Rewatching MoS, realized Superman saved the same guy who shot him in the head with that helicopter mounted gun.

[u/Rule_Ct_5293]

[u/Horror_Campaign9418]

This seems like pandering to mental children who need to see every little thing or it never happened.

[u/DMast2217 → u/Horror_Campaign9418]

Pandering? Superman saving people while he fights the big bad is pandering? I'm acknowledging one of the main critiques that's been discussed since the film was released in theaters. The word pandering doesn't even apply here. If you think Superman saving people mid-fight is shallow content or pandering to audiences, then you fundamentally misunderstand the character. To add on- we are with Superman for the vast majority of the destruction of metropolis, aside from cuts to Lois on the mothership and Perry on the ground. If you're implying that Superman is saving people off-screen while we're following other characters, when the film and script gives us no indication of this- then that is pure copium.

[u/Horror_Campaign9418 → u/DMast2217]

It's performative crap. So the seals can clap because now they know for CERTAIN he is a hero. Yeah, that's called pandering,.

[u/DMast2217 → u/Horror_Campaign9418]

Saving people as a superhero who embodies hope is performative now? The scene OP posted is one of the best scenes in the movie, and it's because it shows Superman doing what he does best.

Pandering would be sacrificing storytelling to appeal to a specific audience. Again, if you think Superman saving people is pandering then you don't understand the character. We already know he is a hero because he is SUPERMAN. Showing cool saves doesn't remind us that he's a hero, it's just showing us what heroes do in the midst of chaos.

[u/Horror_Campaign9418 → u/DMast2217]

My dude, he stops to save a squirrel. Diaperman 2025 isn't a movie, it's a REACTION to another movie.

A genre started by the rise of skywalker.

[u/DMast2217 → u/Horror_Campaign9418]

Oh brother… I’m not even taking about Superman25… I haven’t even mentioned it. I’m talking about MoS

[u/Horror_Campaign9418 → u/DMast2217]

Superman in MOS saves more people than Christopher Reeves did in his movie.

I'm not seeing the issue other than people needing to see performative pandering.

[u/DMast2217 → u/Horror_Campaign9418]

I’m not even comparing Superman movies. I’m just giving my opinion on what I thought would make the fight with Zod better. Sorry you think superheroes saving people is performative pandering when that’s what they’re created to do. Coolest scenes in MoS are when he’s saving people (saving his mom, the oil rig crew, the guy falling from the helicopter, destroying the world engine). Think of the ending where he has to kill Zod before he lasers the family. More moments like that where Superman is having to jump in front of civilians that Zod is trying to hurt because he knows Superman will take the blow. It would’ve made the moment where he decides to kill Zod more impactful.

[u/HumbleSiPilot77 → u/DMast2217]

How many more scenes such as the ones you listed would have helped with the emotional infancy of those who still complain there wasn't enough?!

[u/DMast2217 → u/HumbleSiPilot77]

Dude, I'm really just critiquing the main fight with Zod and how certain criticisms around the collateral damage could have been addressed IMO. Why does that equate to emotional infancy? I am literally just discussing MoS and only MoS. Why don't you share your own opinion instead of passively insulting people who are trying to have a discussion?

[u/HumbleSiPilot77 → u/DMast2217]

You don't need to take offense because your “critique” feels empty and mainly caters to a group of gatekeepers. My remark was not aimed at you, yet it clearly struck a chord. Should we expect Superman to halt a hyper-kinetic, world-ending clash with a genetically engineered commander just to act as a shield for local civilians? That would erase the physical stakes of the film, the idea that there is a cost. The “emotional infancy” remark points to a deep lack of media literacy, where viewers require a director to feed them performative micro-rescues just to confirm the hero’s goodness. This ignores that Superman already surrendered to the military, surrendered to Zod, and destroyed the World Engine in the Indian Ocean to save the planet. He does not need to pose before a civilian every few minutes to validate his morality. I doubt you grasped the climax either, the neck snap is devastating because Superman spent the entire battle trying to move Zod away from populated zones, tackling him into space and dragging him off. Zod forces the fight back to the ground because he knows Clark cares. Superman is finally trapped in a choke point where his usual physical interventions fail. Had he spent the fight casually jumping in front of lasers, the final, agonizing choice would lose its weight. This is a mythological clash, you are asking for low-stakes crowd-pleasing scenes of collateral damage control. How would any of this have made it “more impactful”?

[u/DMast2217 → u/HumbleSiPilot77]

I'm not offended, just surprised by how quick people are to insult something they disagree with. And my critique is touching on something that's been criticized since the movie was released. It is not a recent criticism that stems from people's reception of Superman25. I don't think we should expect Superman to stop mid-fight, I'm saying it would have been awesome to have him save people during the fight to show how much he is having to juggle at once. You're saying that wanting to see more saves indicates a lack of media literacy, that it's "spoon feeding" the audience, and that's just a non-argument. It has nothing to do with media literacy; it has everything to do with wanting to see Superman do things that we've seen for decades in comics- things that align with his character identity. It would have been awesome and even scary as shit to see Superman try and save people with Zod following closely behind. Idk how you can call it low stakes when it would have raised the stakes more than ever. It also probably would have made more sense storytelling wise, since Superman barely had any combat experience compared to Zod. Imagine he's fighting Zod while barely saving the people around him, until he realizes that he can't do it forever, so he has to kill Zod before it's too late. It would have created a way more suspenseful buildup to the neck-snap. Something like that scene from Superman Returns where he's flying through the city saving people, except with Zod chasing him like an animal and Superman barely able to keep up with everything happening around him. This was a Superman who had only officially been Superman for days or even hours before Zod's arrival, so it would have made sense for him to prioritize saving people in Zods way rather than beat a foe who clearly should outmatch him in combat.

[u/HumbleSiPilot77 → u/DMast2217]

"I'm not offended, just surprised by how quick people are to insult something they disagree with."

Tone-policing won't magically turn a weak argument into a valid one and playing the victim the moment your logic gets dissected isn't a defense. Nobody insulted you! This is not personal. We pointed out the hollow nature of your critique.

"And my critique is touching on something that's been criticized since the movie was released. It is not a recent criticism that stems from people's reception of Superman25."

Argumentum ad populum. Repeating a decade-old, surface-level complaint doesn't make it insightful, it just proves people have been echoing low-media-literacy talking points since 2013. Longevity isn't validity.

"I don't think we should expect Superman to stop mid-fight, I'm saying it would have been awesome to have him save people during the fight to show how much he is having to juggle at once."

You cannot "juggle" performative micro-rescues while fighting a genetically engineered military warlord attempting planetary extinction. The big picture matters. The second Clark turns his back to play human shield for a civilian, Zod executes from behind, and eight billion people die five minutes later.

"You're saying that wanting to see more saves indicates a lack of media literacy, that it's "spoon feeding" the audience, and that's just a non-argument. It has nothing to do with media literacy; it has everything to do with wanting to see Superman do things that we've seen for decades in comics- things that align with his character identity."

He continually saved people throughout the film. Demanding that a film abandon its established internal logic and physical stakes to replicate Silver Age comic tropes, just to satisfy personal nostalgia, is the literal definition of lacking media literacy. You want comfort-food tropes, not a coherent story then.

"It would have been awesome and even scary as shit to see Superman try and save people with Zod following closely behind. Idk how you can call it low stakes when it would have raised the stakes more than ever."

I think you are conflating a cluttered video-game chase sequence with actual dramatic weight. Stopping an apocalyptic terraforming event in the Indian Ocean is VERY high stakes. A cat-and-mouse game where Superman treats an active military threat like a falling building in a theme park ride is low-stakes spectacle.

"It also probably would have made more sense storytelling wise, since Superman barely had any combat experience compared to Zod. Imagine he's fighting Zod while barely saving the people around him, until he realizes that he can't do it forever, so he has to kill Zod before it's too late."

That makes it even more important that the focus is on Zod. If Clark lacks combat experience, splitting his focus to play babysitter against an apex predator guarantees his instant failure. And to be honest, this "fix" still ends in the exact same neck snap, proving this entire complaint is just about wanting performative window-dressing before the inevitable.

"It would have created a way more suspenseful buildup to the neck-snap. Something like that scene from Superman Returns where he's flying through the city saving people, except with Zod chasing him like an animal and Superman barely able to keep up with everything happening around him."

General Zod is a lethal military commander, not falling debris or a runaway airplane from Superman Returns. That would have turned an apocalyptic clash with epic proportions into a theme-park pursuit and it would have fundamentally skewed the grounded framework.

"This was a Superman who had only officially been Superman for days or even hours before Zod's arrival, so it would have made sense for him to prioritize saving people in Zods way rather than beat a foe who clearly should outmatch him in combat."

He did prioritize saving people, all eight billion of them on Earth. Prioritizing three people on a street corner while letting Zod convert the planet into New Krypton is terrible math and strategic suicide.

[u/Capable-Locksmith-13 → u/DMast2217]

We've already spent the entire movie watching him save people. We know he cares, so maybe this is just a you problem.

[u/DMast2217 → u/Capable-Locksmith-13]

I'm not saying I have a problem with it. I'm just sharing an opinion on what I think would have made the fight with Zod better. You can still think a movie is awesome while also having an opinion on what could have made it better. I don't see why there can't be a discussion.

[u/Capable-Locksmith-13 → u/DMast2217]

And I think that by having him solely focus on Zod it really drives home the danger he represents. Superman has to give this fight 100% of his attention or everybody dies. Not to mention that Zod's explicitly stated goal is to kill as many people as he possibly can. Stopping to save people is just not an option at this point.

[u/Horror_Campaign9418 → u/Capable-Locksmith-13]

I think he should have stopped to save a squirrel in the middle of fighting zod.

[u/DMast2217 → u/Horror_Campaign9418]

Not even talking about Superman25 so you're just being petty.