My thoughts on too much destruction in Man of Steel

My thoughts on too much destruction in Man of Steel

Some might say that i am beating a dead horse here, but this is still present in other articles even if it's not the main topic and people still talk about it.

Editorial Opinion
By BaronZemo - Dec 07, 2013 04:12 AM EST
Filed Under: Superman
Source: Me

MAN OF STEEL SPOILER ALERT
Exuse me if i have grammar mistakes, English is not my main language.

As you may alredy know, there are lots of Superman fans that complained about too much destruction in Man of Steel. And Superman killing Zod. And other people have replied these complaints saying that if a massively powerful alien is brought to earth to conquer it it's very normal for that to happen saying that it wouldn't be realistic if that didn't ocurred in the movie. And that superman had to kill Zod.

So the other day i was watching this documentary about superheroes and they started to talk about superman. They talked about how much he meant to the readers and the fact that when the first comic was released everybody was amazed by the content of it. "Wow, this guy is lifting up a car, i would also like to do it!" Something like that had never been done before. He was the first superhero. Sometimes in this world you never really know who is in charge or if you mean something to it, but when you were reading superman you always knew who was in charge. Plus he always won.

Here you have the parts where they mostly talk about superman (Part 2 and 3). They start talking about it in the minute 8:04 in Part 2. Watch them if you want.




So after understanding what means superman to the fans i kind of started to understand the complaints. For the people that say that Metropolis geting destroyed is normal and that if it wouldn't have gotten destroyed it wouldn't have been realistic, i have to say that you have to understand the fans because in the superman comics it doesn't have to be completely realistic because he always ends up winning and saving everyone. And when they go to see a superman movie, they don't go to see a city being destroyed, they go to see a hero saving everybody. Those arguments are not valid.

So with this, i don't mean that the movie was sh*t, i didn't like it, it didn't fit the character, blah, blah, blah... Because i enjoyed the movie a lot, i think it was an amazing film. What i mean is that that is not an argument. Superman always saves everybody and it doesn't have to be "realistic". So i understand the fans prefectly.

So now in the comment section you will say that i am a fanboy and a geek or something like: "Another fan who complains about the movies not being like the comics". First, i am a Marvelite and i actually don't have any DC comics. And second, i like the movie a lot and i didn't care about the destruction, i am just defending the fans and saying that i understand them. That's what i am doing. I actually don't really care about the destruction at all, what i am doing is negating the arguments defending Metropolis destruction. This is just for you to understand the true purpose of this article (i hope you did now).

And now, for the fans: I understand you (i don't know how many freaking times i have said that) but i you have to accept this other version of the character that is also very good. Superman has been lots of years being "unrealistic" and always saving everybody so it's okay if after all these years they do another version. And if you don't like it you can always watch the old cartoons or movies.

Thank you for reading.
SUPERMAN Director James Gunn On Casting Square David Corenswet And Upcoming Full Trailer
Related:

SUPERMAN Director James Gunn On Casting "Square" David Corenswet And Upcoming Full Trailer

SUPERMAN Director James Gunn Reveals A New Look At Edi Gathegi's Mr. Terrific, One Of My Favorite Characters
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN Director James Gunn Reveals A New Look At Edi Gathegi's Mr. Terrific, "One Of My Favorite Characters"

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

BenjiWest
BenjiWest - 12/7/2013, 4:39 AM
I think the comics have had on some level some kind of implied collateral damage, yet its easier in the comics to ignore collateral damage or make the brief, "and everyone miraculously survived" comment. In the comics the villains stay local to the superhero or his world, his city. Don't forget he saved billions in Man of Steel preventing the terra forming of Earth.
BenjiWest
BenjiWest - 12/7/2013, 6:32 AM
@MexicanSuperman - excellent points. Plus in Superman 2 how many probably died as Zod took control of the U.S. Also they have Lois kill the female chick so nonchalantly, like it was for her and Superman. At least Man of Steel, you actually could see and feel the remorse as he was forced to kill Zod, he didn't want to.
sikwon
sikwon - 12/7/2013, 7:02 AM
MoS was great the first time I watched it and it gets better every time.
Poolio
Poolio - 12/7/2013, 8:19 AM
This compliant of too much destruction has always been a BS one to me, I always figured if Superman were to get into a fight with another superpowered being, some shit would get destroyed. I can't imagine what these people will say once Doomsday rears his ugly head, cause at least 1 whole city or town is guaranteed to be leveled when he eventually shows up. Yes, people will die too, it's what makes them a super-VILLAIN.
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 12/7/2013, 8:34 AM
My opinion of this is that you should throw out any arguments that have to do with being "realistic" or "logical" things.

Like how the city was probably evacuated (although if anyone remembers 9/11, a major city would take days to be fully evacuated) or that Zod was he one throwing Kal into the buildings. Or even counter-arguments like "Kal should've taken the fight somewhere else!" or stuff like that. IMO, none of those things matter.

What matters is looking at why the filmmakers decided to level a city. Not the characters, the filmmakers. Part of it is because they wanted to respond to a direct complaint from Superman Returns, where people complained about there being not enough action. The bigger part of it is that they wanted to make a disaster movie but use Superman as an excuse to make it seem "deep" and "emotional" and "dark."

Seriously, they skimp out on proper characterization in the early parts of the film because they couldn't wait o focus more on the parts where the superbeings tear up Smallville and eventually Metropolis. That's why those sequences are so overly-long and why there's very little emotional payoff to those scenes. My problem is with the filmmakers, not the characters.
Forthas
Forthas - 12/7/2013, 8:38 AM
I want to make a point using the very first Christopher Reeve Superman movie. In that film after Superman is drowning with a chain of Kryptonite around his neck, Ms Tessbacher makes him promise to save Hackesack New Jersey first so her own mother can be saved. What is interesting is that Superman is hesitant citing Lois and Jimmy as who he should save first. So he was willing to allow a bomb hit a heavily populated city that would instantly kill millions versus one that would hit in the unpopulated dessert where the San Andreas fault runs. In fact because of that (decision by Ms. Tesbacher) he had time to save more people from the effects of the bomb that hit California. But people never criticize that movie and cite it as "better" despite the fact that the movie had some moral question about Superman. Not to mention Iron Man purposely kills numerous people in his first movie... but that is one of the "best" cbms ever made.

McNyagano
McNyagano - 12/7/2013, 10:08 AM
It's not the destruction in itself that was my problem but it was the movie's cavalier disregard towards it extending and reflecting onto a character generally known for decency and heroism. If that's what was intended, there would be some merit to it. But so much of it was bungled in an almost absent-minded way that colors the rest of the movie (which had the potential to be something really good). That's what's directing my disdain towards it.
DeathstrokeTerminator
DeathstrokeTerminator - 12/7/2013, 11:20 AM
Oh great here we go again, if you people had a problem with it, you are really going to hate it when we get Doomsday. Go enjoy your kid friendly superhero movies where no one ever seems to die and everyone's powers are watered down.
BANE5000
BANE5000 - 12/7/2013, 11:26 AM
My arguement is plain and simple...How can u NOT expect there to be tons of collateral damage when two super powered aliens are fighting in the middle of a city?

Damage like this has been seen before in Superman comics and even the TAS and JL cartoons, So I for one was expecting and happy that they showed how badly damaged a city could get if Supes fought an equally powered villain.

Its not like only a tree was gonna get knocked over and a car was gonna get dented, they were fighting for the survival of eachothers people, Supes for humanity and Zod for his losing what was left of his Kyrptonians.

And yes even Snyder said that many civilians had died during the fight when the gravitational beam was hitting Metropolis, it just each one of the deaths were not explicitly shown.

So the question is...Was so much destruction necessary for the aftermath of the final battle...ABSOLUTELY
Brainiac13
Brainiac13 - 12/7/2013, 11:44 AM
@AnnoDomini

Made the same comment some time ago. Totally agree

Superman: Doomsday has more destruction than MOS yet everyone ignores it.

Lhornbk
Lhornbk - 12/7/2013, 12:57 PM
Yeah, I understand that you're defending the whiny fanboys. But, there is no defending the whiny fanboys. They're stupid. They think they own Superman (and other heroes too) and that producer and directors and writers are obligated to satisfy them, even if no one else likes it. They're selfish and need to be made to realize that the universe doesn't revolve around them. Yesterday, in a thread that ended up becoming about a potential Justice League movie, someone commented that it would be a "slap in the face" to those who first started reading the Justice League comics if the movie didn't include all the original members. Oh bulls***! That's just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You fanboys aren't any more special than the kids who read the new Justice League comics and like Cyborg, or those of us who just want good movies and don't give a rip about following source material.
thedude2936
thedude2936 - 12/7/2013, 6:32 PM
Whiny fan boys make these movies and discussing them not fun anymore, plus I have a theory that the fan boys would be pissed no matter what kind of superman movie came out because it is Superman and everyone has to hate on anything Superman related because for some reason its the popular thing to do. They complain the Donner movies are too cheesy, superman returns was void of action, the man of steel had too much action.If any of these overzealous fan boys really read the comics like they claim they do they would not bitch about the destruction. Metropolis is always getting one part of it or another destroyed in the cartoons and comics when a super powered baddie comes to town. Also man of steel has its flaws but it is not by even a long shot a bad movie, it was what I felt to be a good start for the character that makes me want to see what's next.
MightyZeus
MightyZeus - 12/7/2013, 10:13 PM
I had no problem with the destruction scenes in Man of Steel i mean it was to be expected. Even in the last trailer it showcased some destruction. In the Superman comics and animated tv show there was destruction. The reason why people mostly complain is because Clark Kent had no characterization which i call bullshit.

It seemed people some what where ignoring the flash back scenes as Clark was growing up. Clark was seemingly lost not knowing what to do with his life after his Father died he had conflicting choices wanting to keep his identity a secret but at the same time wanting to use his abilities to save others. Clark had a sense of morality and established leadership qualities. Instead of fearing the world would not accept an alien being like him he embraced his alien heritage and did not cared for what people thought about him. Decency and Heroism is what Superman established in the this film.
kenjim152
kenjim152 - 12/9/2013, 2:07 PM
Not only superman vs doomsday, what about superman vs lobo?, suoerman vs dominus??? whoever complaines about that level of destruction has never read superman at all, nice documentary I had not watched before.
kenjim152
kenjim152 - 12/9/2013, 2:17 PM
BTW Superman IS SMASHING a car on his first cover!!!!!!!!!!! What does that tell you guys!!!! DUHHHH!!!!
lucio7lopez
lucio7lopez - 12/9/2013, 8:34 PM
What about all this people crying like girls and complaining about the violence in Man of Steel?? This is the first time we see a real gods fight in a superhero movie!! Awesome.
View Recorder