I think I may have said this before, but, irony, thy name is Herald.
Or...was that "insanity, thy name is Herald"...? Whichever. After a day spent dealing with indecisive potheads and people I cannot legally kill, there's nothing you've stated which has done anything more than cause me to genuinely enjoy the time I spend away from real world fools.
So, there is no reason to fear; I am not angry.
I simply feel that your dislike of Snyder and Goyer has prejudiced you against this movie. You say that he is a beacon of fear as opposed to hope. I'm not really sure how you could reach such a conclusion. At each point in his life in the movie, the dude inspires hope and loyalty. Even as a child, he singlehandedly transforms Pete Ross from a douche into a decent kid who is willing to give him a hand. Superman ultimately places his faith in humanity, and that faith is rewarded.
You're aware that the karmic backlash you have described is...lame, right? I mean, he thought he was a guy called Gangbuster? What, is that supposed to be deep? Poignant?
And banishing himself to space is like the most self-centered thing he could possibly do that doesn't involve carving his own face onto Mt. Rushmore with his dick. People on Earth didn't suddenly stop needing to be saved just because Superman felt tortured about executing a madman. Nut-up, Superman. You've still got a job to do.
But I agree, Superman should feel horrible for what he had to do. And the anguish he displayed immediately after snapping Zod's neck was indicative of that. That was pretty much the end of the movie, so any karmic backlash for killing an evil madman bent on worldwide slaughter probably was never going to last beyond the next five minutes.
And this wasn't a case of, say, some cop shooting a kid in a dark alley only to find the gun the kid had was a water-pistol. This was "you kill me or I'm going to rape the grave of your mom in the butt!" This was, "see that family over there? I'm going to vaporize them with my eyes unless you can find my off-switch!"
Superman might feel anguish for what he did, but I don't think the universe is gonna miss Zod.
You've adnavced now from labeling it as "killing" to decrying it as "murder." Again, this in indicative of bias. Even U.S. law would not define Superman's actions as murder. Hell, A jury in Texas acquitted a man several years back of shooting a couple of guys who merely seemed like they were breaking into someone else's house.
If Superman's killing of Zod is murder in any way, it's only according to your biased opinion of it. It might classify as manslaughter if either of the guys involved were even human. For it to classify as murder, it must have malice aforethought. That was absent.
At best, you might call it justifiable homicide, because Zod clearly posed an immediate threat to the lives of innocents. And making as much of an issue as you have with it is like being upset that Aragorn never faced any karmic backlash for mercilessly slaughtering all those poor aggrieved orcs and goblins.
I agree that the knowledge of what he did should torment him. But I think the movie accomplished this with his reaction immediately following. Maybe in the Blu-Ray extras, they'll show a deleted twenty minute scene where Superman flagellates himself and begs forgiveness from Space-God. They would have tacked that scene onto the ending, but wouldn't you know it, apparently Dan Didio ordered it removed as he smoked cigars and screwed hookers in his Star Chamber.
This is hardly the takeaway. It is your conclusion, based on a biased interpretation, which I have kindly illuminated above. Killing Zod, despite all he had done and promised he would do, was exactly the last thing Superman wanted to do. Otherwise, it would have been the first thing he did.
And shit...any mortal man would have killed Zod halfway through the movie when the nigga put his hands on his mama. I know I wouldn't have just settled for punching him repeatedly in the face. I would'a led with that whole neck-snapping thing. But then, Superman is supposed to be better than most men.
Hell...maybe it's to Superman's detriment from a modern sensibility that he didn't kill Zod when Zod and his gang choked his moms. Would have saved a lot of lives if Superman had just snapped his neck right then and there. But that's another typical conceit of the superhero genre. Batman refuses to kill the Joker, and so, fails to keep the nut from ever killing innocents again. Readers have to be able to ignore that basic equivalency in order to enjoy the fantasy of the genre.
But it's simple math at this point, and nearly every superhero in comics is allowed to ignore that ruthless calculus. But since we're smart people, we're not allowed to ignore it. Or rather, we must at least acknowledge it. Superman's restraint is titanic, because he doesn't want to kill Zod. he gives Zod every chance to stop. Begs him to stop, in fact.
Not me. I've said numerous times in the past that I admit that what I like may be considered shit by others. But mostly, folks around here only here the part about me stabbing space bitches. But now, I want people to understand that I'm so much more than that. For example, I also find value in punching sharks. Not because I hate sharks, but because sharks are so awesome, and punching something awesome makes me even more awesome than that thing I just punched which was awesome.
I've read some of the dipshittiest comics and have enjoyed them, like Empowered.
Wait...actually, I may have once said that Millar's Authority was like being punched in the dick with an entire shark instead of a fist. But I was probably just exaggerating to make a point. And I may have just made that up on the spot to make a point. Or...did I...?
I'LL KILL YOU IN THE FACE!!!
Oh wait...sorry. That was the meds talking again.
I would suggest that the writers are doing something wrong. For too much of comic book history, focal characters always represent the same bland and generic ideals. It is only the rare characterization that comes across as distinct and complex.
Never mind the fact you've only managed to speak of methodology, but I'm speaking of personality and morality. You could put Superman right into the middle of the Winter Soldier storyline, and he'd react almost identically. Hell's bells, we even saw this in a JLU storyline. Several, in fact.
Or...oh, well, I guess it's possible that animated Superman was not the "real" Superman either...Maybe we need to come to an agreement on which version of Superman among the many version is the "real" Superman. Since he's a fictional being, written by dozens of different writers with dozens of different takes on him, I'm not really sure how to apply the term "real" in this context.
I agree. And this is my entire point in raising the example. Bland, write-by-numbers characterization is a failure of the writer.
Take a look at the old Onslaught storyline, right before Marvel launched Heroes reborn. Every single hero who was not an X-Man all reached the same conclusion at the same time. They all had to willingly die in order to stop Onslaught. And they all charged into this singular path with exactly the same amount of resolve. No one wavered; no one felt a twinge of fear or hesitation.
All these allegedly disparate individuals and personalities all arrived at the same course of action without variation.
Now, let's take a look at someone like Thor. Thor is the god of thunder and loves a good scrap. Which is the real Thor, though? Redheaded psycho who fucks and slaughters frost giants for peeing in a river (look it up)? Or the blonde do-gooder who shaves his face baby smooth and endeavors not to kill when he can avoid it?
Which is the "real" Thor?
But I digress. I read a story back in the day when Thor's health had been permanently damaged by Hela's kiss. He was fighting Kurse and was trying to protect Power Pack from harm. If you put Superman, who is supposed to be a radically different character than Thor into the same situation, do you think he wouldn't also try to keep Power Pack from harm? What about Wonder Woman? Or Reed Richards? They'd all do the exact same thing that Thor would, because to do anything less would be "out-of-character" for a hero.
This is because being a hero means the exact same thing to every hero. Cap's gonna throw himself at the fore of every fight, just like Superman will, even though his power-set is totally different; even though he has different resources and different background experiences, because it is what the baseline superhero is expected to do by the conceit of the genre.
Do you know why critics often reduce superhero comics to "wish fulfillment"? Because we, as the readers, are meant to be able to insert ourselves vicariously into the role of the hero. We're meant to identify with their virtues, even if their life experiences are like nothing we've ever encountered.
The best way to do that is to make sure that heroes make the same sorts of choices over and over again. Wolverine doesn't use those claws to kill because it put him in the wrong light for the audience. But he has killed and will again depending upon the writer, which makes it come across as absurd when he lectures Rachel Summers: "X-Men don't kill." He doesn't sound much different than Batman
I would demand something that makes these characters unrecognizable: complexity. Which means the writers do not give them simple, easy choices that allow them to maintain the staus quo without needing to grow and develop. And since character growth and development are anathema to the standard format of endlessly monthly comics, I don't read comics any more. I might read something like American Vampire or the Sixth Gun. And I would dearly love for you to make the case that these are the wrong comics to be reading...
But for the most part, I've grown very tired of seeing heroes do the same stuff over and over again. Peter parker grows up and gets married? let's change that shit. Superman bitch-slaps Darkseid for trying to vaporize his cousin? Hey, let's reboot the entire line.
But like I said, it's not every character and every title. I don't want anyone to think I'm casting my scorn over everything in a suit of unstable molecules. Like that same run of Thor I mentioned above, I really loved because of the way he struggled despite his weakness. There are characters who do break the mold while still holding to a heroic ideal. Static comes to mind. Blue Beetle (Jaime). Power Girl. Ms. Marvel. Captain Atom. Jenny Sparks. Elijah Snow (oh, please try to tell me Planetary was among the "wrong" comics to read...). Gail Simone's run on Wonder Woman. Brubaker's run on Captain America. Guy muthafuckin' Gardner. Nova (Richie Ryder); Silver Surfer.
No, I refuse to accept that there isn't a Third Option simply because David Goyer wants Snyderman to kill.
He doesn't want Superman to kill. he wants Superman to face an impossible choice and to handle it in a manner that is complex and genuine.
The problem is that you, Goyer, and Snyder insist that I take your word for it that what Snyderman faced actually is "an impossible choice". Sorry, fellas, but I insist on deciding that for myself. And I demonstrated that said "impossible choice" wasn't what it was cracked up to be. All it took to find this Third Option was NOT automatically assuming that Snyderman has to kill in order to win, like you guys did. Avoiding that assumption, and finding such a Third Option is what a REAL Superman does.
Uh-oh. I feel like I'm being lumped in with things that you don't like. I will know call Didio and inform him that the plan is proceeding exactly as I have foreseen. He can now begin with Stage Two: SUPERMAN PUNCHES A BABY.
You're unwilling to suspend your disbelief. Your choice, bub. And yeah, it's cool that it's your choice to do so. All I'm saying to you is that it is a choice you have made. It is a choice that has more to do with your own personal desires and expectations than anything present in the movie.
Now, me...I dunno...I came into the movie with a dislike of Goyer's writing, from Blade to JSA; but also with the idea that I would simply be open to whatever they showed me over the next two hours. I don't think the movie was as good as it could have been; I don't think it even came close to The Avengers. The movie had some serious flaws for me.
But Waid's complaints seem totally off-base. And that's coming from a guy who has liked a lot of stuff Waid has written.
Incorrect. I actually liked Goyer's work up to this point, and had no opinion of Snyder one way or the other.
Well, we definitely disagree there. I'm not a fan of Goyer, but I think he works well in concert with others, like Christopher Nolan. I liked Synder's version of 300, but didn't care much for Sucker Punch, and felt Watchmen was...well shit, man, maybe Watchmen was like the white whale of comic book movies. I was hardly enthused to find Snyder was going to direct Man of Steel and that Goyer was attached to the script.
And while I found the movie had its flaws, as I said, none of those flaws really revolve around Superman killing Zod, who was a murderous, super-powered dick who was literally about to kill a family of innocents.
Maybe Superman could have found another way to keep Zod from frying those poor helpless humans in particular, but Zod made it clear not five minutes earlier that he was going to give Superman no choice but to kill him or be killed.
And yeah, maybe if Superman had more time, he could have cooked up a plan to simply dump Zod into the PZ. But the whole point was that he didn't have the time to explore other options. It was down to the wire; kill this guy or let him kill a family.
And it's not an indication that Superman thinks it's just shits and giggles to kill someone, because the choice was an agony for him. It's not an indication that the movie is telling small children it's okay to snap necks. And it's not an indication that David Goyer eats baby souls and forces toddlers to smoke cigars.
Although, Didio probably does this in his bunker twenty floors below sea level.[/quote]
Wow this is a lot of text. How long did it actually take you to type all of this by the way?