Man of Steel

[The Laughing Fish]

Superman Legend Dan Jurgens: Man of Steel Handled Zod's Death Better Than The Comics

It's rare that a comic book creator says the movie did it better -- but that's just what happened recently when one of the best-selling Superman writer/artists of all time was asked about Man of Steel's controversial climax.

When fans first started to complain about the death of General Zod in Man of Steel, one of the defenses that writer David S. Goyer came up with was the idea that John Byrne had done something fairly similar during his status quo-shattering run on Superman and Action Comics in the late '80s.

"Superman has killed Zod before," the writer told me at Comic Con International in 2013. "We didn't invent that."

That year, the 75th anniversary of Superman's first appearance took center stage, and fans were eager to ask about the then-new movie and its implications for the cinematic Superman.

"Our advantage was that we had another thirty comics we published that year," former Superman group editor Mike Carlin said at the time, noting that they faced controversy when they did it, as well.

Still, he maintained, fans could much more quickly and easily see that the events of the story had taken a toll on Superman and what that meant for the character and the comic going forward.

Nevertheless, in a new podcast interview, longtime Superman writer/artist Dan Jurgens was asked about the challenges of joining the Superman books shortly after those events took place -- and said he felt Man of Steel did it better.

In Superman #22 by John Byrne, the character was faced with Zod and two of his cohorts, who had extinguished all life in a parallel universe that included a version of Earth. Superman, who had been called in by that world's Supergirl to help, ultimately executed the Kryptonian criminals using Kryptonite (which did not affect him because he was from a different universe and Kryptonite was slightly different -- something that would be used again in Infinite Crisis and other stories dealing with Superboy Prime). The Kryptonians had been previously rendered powerless by gold Kryptonite, and while they threatened -- as Zod did in the movie -- that they would never stop, that they would find a way to travel to Superman's world and kill everyone there as well -- they gave up their bluster and pleaded for mercy when Superman produced the Kryptonite. As you can see in the panel at top, Superman was unmoved, putting them to death for their crimes against humanity.

"It was hugely controversial and I think if the Internet had existed at that time, it would have been that times three," Jurgens told Comicosity. "I always thought that if Superman was going to be put in that position, that it had to be a more immediate threat. It didn't bother me so much, Superman killing the Kryptonians, as it was him being just a stone-cold executioner. If you think of that cover -- there's a green cover and I think it was Superman itself where he's actually wearing the hood like an executioner would wear. That was, to me, the problem. If you wanted to have Superman kill the Kryptonians, I think it had to be a situation where innocent life was in immediate peril and the only way to stop them from taking innocent life was to kill them. At that point, Superman makes the same decision, but he's much more Superman as part of that. And the funny thing is, everybody gets twisted in knots over of that scene in the movie -- yet that's what Superman did. When Superman kills Zod in the movie, it's because there are human beings there who are in immediate danger. The problem with the comic book was, I always thought, not that Superman did it as it was the way he did it, because he was judge, jury and executioner right there. And it was a police officer walking right up to an individual who had dropped his gun, dropped his knife, said 'I surrender,' waved the white flag...and still [blowing] his head off. That's basically what it was."

So...why did Jurgens leave that storyline intact for years during his run on Superman, rather than writing something that would have minimized the perceived damage?

"I think that would have been unfair to the readers," Jurgens argued. "And frankly it would have been unfair to John and to the character himself. It's important to remember, at that time, Superman was experiencing a new height in popularity, more people were reading the book, more people were on board with it, and there were people who liked that story. It wouldn't have been for me to go retcon it. I wouldn't have felt right doing that. I wouldn't have written it the way it was done, but that doesn't mean I thought it was something that should be done away with."

Seemingly agreeing with Carlin's assessment, he said that "the story became the device that was used for him to say 'I will never kill again.' So I think you take that story and then turned it into a greater asset for the character, and agan it was making lemonade out of the lemons and I think it's a story that still serves the character well for what he ended up becoming."

That lemonade? The Exile storyline, one of the most popular stories of that era, in which Superman fled Earth after becoming concerned that he could be a threat to humanity. The ramifications of the storyline continued on and on throughout the post-Crisis on Infinite Earths, pre-Infinite Crisis Superman comics, though, reverberating through stories like Dark Knight Over Metropolis, where Superman gave Batman a Kryptonite ring and asked him to be Earth's failsafe in case Superman should ever become a threat -- and even The Reign of the Supermen!, when a character introduced in Exile was key to resurrecting a then-dead Superman.

Whether anything like that is planned for Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice and other DC Cinematic Universe films is as yet unknown, although filmmakers have stated repeatedly that fallout from Man of Steel would be felt in Batman V Superman in some form.

Source: http://comicbook.com/2015/07/06/superman-legend-dan-jurgens-man-of-steel-handled-zods-death-bett/

Good to see that Dan Jurgens having some sense about the so-called "controversy", unlike bloody Mark Waid and Neal Adams. Man of Steel does have some imperfections that I wished it handled better, but Zod's demise is definitely not one of them. I haven't read that final issue of Superman executing Zod and his cronies. I've only read Bryne's classic mini-series but haven't had the opportunity to read his other Superman comics.

[BatmAngelus]

Nice find, I hadn't heard from Jurgens before. I agree that Man of Steel probably gave us the most believable instance where Superman would kill, in comparison to that comic (which I've read) and both cuts of Superman II, where the villains were already defeated.

That said, my issues with the film weren't so much the destruction or Superman killing Zod, as much as it was that I just didn't care about what was going on onscreen. Before we even got to the Metropolis fight, the action just got repetitive and really bored me. Zod's death gave me more of a "Finally, it's over" feeling than anything else. Maybe my feelings will change with another viewing before BvS.

[The Laughing Fish]

I found a video thesis of Man of Steel from someone who regards it as a masterpiece.

I think the analysis is spot on regarding Clark's faith in humanity is justified, with him confiding his identity to Lois - a woman who keeps it a secret and proves that people can be trusted, and Clark could inspire a bully like Pete Ross to change and become his friend. The military become convinced that Clark is on their side when he didn't retaliate as they were shooting at him during the attacks in Smallville.

The comparison between child birth and Zod's attack on Earth and Metropolis is quite bold, but I have to admit that he is convincing by the way he presents his argument.

The Jesus Christ imagery such as the birth and the cross has been done in past Superman films as well.

But in my opinion, there is a lot of the baptism talk feels that there is a lot of over-analysis going on in this video.

What does anyone else think about this thesis? Thought-provoking, or pretentious rubbish?

[The Dark Knight]

I'll have to give it a watch, TLF.

But generally speaking, I quite like Man of Steel. I think the opening segment on Krypton is fantastic. I really enjoyed watching that on the big screen. We're given a completely different aesthetic for the planet, and it felt fleshed out and fully realised. Gone are any attempts at evoking the past. It's all new from here. Russell Crowe's Jor-El was a revelation. Seeing him flying the lizard, freefalling, swimming and generally kicking ass was so refreshing to me. It was such a promising start and contrast to what we saw with Brando's Jor-El. This felt exciting and contemporary.

I also enjoyed the differences in the origin - being familiar enough but also different. That's precisely what they needed in my opinion. Having Jor-El killed by Zod before the planet explodes. Kal-El's rocket nearly being shot down by the militia shortly after being launched, and Kara's final moments alone without giving her husband a loving embrace. In some ways it made proceedings even more emotional and bleak. Because of this, I nearly fist pumped the air when Kal's rocket raced away from Krypton on it's journey to Earth. He really was their last hope.

Cavill plays the part just fine. I think he's the true replacement for Reeve, mainly because he's not trying to evoke that performance at all. He's doing his own thing, unlike Routh who was forced to have one foot in the past. He's a big guy and believable as a man mountain. Plus, it helps when you're given what I consider the best Superman outift in live action history. There's not really an area Cavill's Superman can be lampooned on.

We do get the neck snap jokes, but I still don't see that as a big problem. Nor do I see an increase in physicality as a negative. After many films without having a proper battle, we were given just that. Batman v Superman is destined to make MoS better by association as well. So called negatives will become main plot points for the characters to debate.

[BatmAngelus]

This thread should be moved to the "Other DC Films and TV" forum.

A history of Snyder's various defenses of the Man of Steel finale:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-brief-history-of-zack-snyder-defending-the-end-of-man-1763888746

[Silver Nemesis]

It's spilled milk now and there's nothing we can do about it, but I still feel the final act of Man of Steel was a horribly ill-judged conclusion to what should have been a triumphant cinematic relaunch for Superman. It ended the whole thing on a needlessly morbid and contentious note that could've been avoided if they'd simply stuck with the original ending from the script. I wouldn't have minded so much if they'd done something similar in a second, darker film. But to have Superman's first movie, the first film of the entire DCEU, end with such an overblown, overlong spectacle of death was a miscalculation IMO. I thought the first half of the film was decent, but that final act really let it down. And the blame has to rest solely with Snyder since he was the one who pushed for the revised ending.

The fact he's been so inconsistent with his justifications suggests one of two things: A) he didn't have a well thought out reason for doing it in the first place, or B) he did have a reason, but it was so flimsy he had to abandon it in search of alternative justifications. Regardless, I still believe his real reason for doing it was crude visceral impact. I think he wanted to shock the audience and draw a line of demarcation between his Superman and the earlier versions, and what better way to do that than by having Superman trash half of Metropolis and snap his enemy's neck? Ultimately it's his take on the character and it's as legitimate as anyone else's. And I get that a lot of people like it, which is fair enough. So I won't say any more on the matter. I just wish they'd handled it with more tact. I'm still hopeful that Batman v Superman will retroactively fix some of its predecessor's problems.

Meanwhile I'd recommend the animated film Superman vs. The Elite (2012) for a more effective exploration of Superman's attitude to killing, even in situations which offer no apparent alternative. Adapted from 'What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way?' (Action Comics Vol 1 #775, May 2001), I felt it succeeded thematically where Man of Steel fell short.

[The Laughing Fish]

A history of Snyder's various defenses of the Man of Steel finale:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-brief-history-of-zack-snyder-defending-the-end-of-man-1763888746

I haven't had the time to read the entire article but the gist I'm getting is that Goyer and Snyder have said conflicting things about how they expected the audiences would react to the ending.

However, the final paragraph here caught my attention.

Which is actually really worrying, because it could indicate that, instead of learning from Man of Steel, he's going to double-down in Batman v Superman. You can't learn from a mistake that you refuse to admit you made.

I bet the imbecile who wrote this article never complained when Superman killed Zod in SII or Batman killing in the Nolan films despite claiming he had a moral code. I guarantee you that she never asked Nolan to explore Batman's failure to maintain his moral code, or condemned him for breaking his rule in the first place...but liked those movies anyway.

If Superman killing Zod was an act of 'murder' (which you have to be a moron to believe that's what was presented in the ending), then apply the same standard to the other films I mentioned.

The pathetic hypocrisy from people like her tells me more about how biased and flawed their mindset is than the ending itself.

[The Dark Knight]

It's funny how the myth of 'Superman trashed half of Metropolis' continues. The opposite is true.

Zod was fully in charge of the fight, constantly threw Supes around and brought down a building via his erratic heat vision. These videos demonstrate it pretty well.

Supes was green and took his first and only chance at ending the fight. It was either neck snap or nothing.

Check these:

[johnnygobbs]

I agree.

Although I found the final Metropolis fight a little tiresome and lacking in fun compared to Superman II's similar battle, I do agree that Superman was not responsible for the mass destruction that took place in Metropolis.  I also believe that Superman's 'no kill' rule applied to humans (i.e. people without superpowers), and in snapping Zod's neck before he blasted the civilian family in the Metropolis train station, he was protecting his adopted planet and its inhabitants from a fellow Kryptonian.  The yell he gave out as he proceeded to snap Zod's neck also demonstrates what a conflicting choice it was for him.

[The Laughing Fish]

The fact he's been so inconsistent with his justifications suggests one of two things: A) he didn't have a well thought out reason for doing it in the first place, or B) he did have a reason, but it was so flimsy he had to abandon it in search of alternative justifications.

Give me a break. Nothing that Snyder said was anywhere near as flimsy as Nolan having Batman break his rule, and then the director himself acknowledged it but played it down at the same time in that screenwriting book.

And if you're going to try and justify that Batman "accidentally" killed Two-Face, and he didn't mean to kill Talia again, don't bother, because you did NOT originally hold this opinion:

but Nolan's take constantly breaks his moral code whenever he finds it convenient (Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, Talia).

I can't argue with that.

Besides the inconsistency in Batman's moral code – and I agree with you, that is a problem – I didn't think the characterisation as a whole was problematic.

As you can see for yourself, you agreed with me that Nolan didn't bother to address this inconsistency when we had a discussion about this in April 2014.

Four months later though, you started twisting things to suit your interpretation and wrote some rather unflattering remarks to me along the way:

Likewise the flaw you're outlining relates to Batman Begins. And the very thing you're accusing Nolan of getting wrong in Batman Begins (and I agree with you on that score) is something he got right in the next two films. But you're calling him out for that too. He can't win. It seems that by making one mistake in Batman Begins, he's ruined all the sequels in your eyes.

For every fault I could identify in Batman Returns, or The Dark Knight Returns, or Denny O'Neil's run in the seventies, I could list ten good things. And I could do the same for Nolan's films. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them, since you're locked into a mindset that says his films are worthless and have no redeeming qualities at all. But if you evaluated every version of Batman with that same mindset, you could easily condemn the entire franchise, regardless of who the director or writer was.

I just don't understand how it's fair to highlight Batman's refusal to kill in The Dark Knight as a flaw because he deliberately killed once in Batman Begins.

I like how you sugarcoated all the contradictory things in that trilogy, and yet you're bothered by Superman reluctantly killing Zod. I find it especially hysterical that you disregarded my complaints by accusing of being "locked in a mindset" too by the way, despite you once acknowledged that some of my complaints were legitimate.

Bottom line: if you can turn a blind eye to these things and try to justify in your head over Batman's inconsistent behavior in the Nolan films, then you have no right to complain about Superman killing Zod. Continuing to do so is blatantly hypocritical.