I saw Man of Steel in the theater about three times, went online to see what all the fuss about the film was. I understood the complaints about the pacing and story and in my view they were valid complaints. What I couldn't buy are people bashing the film on superman's moral position in killing Zod and what I saw online of what perception people had of superman. Which I was shocked to see people still held to this type of thinking of the character.
Now I will discuss the first and major issue and that is superman of course taking a life. In my opinion it was necessary that Superman had to take a life and finally someone puts superman in a very difficult position. Superman made the right choice to kill Zod he had no choice but to, if superman where to let him live nothing was going to stop Zod, he would not stop no prison on earth could hold him. Also I have to point this out there seems to be a hypocrisy going on and why there are other reason's to why Zod's death bothers people, it's simply because Zod LOOKS HUMAN if this was Darkseid or Brainiac we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Only question, when did Zod become more popular than Darkseid and Brainiac? Writers like Mark Waid and Grant Morrison have expressed their issues with MOS which I understand, but I also understand that they were raised with a view of Superman that is kinda still in peoples minds when they think of superman and that is of course the silver age. Has I said the whole Superman killing Zod really bothered those writers and to me I have to disagree with both assessments that hero's shouldn't kill or that society in what Grant Morrison said wants batman to kill the joker. Superman and Batman have the no killing rule and it is noble of them has characters, but here where I push the breaks has much has I love Superman a lot I have to understand wait a minute so both of you are willing to let your enemies kill more people due to you letting them leave cause of your own self righteousness?
I mean really why does morality with Superman have to be black and white, why is it that superman must have a moral black and white outlook on the world when it comes to his character. I mean reality isn't black and white there is always a balance of things I will not be clouded by this type of Utopian thinking of the character. I always thought what makes a hero interesting is when that hero's philosophy can be turned on its head by the antagonist
Speaking of utopian this leads to my other discussion, comic book writer's obsession with the silver age especially DC comics. Superman In my opinion personality wise from Donner to bronze age to Byrne version has been nothing but Silver Age Superman's personality. I mean most of the people who bash Superman saying he's a stupid character are usually using well Silver Age Superman has there reference of how superman is a stupid character. Is it me guy's or is superman's most popular version among the public is the silver age superman. No I am not a fan of Silver Age Superman to me that era was for Flash and GL, Superman to me it represented everything that was wrong with the thinking of the McCarthy era and the 50s. Hey that's a discussion for some other time but I just happen to see this weird trend of writers obsessing over the silver age and people's opinions of superman is nothing but the silver age version of him.
Now the whole Superman isn't saving everyone bit, I get what the film was doing. It was trying to show that superman isn't God, seems to me a bit ironic that people wanted superman to be overpowered in this film. I see people online saying when superman killed Zod said superman could have done multiple things in that situation. Then I ask them the simple question " do you want superman to be God in this film yes or no?" Of course a lot of people dodged the question but I find it weird seeing people like comicbookgirl19 saying things which makes it come off has if Superman should be doing everything. All of a sudden we want superman in a film to be omnipresent and omnipotent? I mean aren't we the same fans that try to say superman isn't a god, and isn't overpowered but now when a movie about superman happens to try and attempt to show that he isn't God we all of a sudden want him to become a GOD!
Now to my last discussion and that is IMO writers aren't writing superman has a Science Fiction character's first then a superhero. I see some people have an issue that MOS was too much of a Sci Fi flick with Superman in it. Then I ask myself ah isn't superman by definition a science fiction character. I have said this many times Superman stories would be more interesting if we in a superman story dealt with heavy science fiction based themes, of artificial life, Trans-dimensional travel and philosophy.
I have always said this, Batman is a psychological character because he functions in the genre that allows such things to be explored and that's Mystery and Noir and Crime. Mystery is a very psychological genre has for Noir which is why it works for batman and works with him very well in his stories and one-shots. Superman is in my opinion a philosophical character because he is in the realm of science fiction with is a very Philosophical and Sociological genre. The fact that writers who write superman nowadays aren't using that element really bother me.
I was playing Bioshock Infinite and something about the Elizabeth character reminded me of a certain superman villain and his abilities. Elizabeth in Infinite has the abilities to open tears to other universes and such and change that reality's fabric. Then I thought to myself why isn't Mr Mxyzptlk portrayed has a more darker version akin to Alan Moore's version but more darker. Like to have him be a cerebral villain for superman ( the guy's name is too long) like he sends superman to dystopian futures or show him varying realities and telling superman about the scientific theory of constants and variables applied to multiple universe theory like Elizabeth did in the Infinite.
I mean Siegel favorite Science Fiction film was Fritz Lang's Metropolis ( wonder where the name the city of metropolis came from?) Siegel and Shuster didn't know superhero's would spawn from those stories written they thought they were making a science fiction story. Superman is Jerry Siegel and Shusters love letter to the science fiction genre.
Anyways in closing this is how I feel about MOS and the way people perceive Superman. Some people see Donner's Version ( which Siegel himself didn't like Shuster liked Donner's film not Siegel) some the Silver Age which to me is becoming a very terrible obsession coming from DC In my opinion. Anyways hope you guys liked my article and understand where I am coming from with this. This is coming from a superman fan for 35 years now.