David S. Goyer Talks ‘Man of Steel’ Controversy & Setting Up ‘Batman vs. Superman’

Published 2 years ago by , Updated September 25th, 2013 at 9:36 am,

man steel controversy sequel David S. Goyer Talks Man of Steel Controversy & Setting Up Batman vs. Superman




Things may change in the future, but as of right now Man of Steel ranks among the most divisive superhero films in recent memory. Change is never easy, which is a big part of the reason why director Zack Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer’s modernized take on the Superman mythos – bearing all the hallmarks of a 21st-century (or, rather, post-Bryan Singer’s X-Men) comic book/superhero movie – continues to inspire passionate debates between fans both young and old.

We’ve addressed the outcry in response to how Kal-El (Henry Cavill) manages to ultimately defeat General Zod (Michael Shannon) in Man of Steel – and, perhaps more importantly, if many a person’s upset response may be more hypocritical than justifiable. Goyer has talked about the issue too, in addition to having touched upon how Snyder’s movie is structured to lead directly into the sequel – colloquially known as Batman vs. Superman, in the absence of an official title.

Goyer spoke about his and Snyder’s decision to have Superman kill General Zod during their final showdown in Man of Steel, while in attendance at a recent BATFA and BFI Screenwriters’ Lecture. The screenwriter/filmmaker/comic book writer flat-out said that he doesn’t agree with many of his peers’ no-budge approach, where it concerns how Superman is not allowed to ever kill another being (the following quotes were reported by Digital Spy):

“We were pretty sure [the ending to 'Man of Steel'] was going to be controversial. It’s not like we were deluding ourselves, and we weren’t just doing it to be cool. We felt, in the case of Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice.

“This is one area, and I’ve written comic books as well and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers – ‘Superman doesn’t kill’. It’s a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don’t believe in rules like that. I believe when you’re writing film or television, you can’t rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film.”

Interestingly, Snyder previously admitted that part of his own reasoning for having Supes kill Zod in Man of Steel is because “if [the film] was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is [otherwise left] unexplained.” This is worth mentioning, if only because Goyer also co-wrote Batman Begins with Man of Steel producer/story writer Christopher Nolan – the latter being a film that attempts to setup the Caped Crusader as a superhero navigating the ethically-murky waters of the new century, much like Man of Steel does with Superman.

Batman Begins Bale Neeson Photo David S. Goyer Talks Man of Steel Controversy & Setting Up Batman vs. Superman

In his review, Screen Rant’s Kofi Outlaw even referred to Man of Steel as being “Superman Begins” in terms of the structure and approach favored in Goyer’s screenplay. The writer has (literally) echoed those comments, as Goyer explained that the whole purpose of Snyder’s reboot was to introduce a new Superman who… well, isn’t really Superman quite yet:

“So the situation was, Zod says ‘I’m not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.’ The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can’t fly to the moon, and we didn’t want to come up with that crutch.

“Also our movie was in a way Superman Begins, he’s not really Superman until the end of the film. We wanted him to have had that experience of having taken a life and carry that through onto the next films. Because he’s Superman and because people idolise him he will have to hold himself to a higher standard.”

In term of additional similarities, both Batman Begins and Man of Steel also show:

  1. The eponymous superhero causing a real mess of things, due to their inexperience and emotional vulnerabilities.
  2. How Batman and Superman form their ethical codes when it comes to killing others (in short: avoid it whenever possible).

Moreover, Man of Steel‘s ending has now allowed the “Superman doesn’t kill” code (in the future, anyway) to exist within the narrative, which means that Goyer now has a good reason to stick to that creed and even address it in the sequel (more on that in a moment). By comparison, Batman Begins shows Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) deciding to passively kill Ra’s al Ghul (Liam Neeson) by not saving him; yet, Bruce’s own moral reckoning didn’t come about until The Dark Knight Rises, when his actions come back to haunt him.

Batman Vs Superman Logoish David S. Goyer Talks Man of Steel Controversy & Setting Up Batman vs. Superman

Batman vs. Superman, like Goyer’s story for The Dark Knight, is expected to deal with the problem of escalation, as Supe’s actions in Man of Steel draw a battle-scarred and world-weary Caped Crusader (played by Ben Affleck) out of the woodwork. However, unlike the Joker in Dark Knight, Affleck playing Bruce Wayne -serving as the antagonist in the Man of Steel sequel (note: “antagonist” does not mean “villain”) - is going to confront Supe about the responsibilities that come with his god-like powers – and why the collateral damage caused by Kal-El in Man of Steel cannot be swept under the rug.

In other words, Goyer and Snyder’s artistic choices in Man of Steel could give rise to a sequel that is as philosophically-complex (if not more so) than The Dark Knight, in addition to being a successful expansion of the DC shared movie universe – so that a Justice League film takes another step closer to becoming a reality one day. If all that happens, then it’ll just go to show: change in how we approach comic book mythology, despite how tough it can be on the masses, really is for the best sometimes.

Where do you stand on the Man of Steel controversy? Do you think that if Batman vs. Superman proves to be a success, then it’ll prompt many people to re-evaluate Snyder’s reboot of the Superman franchise?


Man of Steel debuts on DVD and Blu-ray on November 12th, 2013.

Man of Steel 2/Batman vs. Superman opens in U.S. theaters on July 17th, 2015.

Source: Digital Spy

Follow Sandy Schaefer on Twitter @feynmanguy
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I’m so glad MOS 2 is under way. I can’t wait for it to come out and piss off another million nerds who live to complain about something. It’s really pathetic but incredibly entertaining so thank you. I’ll be enjoying this movie!

      • It’s still not too late, they could make a Man of Steel sequel for 2016 and just make the 2015 one a spin off.

      • It’s actually the other way around there, bud.

        • Wow

    • I’m with you! The complaints are often hilarious!

  2. Im really getting tired of these fanboys not getting over it!!

    Whats the big deal? Superman did what he had to do…Phantom Zone my ass!

    You know what I thought when I watched that “INFAMOUS HORRIBLE KILLING” scene?: – All the trouble for just a neck snapping. really?

    • Right! I figured it would’ve been more than just a neck snapping.

      • I actually noticed when I watched it the second time that he broke the sound barrier when he did it(like he did earlier in the movie multiple times when flying), meaning he had to go pretty fast and powerful haha which kinda made sense cause, it’s not impossible to kill a kryptonian, you just have to be able to be stronger than one haha

    • Then you just don’t get it. Superman has never and will never kill another living being. If a character depicted in a movie does it, then it isn’t Superman. I don’t care who wrote it, nor who sanctioned it. It’s NOT Superman.

      • So you didnt like Superman 2 either ?

        • +100. In Superman 2, Superman kills 3 Kryptonians and then laughs about it with Lois Lane

          • Watch the special edition. The outtakes explain The Fortress rebanishes them but was cut for time constraints

            • If it was cut, then it’s not canon, so you’re mentioning it is redundant.

              • There is no “canon.” There are 2 independent cuts of the movie. In one cut their fate after falling down the chasm is left ambiguous and in the other the movie explicitly shows that they survive.

                • If an unpowered, effectively human, man is pushed into a chasm of which the bottom cannot be seen, I think it’s safe to assume his ultimate fate would not be ambiguous.

                  Extras do not count as an ‘independent cut’.

                  • There were several cuts of the movie. Many of them make it clear that the kryptonians survive, including the Richard Donner cut. There was a pool of water at the bottom of the chasm. The poorly edited theatrical cut left out that crucial sequence making Superman look like a killer in the same way that the poorly edited theatrical cut of MOS made Superman look like a sociopath who forgets about the catastrophic mayhem he was involved with after 10 seconds.

              • If it wasn’t shown in the movie, it didn’t happen…
                unless we’re talking about MOS, in which case every criticism can be countered by “just wait for the sequel”

                • No, that’s only in your head. For the rest of us, there’s the theatrical release (canon) and the “oops” extra version on a disk.

                  Methinks thou dost protest too much. You keep trying to shoot down those of us who liked the film…maybe you’re just sad you didn’t get it.

                  • -Methinks thou dost protest too much-

                    Coming from a dude who has responded TO EVERY ONE OF MY COMMENTS in this thread telling me why my opinion is WRONG. Grow up. People have different opinions than you, it’s part of life.

                    • …not to EVERY one…just to the silly or outright asinine ones. :)

                      I assure you I’m quite grown…and quite capable of carrying on an interesting debate with a thoughtful, non-abrasive person. As soon as you find someone like that to replace you, this debate can continue.

      • Mate, check the source material ie. The comics. Superman has killed living beings (including Zod) and that is why he exiled himself for a while. I have no problems with Man of Steel. While I regard Christopher Reeve as one of my personal heroes, Henry Cavill proved to be the best Superman we have seen on the big screen.

      • Oh my God man are you gonna cry or throw a temper tantrum like my 2 year old little girl? Calm down like it or not that was Superman and theres gonna be more films of that same Superman.

      • Guess what. He did. And he is.

      • Someone should tell Doomsday that, because I’m pretty sure Superman ended him in the mainstream continuity. Superman, unlike Batman, does not have a code to not kill, he pledges uphold Justice, which means following the laws of the country he resides in. However, if the inhabitants of the country (or the world, in some cases), he will carry out justice as he sees fit, which can include executing those responsible. For further examples of Superman killing you can look at how he has handled Zod in a couple cases, Tyrell in the Superman Earth One series, or Joker in the Injustice comics/game.

      • Superman has most definitely killed in the comics before. He killed Doomsday and in John Byrnes’ run he killed Zod as well. In Kingdom Come he killed. I get that you don’t WANT him to. But that does not escape the fact that in dire circumstances he most definitely DOES kill. I would recommend reading the comics before you make unsubstantiated comments.

      • OK, Let me ask you this Lee. Did you see & enjoy Batman Begins.
        I havent met 1 person that was a comic fan who said Nolan & Goyer did a bad job on their Batman trilogy. So if thats the case, why didn’t you complain about their change to Batman’s origin? I don’t remember him going to the mountains to get trained by a bunch of clandestine ninjas either. Why was that change ok but Superman making a split decision to take out Zod before innocent lives were wiped out not ok? And Batman also did elect not to save Ducard which was killing in a different way. That was ok? The point is they both changed and it shows they will kill if necessary.

      • get a life seriously

      • I have less of a problem him killing Zod than I do with him letting everyone else die while he looks for his bit on the side.

        At the end of the day though, He SUPERman for a reason, he can do anything that certainly includes finding other ways to rid himself of pesky foes other than killing them.

        Whatever that is on screen, it’s certainly not Superman.

        • What would you have done? I want you to give me a direct answer though. We saw Kal go through as much as most regular Joes which means he probably knows as much as you. What would you do if you had that much power & someone else with the same level of strength threatens billions? Remember… I don’t wanna hear “Oh! He shouldn’t have done that!” Let’s hear your plan in detail.

          • Sonny…

            John has NO reason. This was very clearly a Superman film, but it was showing HOW he develops into that pinnacle of inspirational heroism. The film quite effectively presented how someone with the gods-like presence of a superhero but with human emotions and values must work to become the hero the modern needs.

            Oh, and John: Superman canNOT do everything…if he could, we would have no reason to watch a movie about him.

            • *modern WORLD*


      • Sorry Lee, but in the Superman methos Supes had killed early on in his career, in fact it was even Zod (Of a different dimension) that he killed which caused Supes to banish himself from Earth for a while (til he could come to terms with what he had to do) and that instance is what made his “No Kill” rule!!!

      • Well by that standard superman shouldn’t be able to fly, have ice breath etc…. since their not allowed to grow, or divulge away from how they were originally imagined. to be adapted as times change. or maybe him killing zod becomes his reason why he dosn’t kill?

    • I’d gladly kill a jerk if I had to.
      I have not seen MOS yet (except trailers, which looked OK). Will buy the DVD when it comes out and watch it in full then.
      Hope Bats & Supes show (“Batsy Loves Supsie”? “Supsie Loves Batsy”?) will be good, but would rather see Green Lantern & Flash team-up.

    • what else would he have done? pull an injustice and lobotomize him like he did to shazam

  3. Man of Steel rules best Superman movie ever! All others are cheesy!

  4. MOS isn’t the best Superman film. Lol. Some of you talk as if you want Superman to be a murderer & complain if Batman were to kill someone.

    • Batman lives by no killing.

      No killing isn’t something that made Superman become Superman.

      • @ ACW 007

        Batman would kill if he had no options. He’s killed in the comics & even carried a gun. Superman had his dark days, I can admit to that. But like Batman if was no other option, Superman would do whatever needs to be done, especially if he can’t send the most dangerous foes into the Phantom Zone.

        • Frank…

          Umm, you just “proved” ACW’s point for him. So, THANK you, from all of us who have been wondering WHY people are treating this act as if it destroys the good, inspirational heart of Superman. It doesn’t; it simply adds depth to the formation of a hero who will lead other heroes IN THE FUTURE.

          “But like Batman if was no other option, Superman would do whatever needs to be done, especially if he can’t send the most dangerous foes into the Phantom Zone.”

          YOUR own words…and absolutely true.


        I mean good god what’s ‘super’ about that?

        Yeah, Yeah.. I’ve tried murder but I wasn’t too keen so I won’t bother again… BALLS TO THAT!!!!

        • “Super” never meant “Perfect”. Jesus analogies aside, this iteration of Big Blue clearly has designs to set him up as a superhero work in progress.

          • Exactly.

    • It arguably is the best superman film, I won’t deny Christopher Reeve his renditions place in history but you honestly can’t compare the two they take two different looks at a character and the technology from back them is different from what we do now so I just feel like this one was better and less campy.

  5. MOS was epic, probably my favourite CBM, some of the best action fight scenes ive ever seen, who cares if he killed Zod, I mean seriously get a life, and why is it Supermans fault there was total carnage, its not his fault Zod and his army came after him, whats he supposed to do?? anyway that will be nothing compared to what Doomsday will do, please Zack, bring on Doomsday!

    • Imo, it wasn’t epic. Most of the best action seemed rushed into the 3rd act. Could of shown people been saved by Superman in Metropolis besides the family almost killed by Zod. No mention of people killed in the attack. Even in The Avengers you could notice a candle light virgil after the invasion in NY. You already want to bring in Doomsday?

      • @ Frank Castle

        I agree about the rushed action. What was up with the ‘World Engine’ having liquid metal tentacles? I know it looked cool when Supes flew up into it’s gravity field. But it would have made a lot more sense for him just to dive bomb it at mock 5 from orbit.

        • 1. What bomb made by humans would scratch kryptonian tech?
          2. Tentacles are there for protection. They are more flexible defense comparing to a few guns

          • LOL My bad. What I meant was that Superman should have flew into it from orbit instead of going at it from underneath.

            • Yes. Approach the target in a perfectly straight, non-deviating line; because they won’t let the defense system predict your approach…

  6. The fanboysare the ones who ultimatley get to judge. Everyone wanted this film to set more in a realistic world. But that just doesn’t work when an alien humanoid comes to earth and becomes a super powered vigillante. So WHY NOT stick with the core concept. I’ve read so many comics where Supes is able to get rid of a villain with no killing. Goyer wanted to bring Superman down to a human level which is a flawed human thought. Jor-El even states that humanity will stumble and fall but eventually make their way into the sun. Superman was and is the standard that held all other DC super heroes in check. I think Flash Point Paradox really showed what a world without Superman would be. Not the Goyer flawed version, but the true embodiment of the Superman idea.

    • Wow man now get your sippy cup and blankie and go to bed its past your bed time. All this no killing for Superman stuff is extremely juvenile. At his core Superman has great ideals and themes to live by but lets be honest those also make either boring or cheesy movies. Superman’s down fall has always been his lack of having an edge. Our pliced officers and military kill in the lind of duty when given no choice but they are still heroes. There is no way to make Superman completely realistic but MOS has come closer than any other Superman movie. All due respect to Reeves but his Superman while being good for nostalgia sake is not edgy at all and really cheesy. Snyder gave him an edge and some controversy and that is why Superman is returning to thebig screen so soon. And watch the movie before you say Affleck will be a horrible Batman. Nothing Heath Ledger had ever done said he could play the Joker but that was one of the greatest performances Ive ever seen.

        • In a sense about what their costumes would be yes I guess your right becasue it takes an edge to sell these days. If you look at as only a story to sale to Superman comic book fans then you dont have to change a thing, but luckily for the most of us who werent such crazed fans Snyder was not so narrow minded to think that he only had to appeal to the comic book guys. think about it this way when my parents were young shows like Leave it to Beaver and Green Acres and the Beverly Hillbillies were popular and they made many other tv shows of the same ilk because it sold. When I was a kid there were shows like touched by an Angel and Dr. Quinn that did well because it made money to tell the wholesome story on tv. Now the most popular shows are crime dramas Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy. Common thread is they all have an edge, they all try to be true to the times they are in which is why Reeves wholesome Superman worked then and would never go over now ala the Superman Returns movie that was horrible. Broaden the horizon of your child like mind and realize nobody is gonna make a movie just for you. And ya given your little gay joke about me and Heath Ledger its pretty easy to see you have the maturity level of a 5 year old. And I have never seen anything but a completely glowing review of his performance as Joker so I am clearly not in the minority of thinking it was a great performance and it won an Oscar of course it seems as though you would argue that he only won because he died,

          • You are missing the core concept of this. Snyder did a great job with most of the story. In Supes first confrontation with Zod it seemed that Supes did more damage than the Kryptonians. That’s fine because he’s new at the hero gig. There was plenty of edginess without Zod having to die. New costume, new actor, tons of destruction and mayhem. Lets not forget the finally the flick without Luthor or kryptonite! I loved that! Heck I can even get behind Jimmy Olson being a girl. But to throw out 70 years of the one reoccuring theme (that all the comics, movies, tv shows, video games, etc. share) for the sake of sales is outrageous. Would anyone at all be upset if Zod had been banished to the Phantom Zone? Not a soul. Would people still have gone to see the movie? Absolutley! There are a probably infinite ways with really awesome effects to write it that way.

            As humans we kill for all sorts of reasons. War, greed, famine, and the list goes on. Superman is an ideaology that says, Never take natural life of a sentient being no matter what. It’s not something people can understand. We eventually reach a breaking point. Superman does not. It isn’t his powers that make him super. It’s his choices. It was a great premise with ‘realistic’ ending. Which sucks because nothing about Superman is realistic. To argue that it better because it struck home with an newer audience is silly. There is nothing edgy in The Big Bang Theory yet it is one the most popular shows on tv. Far more popular than Breaking Bad. If you remember Dr. Quinn then you should remember Crime and Punishment and Homicide, Life on the streets which were pretty edgy. What show also came out the same year as Dr. Quinn? Would that be Lois and Clark? Yes I believe so. He wasn’t snapping necks just to keep up with crime drama’s then either.

            The only thing I will concede is that Heath Ledger was awesome as Joker.

            • So, here is the problem, many of you want all of the versions of Superman, Batman, and every other Marvel and DC character to be the same every time. When a new writer, director, artist etc takes the helm, it is a reimagining. The whole point is that it is new and different. Yes, Superman is the most famous and successful hero in all of comics, and yes his no killing rule is at the very center of his character. But think about it from this point of view. As a writer myself, you look at things from a different perspective every time you approach it. From a writer’s standpoint, you have to ask yourself, where did that rule come from? What drives it? Why is he so adamant about it? I agree with Goyer that the scene served as a reference point, it was the event that sparked his no killing rule, and eventually the reason he will stand by it from now on, to the detriment of himself and other heroes most likely. What makes him different is the rule, but remember, he is part human. He is Kryptonian only by birth, raised as a human. he will make mistakes, he will learn from them, and he will become the beacon. That is the center of Superman’s character.

              • Amen brother. I think most of these guys completely skipped over that part of the article. In any ideaolagy or way of thinking there has to be an event that sparked that ideal. That was that moment. If the ideal isnt sparked by something personal it will eventually in most cases be forgotten.

              • You get it, man!! I agree, 1,000,000%!!!

            • It might be outrageous but its the truth. Its the ugly truth about Hollywood. Money talks everything else walks there. And Goyer did mention that the event is supposed to be what sparks his philsophy of no killing making it personal to him therefore more understandable why he would go to such great lengths to maintain it.

              • If you want comic book Superman, read the comic.

      • It isn’t juvenile. It’s 70 years of a character’s history, thrown out the window for the sake of scratching the balls of a writer.

        • 70 years of character history that the vast majority of movie goers really dont care about. There are people out there who still havent made up their minds if Walter White is a bad guy or not and think Jax Teller is not that bad either and theyve killed many. The juvenile part is not being able to take off your blinders for a moment to see what will actually sell to the broad fan base you would like to reach which in theory is every person not just comic book guys. Snyder gets it and for these same reasons that a movie like the first Wolverine movie did pretty well at the box office but it gets killed on every blog. Everyone I know who saw the movie and had no clue about his origins or back story really liked the movie but comic book fans hated it. I was a huge Wolverine fan growing up and of course some of it ticked me off but I was still able to enjoy it because I knew I wasnt the whole audience they were trying to reach.

          • About Wolverine, it wasn’t just his origins, they messed up on, it was the franchise’s connections people had a problem with. When you take such a iconic hero such as Superman, die hard fans expect the basics to be respected. General movie goers of-course want to see a great movie no matter the outcome.

            • Thats my point exactly general movie goers want a good movie no matter what. Im going to see a movie with Wolverine in it no matter what because Im a die hard fan just like you would Superman so we dont have to be sold on the product but a lot of people who dont like comics wait for word of mouth about the movie before they decide to go. Those are the people they have to cater to. The die hards will be there even if its just to complain afterwards.

              • Yea, it’s the die hards the general people can’t figure out why they take a Superman film seriously or care about what he does,etc.

          • Snyder knows how to get the public excited for a cgi filed movie. He doesn’t know wht made superman stood out.

            • Actually, he very clearly showed the deepest essence of Superman in MOS. Snyder “got it” quite effectively.

        • Yea, remind me when Batman hits 70 years. Not that it matters. Unlike Superman, Batman gone through so many changes over the years what does it matter when he reaches 70 right?

        • So where was this complaint three years ago when Superman Earth One came out? He kills Tyrell in that, and it was a great interpretation of Superman, along with the Batman Earth One series being a great re-imagining of Batman. If it makes you feel better, you can realize that MOS Superman isn’t Earth 0 Superman (although he killed Dooomsday in the 90s anyways, so it’s not really disregarding 70 years of Superman).

        • It’s 70 years of comic book history; Man of Steel wasn’t a comic, it was a film.

    • @ Matt S

      I agree. For a shared universe. I was hoping Superman would be an inspiration, a beacon of hope for everyone, only to later be vulnerable like anybody else as someone would bring him down. Maybe the return of Zod or some other powerful foe. Most of DC’s heroes are seen as gods and imo they should be seen that way for awhile only to be brought down by themselves, their enemies, or something else.

    • Everyone wanted more realistic TONE, emotional, one that would make character appealing and more closer to our understanding and realities of our todays world. I swear sometimes you people play stupid just to add mistake in the movie.
      Again people, Superman killed Zod in the comics too, any complains? Superman killed Doomsday twice, any complains? Sometimes there is no other choice.
      Sure they could wright the script where Zod ends up in Phantom Zone with the rest of his crew. But it wouldn’t end up good from story perspective. Killing Zod lets to more emotional problems for the future movies and its good. Killing Zod Superman shows that he’s willing to sacrifice his sanity and purity for the sake of whats needed to be done.

  7. Ugh this again (great)instead of focusing on this can we just say that Henry Cavill is just AMAZ-ing like I drooled the entire film his suit was fitted in *all the right places thats what I cared about call me shallow call me whatever but Henry Cavill made the movie for me.

    • If we don’t stick to the core concept of Superman, why not just make him a short fat guy with orange hair in a track suit with a towel for a cape? What’s the point of making a movie if you can’t stick with the source material? Maybe they should have changed the story so Superman developed his powers after looking at 45 hours of girl on girl porn. Why make the damn movie at all? The idea of Superman is a pure concept meant to enlighten as well as entertain.

      • And if that sold like controversy they would. If great ideals and a great story for people to find values to live by were all it took to have a blockbuster smash hit the the Left Behind series would have been the biggest box office hits of all time. Snyder had to make a movie that would sale and be good enough for a sequel and guess what? He did that. Stop being so married to a comic book where you can make anything believable and realize he had to reach a much larger audience and he did that better than any other Superman director ever has.

        • We get it, you like to be easily entertained by cgi and action scenes ripped out of transformers, no matter the price of supermans history drained down the toilet. Let others that care about supermans character care. Your making it sound that only you’re opinion counts.

          • @ Chris

            I agree many people are like that.

            • It saddens me when someone says “70 years no moviegoer gives a crap about.” Thats wrong as plenty of moviegoers care. MOS is enjoyable to those who love transformers. For those wanting a true terrific superman film that can too the Christopher Reece one, to me, I actually preferred superman returns and that had its flaws as well with the miscasting of Lois and the slow pace but at least superman still acted like superman instead of a reckless guy going by the name of superman that would actually fit the hulk far better than superman here.

          • Mine is not the only one that counts but someone has to look at this with some outsiders common sense. My point was that you are not making a Superman movie for Superman comic fans you are making it for everyone. I in fact am the only one not acting like my opinion is the only one that matters. You cant just appeal to the people who will already go see it no matter what in fact if you use your head you will realize that would be the worst thing you could do. And i have no clue how you would expect a Superman movie to be made without a lot of cgi. I would love that explanation. No stunt mans gonna come in and fly around and bend metal and see through walls.

    • Cavill’s costume is growing on me I admit, but still could of been brighter colored than what it was.

        • I think the red undies could of been moderned, really. The costume was mostly fine except the colors. I thought the cape was too long. I miss the yellow S on the back.

  8. One of the worst things to work on with DC heroes is the origin story. Glad that’s over & done with.
    Zack Snyder r0cks!!

    • The origin story never needed to be done again. It has been done and done well numerous times in the past.

      • Agreed.

        • Actually I was 50/50 about origins. Firstly I thought we didn’t need another origin telling as it’s been done plenty of times where people get the idea. Second, I liked most of what I saw in MOS regarding Krypton except for Kal-El being the only one naturally born during time of war & sent to earth.

      • Supermans origin story done numerous times, apart from MOS how many times was it done again?

        • Superman’s origins been explored in Superman The Movie, Superman:TAS,
          Smallville, Lois & Clark:TNAOS. So atleast 4 times aside from MOS.

        • How many times do you think a origin needs to be told?

    • It’s how they told the story that bothered me.

  9. Enough of this! Let’s get on to how awesome Marve’s Agents of Shield is.

    • Okay.


      There…now, back to the topic at hand.

  10. I LOVE MOS!!! I’m a die hard Batman fan and have been since birth, but one thing that you have to understand these are god like men that have their own code, yes its very easy to keep that tradition on paper in comics and in animation, but lets not forget David S Goyer and Christoper Nolan are trying to give us a these gods in a modern day that’s not so easy to live in, Batman is a flesh a blood human being at the end of the day and as humans we have to make decisions sometimes that we don’t like, and Superman has grown up as a human with these powers, but when faced with no other choice to save innocent people he had no other choice. Yes everyone will never be fully pleased, but for the fresh takes on the Dark Knight and Man of Steel I personally LOVE everything that has been done!

  11. Superman is my first & always be my favorite superhero & I like DC & Marvel the same. DC heroes imo are more godlike while Marvel’s heroes & stories are more realistic. I understand what WB/DC, Nolan,Goyer,& Snyder are doing but I can’t buy into the fact in a real world, anyone can be Batman. Or a alien who looks human with super powers will be welcomed to earth & kept secret for long enough into adulthood. And the more heroes that show up, would they be taken as good allies or loose cannons?

  12. Superman killed Zod in Superman 2 as well. In fact, he was scary cold about it, just tossed him into a pit like a waded up piece of paper into a trash can. I thought it was unrealistic in that it was physically too easy, unless Zod hadn’t been on Earth long enough to be as invulnerable as Superman. But at least he was forced to do it and agonized over it, unlike Superman 2 where it was just a “he deserved it” attitude even after Zod’s powers were neutralized and he could have just been locked up.

    • I didn’t have a big issue with zoss deah but explain the tornado scene and the destruction with no thought to human safety.

      • Have you ever read a Superman comic book? That much destruction happens to Metropolis in multiple comic stories.

    • @ Nate

      Depends which version of Superman 2 you watch. The Richard Donnor cut has him turn back time again to the point as if the trio never escaped the Phantom Zone.

      If it looked unrealistic & too easy about how Superman dispatched the trio in Lester’s film, it’s because the film was over 20 years ago. Imo, same could be said about Cavill’s Superman ending Zod’s life.

  13. I hope MOS 2 has a first 20 minutes like MOS too me the whole kyrpton sequence was perfect, wished it went for longer.

  14. How do I stop getting updates from this ridiculous thread?

  15. And by the way when Superman was created there were things like Word Wars and such going on and nobody wanted to see or think or read about killing after listening to the stories on the radio or reading about Normandy in the paper so of course they would make him above killing. Therefore the Phantom Zone was created to keep him form ever having to but if you have a world were there is no known Phantom Zone at least as of yet what is he supposed to do imagine it into existence? Come on guys just think a little bit about it.

  16. What a contrived artistic defense. Look, MOST people have a “don’t kill” rule. They don’t need an artificially created scenario which they have to experience for them to have an “a-HA” moment concerning moral issues. Superman doesn’t kill because Ma and Pa Kent raised him with a solid moral foundation. The viewer doesn’t need that explained. Superman was in a Kubiashi Maru because the writers put him there, not because it was required for the story. It feels like they wrote the killing scene and then worked backwards.

    • That´s a perfect definition of it!

  17. It´s not only that he killed. The problem is that the scene is very bad done. In the way it was shown it had THOUSANDS of ways of preventing Zod to kill that family without killing him. Not to mention that nobody knows exactly why Zod is not able to break free. What is so special in the way that Supes grabs him that he can´t fly against a wall? And I also seriously doubt that a Kriptonian can break the neck of another kriptonian (yeah they are incredibly strong, but they are also incredibly invulnerable).

    As a conclusion, if you want to put Superman in a life or death situation, is fine, but do it in believable way.

    • They did. THAT is why that scene worked.

      • Agree somewhat with you. Yes Superman could of probably flied off with Zod, pushed him, chucked him through the wall/ceiling to get him away from the people, if you slightly suspend your imagination/ignore those points the scene worked. Its intended purpose as stated is to give a grounding to a no kill policy for being who can kill as easy as we breath. It gives that a context you may not agree with it think too much artistic license is taken with Superman BUT it worked.

        Another way you could look at it is,MAYBE Superman knew he could as you say fly off, but he also knew eventually Zod is going to kill alot of people he is saying to zod dont do it giving him one last chance before he kills him. The scene therefor has more impact as Superman could of delayed Zod killing of civilians without killing Zod at that time. He didnt have to kill him at that moment to save lives but killed him because he realized that as Zod said either He dies or superman dies and any delay then would mean Zod would kill others (as zod said his only mission now was to kill every human as long as he lived) This in my eyes would give Superman alot more guilt in the act of killing.

        The point i dont agree with is how could he break Zod’s neck as they are both superhuman etc etc. If you dilute that down to two humans fighting both equal as strong etc its as easy as that. The very thing that makes Zod ‘invulnerable’ is his kryptonian flesh, blood and bones, the same kryptonian flesh and bones Superman use’s the break his neck.

    • The scene did work.

  18. I think because the wider audience has no background with Ben Affleck as Batman that could cost bums on seats.

    Did not TDK do better than Batman Begins once word had gotten around about how great Bale was in the role.

    I do believe putting the two heroes together will draw a big audience but surely initing them is to also make the biggest money making film of all time.

    For that reason I’m wondering if it would be better to deliver a Batman film first with Affleck, something that assumes he has been in business for a while and has a very intelligent story and sells him in the role to the wider market

    Then bring the two together.

    • Oh, I saw it. I saw the Kryptonian fights I’m supposed to be so in love with. I saw not-yet-Superman throw invulnerable enemies through a train station — a fully staffed train station — in the town he grew up in. I saw him fight those same invulnerable enemies in the middle of the town, tearing up main street and not seeming to care one bit about the innocent bystanders.

      Then, later, I saw him toss Zod through building after building in downtown Metropolis. I saw skyscrapers full of people crumble as indestructible opponents tore through them without a thought to the thousands dying around them. I saw twenty minutes of that, without concern showing even once on not-quite-Superman’s face.

      Now, since I *did* see the movie, and we clearly have very different interpretations of the Kents’ parenting style, I’m left wondering what movie *you* saw. The Jonathan Kent I saw was so scared of revealing his son’s powers, he instructed him to hide them at all costs. When young Clark asked him if he should have let those kids die rather than reveal himself, Jonathan answered “maybe.” When that tornado was bearing down on him, and there were any number of ways for Clark to save him without revealing his powers, Jonathan ordered him to let him die rather than risk it. Those are the two “Pa Kent” moments that stick out the most in my memory, and they don’t give me any indication that *this* “Pa Kent” could ever raise a child that would go on to be Superman.

      As for the “very next scene” comment. I’ll grant you, my memory is fuzzy. I saw it on opening weekend and it has been a while. The picture above may be from a different moment than the one I was thinking of. The scene change I’m referring to was right after not-yet-Superman snaps Zod’s neck. He lets out the primal “Darth Vader screaming ‘NOOOOO!’” scream that Snyder is sure illustrates his inner pain, Lois hugs him, and then the scene shifts to the interior of the Daily Planet where a smiling Clark Kent is being introduced to Lois. If there was a scene in between those two, it made no emotional impact and I don’t remember it. Regardless, it certainly wouldn’t be “Supes chucking a spy drone in front of the General’s face,” since at that point, the General is dead.

      Finally, to the “point” you think I’m making…you seem to be implying that I’m a Joss fan, just showing up here to badmouth his opposition. I wish. If that were the case, I wouldn’t care about the Superman movie being empty and heartless. I wouldn’t care about the sloppy storytelling. I’d be happy leaving my “down with anyone who’s not Joss” flag and walking away.

  19. So the issue is about him killing the one baddie intentionally, but nobody seems to take issue with the thousands he killed when they destroyed Metropolis (and more) in the fight? THIS is what everyone’s upset about? There’s so much more that killed this movie, this was pretty much irrelevant.

    • He didn’t kill (nor did he lead to the killing of) anyone in Metropolis. That would be the World Engine and maniacally brutal Kryptonians (and, at the last, the vengefully stubborn Zod)…

      I have my doubts that you were awake during the film if you can make such a silly, senseless statement.

  20. the conflict and the controversy in Man of Steel was all the writers head, doubtless they thought, how can we make this ‘our’ Superman and different from all the incarnations, but when you change the character to such a degree, in essence, taking away everything that makes him iconic, he’s no longer Superman. The film is a ‘stunt’ ‘one note’ and hasn’t even lasted past it’s premiere, much less over time. It will be interesting I suppose, for sociology students, and screenwriters, learning once again the old adage, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’

    • They did not “fix” it…they MODERNIZED it…and did so extremely well.

  21. why is it ok, for million of people to die, but not ok, that supes killed Zod? it looks that to many of you would have been better that zod killed that mom with her kids, than supes killing zod…

  22. “if [the film] was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is [otherwise left] unexplained.” Aversion to killing is unexplained??? How about the fact the killing is morally wrong. I actually understand and am ok with the fact he had no other choice. I just think its ridiculous to say someone would need a reason to be averse to killing.

  23. While I truly enjoy both Batman and Superman in both live-action and cartoon versions, I am not what serious followers would consider to be a “fanboy”. With that said, here are some of my thoughts: 1) Why are so many of you upset about Ben Affleck playing the new Batman? What has he done to upset so many of you? Is it that many of you feel a relative “unknown” should be cast in the role (aka Christopher Reeve, Henry Cavill as Superman)? Also, many people are upset about Superman killing someone (General Zod). What else was he to do with him? No place on Earth could hold Zod, and Superman had no way of taking away his powers (like in Superman II). And as for all of the destruction of Metropolis during their battle, I though such destruction was befitting of two “Gods” waging a war over the killing of all mankind to turn Earth into a new Krypton.

  24. I want some input on this please. In this new supe movie, r they gonna base batman off of dark knight rises? If so how exactly will that work. Just about everyone in gotham think batman died. If they continue with that r they gonna clear it up with citizens of gotham or what? Id like to hear what u guys think. :)