanent solution. It might have worked if Zod hadn't forced his hand.

edited 19th Mar '15 8:13:53 PM by Kostya

That's honestly what bothered me the most about it. It's why I feel obligated to hate Man of Steel, and why I have little faith in DC's Cinematic Universe when all of their big projects are in Snyder's hands.

To me, the idea that Superman's moral code should be rooted in trauma... that the reason why he doesn't kill is because of the agony it caused him to kill Zod... is missing the point. It strikes me as horribly cynical, and only adds to the complaints that his journey is similar to Nolan's Batman. I don't have any faith in a man who thinks that Superman's reservations against killing should be the result of a tragic situation rather than strong moral beliefs and upbringing.

edited 19th Mar '15 8:17:25 PM by Khfan429

It doesn't seem very smart of him to stick to that plan, especially since the last time he tried that with Faora and Nam they took ages go down before their helmets cracked, and Zod doesn't need his helmet any more. And all those tactics I posted above I had thought up just now; they took about two minutes. They weren't that hard of ideas to Sup to imagine and consider.

That too. That's what he's supposed to share with his Marvel counterpart Captain America, who is a decent guy just because he had a moral upbringing and knows the importance of his strength.

edited 19th Mar '15 8:22:54 PM by Tuckerscreator

Cap seems to have a body count to his name though.

And Cap both got his powers so he could fight in a war, and doesn't have godlike strength.

The ease with which Superman could take a life is part of why it's so powerful that, barring emergency situations, he doesn't kill.

And when Superman's first big confrontation in this attempted universe ends with him killing, before that code even exists, it ultimately rings hollow and pointless.

And his fight with Zod wasn't an emergency situation?

One instance of a character killing isn't immediately comparable to every single other, even with that same character - there's a lot that needs to take into account, including characterization both overall and in the given moments, significance to the plot, whether or not the moment works as part of the greater narrative, etc.

edited 19th Mar '15 8:37:32 PM by KnownUnknown

I refer you to the second part of what I said.

The meaningfulness of Superman suspending his moral code is lost if there is no moral code. If it's the first major thing he does as Superman, any attempt to establish a set of personal rules just feels pointless. Because he's not doing it because he thinks it's wrong, that it isn't his place. He's doing it because it makes him feel personally bad, and that's much less powerful.

edited 19th Mar '15 8:37:01 PM by Khfan429

Oh God, more on the "Superman killed Zod" stuff? Still? You'd think we'd have found something else to argue about online.

@Gaon

"That's not how Superman rolls. He's The Cape, the ultimate symbol of idealism. Superman's purpose is to find a way to do it without killing. It doesn't matter if it's impossible, Superman the hopeless idealistic, would have found a way."

Wrong. Superman killed Doomsday. Superman regularly tries to kill Darkseid. Superman kills Brainiac on a regular basis and no, "it's a robot" is not a defense, because it's still sentient, sapient, and all that good stuff. Superman confined Mongul I to a fate worse than death by letting the Black Mercy remain attached to him Hell, Superman flat out executed an alternate universe Zod using Kryptonite when depowering him proved it wouldn't be enough to hold him. Superman regularly uses lethal force against his adversaries. Having him do so in a film is not some grotesque betrayal of his character.

@Tuckerscreator

"He could have turned Zod's head so he was facing down and not at the civilians. Choked him until he passed out. Broken his limbs instead so he'd have a harder time trying to harm people. Exiled him to that spot in India where the new Kryptonian atmosphere would have depowered him."

So you want Superman to play games with the lives of the civilians Zod is currently trying to murder? At that exact moment he has Zod pinned. Any shift, however slight, will give Zod the chance to break free, in which case that family is dead. All your suggestions, about choking him out, or breaking his limbs? All involve movement. All involve the risk of Zod breaking out. But hey, I guess the lives of some redshirts is a small price to pay for the hero maintaining his "moral purity".

"Frankly, though, my problem with that scenario is not that Superman had to kill him. It's that he didn't do it sooner. What was Sup expecting to do the whole fight? Did he think he'd punch Zod for long enough that the bad guy would just give up and fly away?"

I'm sorry, the Hell? Are you under the impression that there's some magic switch Superman could have flipped that would have turned his punches lethal? He's fighting somebody who is as strong and as durable as he is, and who is fighting back just as hard. It's not until the scene at the climax where he has Zod in a position where he can, in fact, kill him.

As for your suggestion that he should do what you said and "break his legs" or something—how do you know he wasn't trying to do exactly that? Ever tried breaking a Kryptonian's leg? Heck, ever tried breaking a regular person's leg? Like it or not, there is no good way to subdue a Kryptonian without bringing out an Achilles Heel like Kryptonite. Heck half your "suggestions" would require that Zod be incredibly cooperative. It's pretty hard to choke someone out when that person elbowing you can send you flying into the next county and can hold their breath for hours. It's pretty hard to break someone's limbs when that person is invulnerable to almost any force you might apply. The first time Superman is in a position to deal an actual for-sure lethal blow is at the end, when Zod goes "fuck it", stops defending himself, and tries to commit Suicide by Cop.

Oh and Captain America? Has regularly tried to kill the Red Skull. Which is fine. When the genocidal super-Nazi is trying to murder you, you defend yourself. And if he ends up dead, that's just too damn bad. Same thing goes for Superman. He was fighting a guy whose explicit goal was the end of all life on Earth, and who could not be disarmed.

@Khfan

"The ease with which Superman could take a life is part of why it's so powerful that, barring emergency situations, he doesn't kill."

Superman can't take Zod's life with ease. It is, by definition, an emergency situation.

edited 19th Mar '15 8:59:16 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar