Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel doesn’t hit DVD and Blu-ray until November, but it is already sparking renewed discussion after screenwriter David Goyer gave a talk this week at the BAFTA and British Film Institute Screenwriters’ Lecture Series, where he addressed one of the more controversial elements of the movie. In order to avoid direct spoilers, I won’t go into detail other than to say that it involves Superman’s moral code and the fact that in the comics he has never purposely taken another being’s life (with a few exceptions). Goyer says that writers “can’t rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film,” but clearly plenty of comic book fans would beg to differ.
One of the main problems that Zack Snyder set out to fix with Man of Steel is the fact Superman has insane powers but always avoids using them at all costs. He is often referred to as a “big blue boy scout” and this limitation can make him come across as a boring character to mainstream audiences. When it comes to movies based on existing source material, fans often expect the movies to strictly adhere to canon, but unfortunately, this does not always result in the best story. The risk is that by diverging, the very essence of the character can sometimes gets lost in the process. What do you think? Should Superman always stick to his established moral code or is it more interesting to challenge that? How did you feel about the widespread destruction and the end of Man of Steel? Do you trust Zack Snyder and David Goyer to be true to the character moving forward? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Warning: Further discussion in the comments may contain spoilers for Man of Steel.