Bryan Singer didn't direct Man of Steel, Zack Snyder did. Singer directed Superman Returns.KPmusmag said:I left MOS feeling sad; which maybe is what Singer was going for.
Bryan Singer didn't direct Man of Steel, Zack Snyder did. Singer directed Superman Returns.KPmusmag said:I left MOS feeling sad; which maybe is what Singer was going for.
You're absolutely right; I stand corrected, thank you. But my feeling is the same.dpippel said:Bryan Singer didn't direct Man of Steel, Zack Snyder did. Singer directed Superman Returns.
HAD means no other options were available. But there were.Stephen Brooks said:Zod HAD to die. And Superman had to be the one to do it.
Given the situation, what options were available to him to make sure that NO ONE else would die? I'm not trying to be combative but I can not think of one that guarantees that no one else might be killed by Zod. I said it before but it's going to take months or even years for the government to manufacture some kind of prison to hold Zod so I guess Superman could literally sit on top of him for all that time and just keep knocking him out but if Zod briefly gets away from him, he could kill a ton of people. Or if they do build a prison for Zod, what happens if he escapes 10 years down the road? He could kill thousands of more people before Superman can imprison him again. Not to mention that Superman needs to stop Zod ASAP and start helping the thousands of people stuck in the rubble (though Supes and the movie seemed pretty unconcerned about doing that).Lou Sytsma said:HAD means no other options were available. But there were.
Killing Zod was the laziest solution. The writing that led to that point was sloppy and even then there were plenty of other solutions available.
I agree. The argument for sloppy writing keeps getting thrown out there, but I don't think anyone has yet proposed a scenario that would absolutely, positively, 110% GUARANTEE that Zod would never harm another living being, directly or indirectly, if he were allowed to live.TravisR said:Given the situation, what options were available to him to make sure that NO ONE else would die? I'm not trying to be combative but I can not think of one that guarantees that no one else might be killed by Zod.
Throw him back into the Neutral Zone, leave him on a planet with a red sun, put him in stasis, use Kryptonian science to render him powerless, blah, blah. Its a comic book scenario so there are so the options are endless.TravisR said:Given the situation, what options were available to him to make sure that NO ONE else would die? I'm not trying to be combative but I can not think of one that guarantees that no one else might be killed by Zod. I said it before but it's going to take months or even years for the government to manufacture some kind of prison to hold Zod so I guess Superman could literally sit on top of him for all that time and just keep knocking him out but if Zod briefly gets away from him, he could kill a ton of people. Or if they do build a prison for Zod, what happens if he escapes 10 years down the road? He could kill thousands of more people before Superman can imprison him again. Not to mention that Superman needs to stop Zod ASAP and start helping the thousands of people stuck in the rubble (though Supes and the movie seemed pretty unconcerned about doing that).
I don't know what most of the sentence means but I'm guessing that's how they stopped Zod in Superman II. However, I don't remember any mention of red rays of the Kryptonian sun in this movie so it's not a solution here.David Weicker said:Gee, another solution ...How about a Molecular Chamber that exposed Zod to the red rays of the Krypton sun. Oh wait, that would never work.
As a comic book writer, Mark Waid does not share your amusement - http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/Gary Seven said:Being familiar with the mythos of Superman from golden to the modern age, I liked the movie and the direction taken. It has a lot of faithfulness to the original source... the source NOT being Superman TV shows nor Donner's movie (although Donner's movie was pretty faithful to the Silver Age).
I find many of the detractors of this movie to have rather amusing reasons.
I look forward to the sequel where I am sure some of the issues raised will be addressed.
Yep. All the way through the movie is all about actions having consequences and exploring them The after the big climax - which demands the biggest exploration of consequences - the movie truckles and sweeps everything under the rug.mattCR said:Look, I am OK with Zod dying. The more I have thought about this, the more I realized the part that got to me wasn't Zod's dying, it's the fact that about 3 minutes of screen time later, Superman is there sporting a big smile all glib and talking to the military guy with a "this is how I roll" attitude.
The entire film was: how you handle things forms the man you are.
Then he kills someone, brief bit of remorse, and shortly thereafter, all smiles. So, I guess it built him where dishing out some fatalities wasn't just the only option he had, but he's pretty OK with it. That was the part I didn't care for.
If you read his article, he really has just two issues with this "good science fiction story".Lou Sytsma said:As a comic book writer, Mark Waid does not share your amusement - http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/