Posted on Wednesday, December 17th, 2014 by Germain Lussier
So many Hollywood films are so fraught with destruction, the complaints directed at Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel were definitely a surprise. At the end of the film, Superman and Zod battle all across the city of Metropolis, creating apocalyptic chaos. It’s basically the same ending of every blockbuster film, with one difference: Superman is usually infallible. He doesn’t do anything that would endanger the public, like throwing his enemy through a skyscraper. Then again, he doesn’t kill people either, and he did that in the movie, too.
The argument was that, in the movie, Superman has only been “Superman” for a few days. He hadn’t fully created his moral code yet, or even explored the depths of his abilities. Then again, he still creates havoc that may or may not have killed thousands of people, which is very un-like the character.
This was, and has continued to be, a big debate since the film’s release. Many expected Snyder’s follow-up, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, to deal with this. We now know not only is that true, we know specifically how Batman v Superman will deal with the Man of Steel destruction complaints.
Badass Digest made the revelations. They report all the info is from a version of the script, written by Chris Terrio, dated a month before production started. So these events were, at one point, in the movie but many not end up specifically in there when the final story hits theaters. Nevertheless, this is the tone and ideas the filmmakers were dealing with and should be considered spoilers.
Still around? Here goes.
First up, the murder thing. Superman was not happy he had to kill Zod in the last film. So, in Batman v Superman, when he confronts a major villain, he says “I won’t snap your neck, I’m going to take you to prison.” Kind of literal, don’t you think? Apparently, later Superman threatens to snap someone else’s neck, too. So this is not one isolated bit of dialogue.
Next up, the reaction to destruction thing. This is dealt with in two ways. One is that certain countries, such as China, won’t let Superman into their airspace in the film. Second, when the film’s main villain (revealed here, but I won’t spoil again) has a showdown with Superman, General Swanwick (Harry Lennix) “tells the military that Superman will move the battle away from populated areas because he’s a hero, and that’s what heroes do.” Again, pretty on the nose.
The article has more, including a bit about how Superman and Batman’s stories intertwine early in the movie. It’s a good read.
What do you think about these ideas? Are you glad they are being dealt with? Is it too reactionary? Too obvious?Cool Posts From Around the Web: