Man of Steel

[BatmAngelus]

TLF, I can't speak for the io9 writer or Silver Nemesis on their opinions and I get that you want to call out hypocrisy in how Man of Steel is criticized while the Nolan trilogy gets revered for the same choices, but I think you're taking this way too far.

The "imbecile" writer for that article didn't bring up Superman II or Nolan's Batman. She shares no opinion in the piece (or in anything she wrote in the past) about either of them, other than describing Snyder's comment toward the Reeve films as "condescending."

And in a way, it was. Instead of actually discussing how it worked with the film thematically or even citing the comic where Superman killed Zod (or even citing that Superman killed Zod in Superman II), he went for the tiresome "Oh, you just wanted to see Donner's Superman again. That's why you didn't like it" argument and said a whole lot of nothing about how he made Superman "real."

It'd be one thing if the writer had said "If only Chris Nolan did the movie instead 'cause his Batman films were flawless" or "I'd rather just rewatch Superman II." But she didn't. I don't see any evidence that the writer committed hypocrisy and I think it's unfair and irrational to call her an idiot over something that you simply assumed.

All that's evident is that she disagreed with Snyder's choices for the ending and is calling him out for being inconsistent in why he made those choices, which I think is more than fair.

As for SN, again, I'll let him speak for himself. But the point of his post wasn't that Superman killed Zod. It was about the way Snyder included a final act that was full of destruction and death- from Superman and Zod facing off in all the Ground Zero-like rubble to Superman snapping his neck. It deliberately ended the film on a dour note. A film meant to kick off a new Superman franchise and was marketed as Superman inspiring "hope" in people.

SN even said that he wouldn't have minded if the same ending happened in the next film. So I didn't read his post as another "Superman would never kill. #notmysuperman" and I haven't seen Superman vs. The Elite to know how it plays into the character's morality. I'd say it probably does better simply on the fact that it seems that the whole story is thematically about Superman's methods vs. the rougher criminals, whereas Man of Steel only really takes a stance on Superman's morality in one scene.

Speaking for myself, I guess I'm an anomaly since I don't fall into any of the typical categories that people try to classify fans who disliked the movie.

I didn't want a retread of Donner's Superman. If anything, I think Snyder actually took too much from Donner. (Not as much as Singer, but still more than he should have)
I didn't like it when Superman killed the Phantom Zone criminals, after they were depowered, in Superman II.
I didn't like it when Batman blew up cars and endangered cops in the Nolan trilogy.
I didn't like it when Batman broke his rule and killed the villains in each of the Nolan trilogy.
And I didn't like Man of Steel's final act.

I get that Superman was a rookie fighting trained soldiers, that he had to kill Zod to save the family, and that Superman's killed in the comics before. I even read that comic where he killed Zod about a day or so before I saw the movie.

And at least Superman didn't spend the whole movie refusing to kill people only for him to kill the criminal at the end anyway.

But I still found it a loud, boring finale that, as SN indicated, desperately tried to hit people over the head that "THIS IS NOT THE SUPERMAN YOU THINK YOU KNOW!" and that "See? See? Superman can be dark. He can be real! Like Batman! We've even got the Zimmer music blasting and him killing the bad guy at the end!"

Snyder's justification that this was all so that we'd "see how Superman gets his no-killing code" is incredibly weak. Partially because most sane people don't need to kill in order to learn not to kill. But more than that, it wasn't even portrayed this way in the movie. He kills Zod, screams, and then the rest of the movie plays out like it didn't happen. At no point does he reference having to kill the only other one left of his kind. Or that he feels guilty over taking a life. Or that from now on, he'll never kill again.

If this was the intention, Snyder should've made something of it in the scenes that followed. He didn't, which is why it feels more like it was done to create shock value than anything else.

[Grissom]

For me, Snyder did something different, I especially enjoyed the non-linear storytelling, as it flashes back to important parts of Clark's life. I enjoyed the storytelling, score, costumes, visuals and the performances were top notch not to mention that showdown with Zod at the end is one of the best battles I've seen on screen up to that point.

Great job Snyder!

[The Laughing Fish]

I take your point, BatmAnglus, and yes, now that I've taken a proper look at the article, I'll admit you're right that it's terribly presumptuous of me to insult the writer's intelligence or accusing her for having a bias when she didn't mentioned anything about Nolan or SII in that article.

Except all the parts where she described Superman's actions as "murder". I still stand by what I said that anyone would have to be a fool to believe that's what was presented on screen.

Anyway, the problem is I'm used to seeing too many people not applying the same standard when it comes to scrutinising films like this, and it certainly doesn't help when I'm used to seeing them behaving badly towards anyone who doesn't agree with them. Nor does it help that the article comes from io9 because every time I visit that website, I notice that a lot of the visitors and the journalists themselves are full of snarky people who enjoy insulting others. You'll have to excuse me if I jumped the gun a bit, and I guess I should be careful not to let that behavior influence on mine.

I don't mind people criticising the ending if they weren't convinced that the director shot it for the right intentions. After all, it's certainly not a perfect film by any means; hell, it's not even my favourite Superman movie. All I'm asking for people to do is apply the same criticism consistently and fairly, that's all.

I won't defend Snyder's inconsistent justifications, because he needlessly dug a hole for himself. It's not hard to justify the ending by simply saying that Superman, in his first time out to save the world, had to stop a genocidal maniac by any means necessary. It doesn't get any clearer than that, but he can't do it for some reason, and resorts to strawman arguments instead.

SN even said that he wouldn't have minded if the same ending happened in the next film.

For what it's worth, Silver Nemesis and I had a discussion about this awhile ago, and he argued that the MOS ending could be seen as justifiable homicide, but he claimed that Superman murdered Zod. That's absolutely ridiculous. Murder is a crime where you take another person's life with malicious intent. Again, that's not what happened on screen.

Nonetheless, I don't care if he doesn't like the film, or he doesn't like the idea alone, of Superman killing at any cost. He's entitled to have an opinion, so that's not my issue.

What is my issue, however, is not only does he not mind that Batman does the same thing, he had a go at me for not liking the Nolan trilogy, and tried to use strawman arguments to justify the moral code nonsense and accuse me of being negative on purpose. The latter is uncalled for, especially when it turned out that he acknowledged these complaints were valid in the past. I don't know why he did this, and I find it very bizarre. If he simply disagreed with me but didn't behave like this, I wouldn't called him out right now. I'm still waiting for his explanation.

Speaking for myself, I guess I'm an anomaly since I don't fall into any of the typical categories that people try to classify fans who disliked the movie.

But at least you're consistent. You're standing on solid ground when it comes analysing the film, and I respect that. Whereas, there are too many people criticising this movie or another for certain flaws, while completely ignoring or making excuses for the same (or worse) mistakes that other highly regarded films have. Apologies for beating a dead horse, but I've had enough. I've lost my patience over this.

If this was the intention, Snyder should've made something of it in the scenes that followed. He didn't, which is why it feels more like it was done to create shock value than anything else.

I understand. It's actually somewhat similar to how TDKT never followed up with Batman coming to terms with his actions - whether it's breaking his moral code, covering up for Two-Face or how he felt when the secret he and Gordon kept over Two-Face got exposed. Except, as you already pointed out, the only difference is Superman never swore to take another life, nor did he ever declare to intend to become an incorruptible symbol like Bale's Batman did. Nevertheless, I can see your point judging by what Snyder has said.

[Silver Nemesis]

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

Done. Good call.

[Dagenspear]

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.

This seems like an intense assumption made without something as a foundation to make it. Killing accidentally isn't the same as not having a moral code as well. And Superman 2, despite me having not a great deal of love for those films in their quality, didn't make a problem out of Zod's deatht in it, and instead of having him murder Zod onscreen, cleanly just tossed him into a hole. MOS made an issue out of their thing, showed it onscreen, forced the audiences to watch it and did it brutally, without dealing with it.

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.

You've said that Batman broke his rule, when allowing someone to die isn't killing. The same thing you're saying here about this person applies to what you've said, if that logic is to be gone by.

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.

Nolan was factually wrong by saying that Batman broke his rule in BB. How is it just as flimsy though to admit it, but downplay it at the same time? It doesn't contradict it.

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:

It was accidental.

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:

Admitting that an inconsistency wasn't addressed isn't the same as saying it wasn't accidental.

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.

It wasn't sugarcoating. It was a statement of that there are good things and bad things in both sets of stories. There aren't really contradictory things in the trilogy though, the ones that you've said are anyway.

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.

One could say the same about the complaints that you have. If you try to justify Batman's inconsistent behavior in the Burton film, then you have no right to complain about his inconsistent behavior in the Nolan films, by that logic.

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.

Superman did engage Zod in a fight, in a city. He had a hand in it. I don't blame him for the destruction. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for that action. Have a very great day both of you!

God bless you both! God bless your families and everyone else in your lives! God bless everyone!

[riddler]

I'm in the process of rewatching this for the first time since I saw it in theatres, I just passed the halfway point (stopped at the scene where Zod meets superman)

My thoughts on the first half;

I liked the non-linear telling as well, specifically for an origin story. While I liked Batman begins, one of its downsides is it takes a long time to even get to a modern bruce wayne let alone Batman and this is repeated in the dark knight rises. A linear story would have bogged this one down, while the child Clark Kent parts were important to the story, they are not the strong part of the film and it would have made the first act awfully boring if it took 40 minutes before seeing Cavill on screen.

While I think Costner did a good job in his role, I didn't like the way it was written; his death scene was cringeworthy, he makes no attempt to save himself, it's almost as if the character purposely wants Clark to be tortured. In my opinion this film tries too hard to make Clark a tragic hero and while that works for some, Superman is not supposed to be as dark of a character as this film portrays. It clearly doesn't let the hero ever enjoy victory at any point, Costner makes him feel bad every time he uses his powers.

Amy Adams is a good actress but she's no Margot Kidder (far better than Kate Bosworth though). Like the rest of the film she's humorless and lacks personality. I did like how she does act noble and heroic in her own right trying to tell the story that needs to be told.

Halfway through this film is completely deprived of humour. I didn't laugh once and I don't think there was even a single attempt at humor. While not terrible it's obvious it attempts to be a superman version of the dark knight series rather than its own film.

[Dagenspear]

I'm in the process of rewatching this for the first time since I saw it in theatres, I just passed the halfway point (stopped at the scene where Zod meets superman)

My thoughts on the first half;

I liked the non-linear telling as well, specifically for an origin story. While I liked Batman begins, one of its downsides is it takes a long time to even get to a modern bruce wayne let alone Batman and this is repeated in the dark knight rises. A linear story would have bogged this one down, while the child Clark Kent parts were important to the story, they are not the strong part of the film and it would have made the first act awfully boring if it took 40 minutes before seeing Cavill on screen.

We see modern Bruce Wayne in the second scene of BB.

While I think Costner did a good job in his role, I didn't like the way it was written; his death scene was cringeworthy, he makes no attempt to save himself, it's almost as if the character purposely wants Clark to be tortured. In my opinion this film tries too hard to make Clark a tragic hero and while that works for some, Superman is not supposed to be as dark of a character as this film portrays. It clearly doesn't let the hero ever enjoy victory at any point, Costner makes him feel bad every time he uses his powers.

I kind of agree.

Amy Adams is a good actress but she's no Margot Kidder (far better than Kate Bosworth though). Like the rest of the film she's humorless and lacks personality. I did like how she does act noble and heroic in her own right trying to tell the story that needs to be told.

I liked Kate Bosworth as a character more personally.

Halfway through this film is completely deprived of humour. I didn't laugh once and I don't think there was even a single attempt at humor. While not terrible it's obvious it attempts to be a superman version of the dark knight series rather than its own film.

TDKT had humor. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Laughing Fish]

Nolan was factually wrong by saying that Batman broke his rule in BB. How is it just as flimsy though to admit it, but downplay it at the same time? It doesn't contradict it.

What a load of nonsense. If Nolan truly believed Batman didn't break his rule, he would have strenuously said so - or even better - re-write the scene where Ra's al Ghul died by other means without Batman getting him killed.

Instead, he tries to give a weak "yes and no" answer in the TDK Screenplays Book - where even his brother Jonathan acknowledged that Batman broke his rule including the first film. Hell, if Nolan really wanted to convey his belief that Batman didn't kill Ra's al Ghul, he would've had the character say so. Instead, he directs a scene where Batman justifies doing it when confronted by Talia in Dark Knight Rises, because innocent people's lives were at stake. Despite the fact in the previous film, refusing to kill Joker resulted in putting everyone else in harm's way.

The fact that you keep saying there's a difference between killing someone and letting them die - as well as ignoring the fact that Batman set Ra's al Ghul up in a death trap to ensure he didn't survive - is downright foolish and desperate to say the least.

It was accidental.

Keep telling that to yourself. That's not what was presented on screen or in the script. Besides, you even acknowledged in another discussion last year that Batman had to have been aware that knocking Two-Face off the edge of the building was going to put him in grave danger. Common sense tells me that an incident is not accidental when one is aware that they're putting somebody else at risk.

One could say the same about the complaints that you have. If you try to justify Batman's inconsistent behavior in the Burton film, then you have no right to complain about his inconsistent behavior in the Nolan films, by that logic.

Again, nonsense. The only inconsistent thing I saw Burton's Batman do was saying the "wrong on both counts" line when Catwoman claimed the law doesn't apply to both of them. I've never liked that line by the way, and I've always complained about it; so I think I've got every right to criticise the inconsistent behavior in Nolan's films.

TDKT had humor.

The humour was disappointing. Then again, the humour in MOS wasn't particularly good either.

While I think Costner did a good job in his role, I didn't like the way it was written; his death scene was cringeworthy, he makes no attempt to save himself, it's almost as if the character purposely wants Clark to be tortured. In my opinion this film tries too hard to make Clark a tragic hero and while that works for some, Superman is not supposed to be as dark of a character as this film portrays. It clearly doesn't let the hero ever enjoy victory at any point, Costner makes him feel bad every time he uses his powers.

I don't believe Costner's Pa Kent meant to hurt Clark. Nor do I believe that he actually wanted Clark to let those kids drown in the bus.

The whole idea was that Jonathan knew that Clark exposing himself to the world would change things forever, and would result in Clark carrying a great burden of responsibility. He also knew that it was highly possible that Clark could face scrutiny and persecution and thought the world isn't ready to cope with the news that an alien from another planet exists among people (with powers, mind you). Jonathan didn't want Clark to overwhelmed by that possibility yet because he was still too young to cope any of that. As misguided that "maybe" line is, Jonathan did everything he could to protect his son's secret. Like it or not, he stayed true to what he stood for.

Now here is something that I don't like about Clark letting Jonathan die: in my opinion, it gave him a sense of tragedy that the character didn't need at all. Clark was already tragic enough as a lonely being from another world who was unsure of his place in the world, and when humanity eventually accepts him, it will only make his father's death even more painful. I'd prefer that Jonathan Kent didn't get killed off at all.

[Dagenspear]

What a load of nonsense. If Nolan truly believed Batman didn't break his rule, he would have strenuously said so - or even better - re-write the scene where Ra's al Ghul died by other means without Batman getting him killed.

Instead, he tries to give a weak "yes and no" answer in the TDK Screenplays Book - where even his brother Jonathan acknowledged that Batman broke his rule including the first film. Hell, if Nolan really wanted to convey his belief that Batman didn't kill Ra's al Ghul, he would've had the character say so. Instead, he directs a scene where Batman justifies doing it when confronted by Talia in Dark Knight Rises, because innocent people's lives were at stake. Despite the fact in the previous film, refusing to kill Joker resulted in putting everyone else in harm's way.

The fact that you keep saying there's a difference between killing someone and letting them die - as well as ignoring the fact that Batman set Ra's al Ghul up in a death trap to ensure he didn't survive - is downright foolish and desperate to say the least.

I didn't say anything about what Nolan believed. I said he was wrong. If he was ever going to set up a death trap, then he never got the chance because Ra's stabbed the console and set up his own death. Batman justifying doing it doesn't mean he actually did it. If there's an inconsistency it's in TDKR.

Keep telling that to yourself. That's not what was presented on screen or in the script. Besides, you even acknowledged in another discussion last year that Batman had to have been aware that knocking Two-Face off the edge of the building was going to put him in grave danger. Common sense tells me that an incident is not accidental when one is aware that they're putting somebody else at risk.

I don't remember that. But him being aware of danger doesn't mean that he's trying to kill him or even thinks about it in that way. What's depicted on screen is that Batman tackles Harvey to save a kid. He killed him, yes, but it wasn't why he did it. I've never read the script.

Again, nonsense. The only inconsistent thing I saw Burton's Batman do was saying the "wrong on both counts" line when Catwoman claimed the law doesn't apply to both of them. I've never liked that line by the way, and I've always complained about it; so I think I've got every right to criticise the inconsistent behavior in Nolan's films.

There's also his attitude towards her when he pulls out the gun. But it goes both ways. You take extreme issue with inconsistencies that aren't there. There are problems with TDKT. But the ones you cite aren't what they are. Do you take as an extreme of an issue with one inconsistency as you do the other? It doesn't seem so.

The humour was disappointing. Then again, the humour in MOS wasn't particularly good either.

Taste may vary. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless your family and everyone else in your life! God bless everyone!

[riddler]

seems the only attempt at humour in this one was the female captain remarking Superman was hot.

Upon final viewing I really don't get the hate for the killing of Zod; it's obvious Superman did everything he could to avoid it; he pleaded with Zod, wrestled with himself but it came down to the moment of truth where it was to be either the bad guy or innocents and the hero made the right choice.