re: Superman Was Too Powerful to be Interesting in Man of Steel

I think this discussion brings up some good points about consistency, I mean that's essentially what we are talking about here. But the big idea in this one is consistency of morals. I never really had a problem with Zod's death in MoS, but some people do. Superman is SUPPOSED to be this extremely morally centered and "good" character, that gets shifted to a lot of different interpretations (as people have pointed out before). The reason some keep coming back to Zod's death I think is coupled with the idea of not trying to take the fight out of Metropolis, or not even meditating on the destruction, etc. His "good" morals were very fluid.

And if we take this idea that MoS wasn't about the Superman we know and love, and it was about growing, why did so many people miss that? Is it the age of Superman as a brand? He's been around so long at this point, that going back to the beginning is impossible (but even the earliest Superman stories are simply Superman being "all good," it wasn't until the post-Silver Age that he became tortured, broken, more flawed).

Like this:

quote:

---

Totally right. Remember when Superman negotiated a treaty with Zod at the end of Superman II?


of course not He threw a now powerless Zod to his death.


Superman kills and has always killed...and just for the record, from Kal-El's pov there certainly wasn't a feeling of victory.

---

I think this bothers people because the movie itself didn't really revolve around responsibility. Any kind of theme of "morally good" actions, or what makes a hero were all poorly developed throughout. It was a sequence of set pieces and destruction. Just like Snyder whiffed on the theme of Watchmen (regardless of the quality of the film, it's still a good movie), I think the point is that he missed here too. People are ok with Superman II because that Superman movies makes it a point to explore heroism. MoS, not so much.

Where Superman II was all about "being good by doing good,m" MoS tried to overcomplicate it significantly.


And with all conversations about moral characters who are consistent...
<---------------