Superman: Man of Steel (2012)

[C.A.]

See what Adam Savage thinks about the movie in their weekly podcast.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

See, the funny thing is that even in the cartoons he still kills along with the other heroes when they are fighting regular alien grunts. I mean destroying a warship or a tank surely kills or badly injures the people inside.

Well that's cause their not human afterall.


Though I'd really like to see how Superman/Batman would react to a hero applying that kind of flippant attitude to say, human beings who weren't white.

Originally Posted by sunset

Which can be somewhat maddening when everytime Batman arrests Joker and takes him to Arkham asylum's revolving doors, you KNOW he'll be roaming the street the very next morning killing untold scores of inocent bystanders.

I wouldn't mind it, if they didn't dwell over it so much in the comic narratives. Because no matter how you try to address it...examining it only reveals just how monumentally preposterous the whole setup is. Have a couple of good stories come out of it? Sure. Killing Joke, and the Dark Knight Returns are fantastic comics... but doesn't it feel like every serious Batman/Joker story since than has just been continually rehashing that same theme?

It almost feels voyeuristic to me. Like the writers are getting off letting the Joker do whatever fucked up crap he wants, and then have the Batman self righteously clench his butt cheeks, and go on some monologue about how he can't "go ovah dah line!" with Joker.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

WIt almost feels voyeuristic to me. Like the writers are getting off letting the Joker do whatever fucked up crap he wants, and then have the Batman self righteously clench his butt cheeks, and go on some monologue about how he can't "go ovah dah line!" with Joker.

But you see, at any time, the criminal justice system could have Joker executed. The whole point isn't that Batman isn't willing to kill, but that he isn't willing to kill someone that the criminal code deemed NOT eligible for the death penalty. (If someone deserve to die, Batman let the Judicial system sort it out. He just catches them.)

Don't blame Batman for refusing to be the executioner. It's not his job.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

But you see, at any time, the criminal justice system could have Joker executed. The whole point isn't that Batman isn't willing to kill, but that he isn't willing to kill someone that the criminal code deemed NOT eligible for the death penalty. (If someone deserve to die, Batman let the Judicial system sort it out. He just catches them.)

Don't blame Batman for refusing to be the executioner. It's not his job.

But I'm not blaming Batman for refusing to be executioner outside the bounds of the law. I'm blaming mediocre DC writers for using writers fiat to keep this scenario happening over and over again. Just so they can pornographically rehash the Batman/Joker no killing discussion ad nauseum.




also

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

But I'm not blaming Batman for refusing to be executioner outside the bounds of the law. I'm blaming mediocre DC writers for using writers fiat to keep this scenario happening over and over again. Just so they can pornographically rehash the Batman/Joker no killing discussion ad nauseum.

Really? You think it's because they get off on the Batman/Joker confrontation? No. It's simple business. Fans don't give two shits about new villains, because they're either just rehashing of current ones or not as good (partially due to how impatient everyone is, they don't give the characters time to develop like old ones had).

Thus, if heroes were "practical" and killed off their villains that murdered people like the Joker, comics would end. There'd be no one left to fight, and no one wants to read about the heroes just sitting around drinking tea. And no one wants to read more than maybe 1 issue of a hero just taking down random thugs before going home and drinking tea.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by GDB

Really? You think it's because they get off on the Batman/Joker confrontation? No. It's simple business. Fans don't give two shits about new villains, because they're either just rehashing of current ones or not as good (partially due to how impatient everyone is, they don't give the characters time to develop like old ones had).

Thus, if heroes were "practical" and killed off their villains that murdered people like the Joker, comics would end. There'd be no one left to fight, and no one wants to read about the heroes just sitting around drinking tea. And no one wants to read more than maybe 1 issue of a hero just taking down random thugs before going home and drinking tea.

You can have Joker/Batman confrontations without making the big meta question with them be "will Batman finally snap and kill the joker?"

[GDB]

Only if you make the Joker stop killing people. At which point he's just a crook in make-up.

[Triple_R]

A few points:

1. Yeah, Joker's continued survival is at least as much on the legal system in his world as it is on Batman. You could perhaps even say that The Joker is a cautionary tale about how you can take the insanity defense a bit too far.

2. I think the Timmverse (DCAU) hit a good balance with The Joker. The Joker was quite willing to kill the odd guy for sadistic shits and giggles, but he was mainly a criminal mastermind that just wanted to get lots of money illegally. He wasn't particularly interested in large-scale mass murdering plots that most people today would call "terrorism". This kept him at a level where he was Batman's most fearsome adversary, but allowing him to live was only slightly worse than allowing Two-Face, Bane, Poison Ivy, or Mr. Freeze live.

3. That was a funny comic, Roger. Yeah, you do have to feel a bit sorry for the US military in movies like this one.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Yeah, you do have to feel a bit sorry for the US military in movies like this one.

Michael Bay to the rescue!!! *que John William's epic Superman theme*

[GDB]

Bruce Timm and Paul Dini were the best things to happen to Batman in a long time. They, along with Kevin McConroy, pretty much set the definitive Batman for generations. First, the Batman animated series, then the Justice League series, then the Arkham games. Easily two generations worth of fans that identify that Batman as their Batman.

[C.A.]

I found myself siding with critics who dislike the new Superman(character) after reading this review on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notes/teren...51679829934311

Along with the Adam Savage video I posted above, I now understand why people are so angry over Superman killing Zod and causing vast collateral damage.

Superman has always gone to extreme lengths to prevent deaths of both civilians, allies and villians. That is the anchor to his entire character, the one thing that makes us relate to him as a superbeing. He can use his superpowers and destroy his enemies as much as possible but what makes him heroic is using the same powers extensively to prevent death.

But in MoS, he is absolutely careless with his powers after he put on his suit, he threw away the heroism he practiced throughout his life. He is no longer the guy who endured hurting people, who would save everyone at first notice. After becoming Superman, he just wants to defeat Zod and his army without regard of the lives of anyone in the city and ends up killing Zod with his bare hands. The very essence of Superman as a hero is lost.

And we should disregard the old school Superman killings, because those are early examples of bad writing and Superman wasn't fully developed as a character yet. You don't compare a piece of work that's aiming to be the very best to the worst to make a point.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by C.A.

You don't compare a piece of work that's aiming to be the very best to the worst to make a point.

I really don't think they were aiming anywhere near being the best. I honestly don't think they even tried. And I don't see this in a way meant to say they were lazy, but they were clearly trying to emulate the success Batman Begins had. In other words, they wanted financial success, not "art" or "quality".

This can be seen in the fact they've already stated a sequel will come out in 2014, and then Justice League in 2015. That kind of thing doesn't happen when you take quality into account.

[C.A.]

They are obviously aiming to be great at something in order to make that money to fund the sequels. They had to do as best as they can to make Justice League a possibility.

And unfortunately they hired Zack Synder to make it great at action, causing spectacular collateral damage not just to the city and countless lives but also Superman's essential character.

And Christopher Nolan might have great success with Batman's storyline even with him killing two villians, he just can't do the same with Superman as he is a completely different kind of character. Batman is at home in the dark, but Superman is supposed to be bright as the sun. Giving Superman a darker story is like having Batman return to the cheesy classics.

[james0246]

To be fair, I expect most of the city (at least the buildings) had been evacuated after the invasion started, or they had simply died in the interim. So, I highly doubt there would have been many people within the buildings that Superman and Zod end up throwing each other through.

But, he still plainly killed Zod, and if that ruins or at least negatively impacts your own views of the iconic hero, then that is a legitimate complaint. I did not have a specific problem with the death scene (it felt like a nice contrast, and it was interesting to see Superman have to stain his hands, especially so early in his career), but I can see why others do (my Mother actually called me up after seeing the film to complain about this issue...she's old, so she also complained about how loud the film was as well, which is her own fault for watching the film in IMAX...). I can only hope the sequel helps to analyze the actions of Superman, calling into question his decisions instead of simply ignoring what he has done in favour of a new villain.

(I do agree with the critique that Superman wasn't very heroic in the movie. He had the Super part down, but the Hero part is still a work in progress.)

[GDB]

By the way... why didn't Zod kill the humans? I mean, he was just shooting his heat rays straight ahead. He could've just... you know, looked to the right a little bit and fried them. The beams travel the way the eyes are looking, not the way the face is aiming.

Also, how could Superman snap his neck? If we're to believe that two fighters of equal level like that would essentially have a fight equal to two normal humans (just with more damage to the surrounding area), then why did neither really look that hurt after beating the crap out of each other? No broken/missing teeth after punching each other in the face, no blood that I can really recall, no broken bones. Nothing but relatively minor exhaustion. Yet somehow they can snap each others' necks?

[Triple_R]

The thing is that Superman is meant to be the ultimate superhero. He is meant to be a superhero's superhero, somebody that even other superheroes are inspired by and admire (the Timmverse handled this beautifully, on many occasions).

Now, I don't expect him to be flawless on his first big mission, but there should at least be those flashes of brilliance where you can see that this hero is a solid cut or two above your average superhero. On the sheer power side we see that, but not so much on the hero side.

And if you have to kill the villain on your very first mission, well... Personally, I think I'd be cooler with this if it was Brainiac or Darkseid that forced Supes to kill, and in the 2nd or 3rd movie.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by GDB

Only if you make the Joker stop killing people. At which point he's just a crook in make-up.

As Triple_R said. You can use the Bruce Tim universe as an example. You can still have the Joker be a murderous villain without turning him into a preposterous mass murderer. The second you start seriously talking about the Joker having a multi thousand kill count, you're sacrificing world building and plausibility in order to indulge in the mental masturbation of the no killing debate.

Originally Posted by james0246

To be fair, I expect most of the city (at least the buildings) had been evacuated after the invasion started, or they had simply died in the interim. So, I highly doubt there would have been many people within the buildings that Superman and Zod end up throwing each other through.

I'll admit. The overall death toll/property damage in this movie was something that bugged me a little, considering how upbeat the ending tried to present it self as. Some natural disaster analysts made some rather grim projections of how much damage was done to Metropolis.


The projection estimated that the majority of the missing would probably be dead. So in the context of the films ending, it seems rather preposterous to just skip over how much horrific destruction had just been unleashed on Metropolis. Given the words from one of the writers (where he says maybe hundreds, or low thousands of people had died), you rather get the impression they didn't comprehend the significance of what they'd put on screen.


I'll admit. The amount of widescale destruction in Man of Steel is something that detracted from the movie for me, particularly how they didn't seem to dwell on it. While the Avengers didn't explicitly show as much destruction as Man of Steel did, they did a better job of acknowledging that shit had happened. I think that's where allot of the complaining about Superman not saving very many people comes from. There's all this devastation, but you don't get any tiny surge of relief by seeing Superman heroically saving people.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Well that's cause their not human afterall.

I'll admit. The amount of widescale destruction in Man of Steel is something that detracted from the movie for me, particularly how they didn't seem to dwell on it. While the Avengers didn't explicitly show as much destruction as Man of Steel did, they did a better job of acknowledging that shit had happened. I think that's where allot of the complaining about Superman not saving very many people comes from. There's all this devastation, but you don't get any tiny surge of relief by seeing Superman heroically saving people.

Yeah apparently the only people that were trapped were the three people from the Daily Planet.

It was also funny to see the building was in perfect shape even after all that when Clark shows up for work the first time.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

As Triple_R said. You can use the Bruce Tim universe as an example. You can still have the Joker be a murderous villain without turning him into a preposterous mass murderer. The second you start seriously talking about the Joker having a multi thousand kill count, you're sacrificing world building and plausibility in order to indulge in the mental masturbation of the no killing debate.

That only works if you reboot him. Oh wait, this is DC. Guess they could try that approach in another couple of years. They do that every 6 or so, and I believe it's been 2-3 since their last one.

[magnum12]

I haven't seen the movie so I can't fully judge it, but having grown up with the DCAU Superman, I can input my two cents on the controversy.

Personally I think its way out of character, with his no-kill code being there because he's scared to death of what he'll become if he doesn't restrain himself (excepting Darkseid of course). Refer to the "World of Cardboard" speech he gives at one point. Anyone who's played Injustice should have a good idea of what he's afraid of becoming.