The Moral Implications Of Man Of Steel - Part 2
Forgot password
Enter the email address you used when you joined and we'll send you instructions to reset your password.
If you used Apple or Google to create your account, this process will create a password for your existing account.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Reset password instructions sent. If you have an account with us, you will receive an email within a few minutes.
Something went wrong. Try again or contact support if the problem persists.

The Moral Implications Of Man Of Steel

As somebody who has never read any of the Superman comics, or even seen all of the films, I'm not putting myself forward as a scholar of the character. I'm not even really a fan, if I'm honest - the story of a god falling to Earth always seemed much more interesting in the hands of Thor, that Superman. Although it got a pretty orgasmic review on this very site, to me Man of Steel actually turned out, in the end, to be a pretty traditional Superman movie. It didn't rewrite the rulebook in quite the same way as Batman Begins did for Batman, and I don't think future cinemagoers will regard it as highly as that film, either.
This article is over 12 years old and may contain outdated information

Man-of-Steel-General-Zod-armor-570x415

Recommended Videos

Zod’s plan makes him a very different kind of villain, even though he is dressed in traditionally villainous garb. If you were to strip him of that, however, he could be seen as an anti-hero. His stated mission is to resurrect his people from their current state of unbeing, lying dormant within the body of megalomaniac god-figure Clark Kent, who has been brought up in the knowledge that he will definitely change the world, as Superman.

For context, let’s imagine for one second that Zod was given his own film called Man of Krypton. Instead of Kevin Costner fixing cars and giving homely advice on how he’d change the world one day, young Zod’s parental figure would be fixing the ol’ spaceship and giving Zod homely advice on how his destiny was to save his people, one day. As Zod points out at the very end, by destroying the terra-former, Superman removes his entire purpose for living. Could Zod have done anything close to that to Superman? Could Zod have taken away Superman’s purpose for living? There’s no way. Superman chooses not to give the people of Krypton another chance by destroying the terra-former. Ignoring the fact that it was destroying our own planet for one second, Superman actually says “Krypton had its chance.” Do we give him the power to make that kind of decision? How long until “Earth had its chance” as Superman might say?

Zod works for the good of Krytpon. The only time he is objectively painted as a villain is when Superman drowns in that vision of a scorched Earth, coated in skulls. While destroying Earth would be a repulsive, genocidal act, it’s not personal. If anything, Jor-El would have known that Zod would have gone wherever he sent baby Kal. He effectively doomed Earth, and is revered in the film, portrayed as a saintly warrior figure who helps the fight for good. The fact that the fight between Zod and Superman is a fight that he himself caused is glossed over.

Is Zod to be blamed for his actions, given that he is only fulfilling a role that society carved out for him? We’re all victims of our circumstances to some extent, it’s just unfortunate for Zod that he had the misfortune of being destined to save (his) planet. In this way, the fight between Superman and Zod is actually the fight between two Supermans (Supermen?), from two different perspectives.

Continue reading on the next page…


We Got This Covered is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy
Author
Image of Rob Batchelor
Rob Batchelor
Male, Midlands, mid-twenties.