Should Superman kill?

[Kuwagaton]

They probably figured he was sad enough about everything else. Honestly even if we all agree that killing isn't right, Zod had it coming. It was absolutely like a dude holding a gun to someone's head in front of a cop; you just don't really feel sorry for a sane person doing that. In the moment he basically asked for it so I'm glad that by BvS he wasn't having nightmares or anything.

The idea of "do something else" always haunts the narrative though. The point sometimes is what actually happens and "something else" can't cut it.

[stargazer01]

I'm fine with the way Zod died in MOS. Superman/Clark clearly didn't want to kill him, but at the moment he felt that was his only option or that family and the whole humanity would be gone if he didn't do something extreme. And he was really sad after. As an standalone film it works. It's not a crowd pleaser because many fans see Superman as something just for kids, but this version was more mature and realistic. I'm happy it exists. It was amazing to see Superman 's powers in a modern world. And it was wonderful to see Clark learning to fly for the first time. It was truly epic.

[Agent Z]

Like I mentioned prior, I'm overanalyzing, but breaking Zod's neck was not literally his only option there.

You say he tried to beat Zod into submission, but up until that point, Superman never had a clear upper hand. Two cage fighters try to beat the other guy down once the bell rings, but until one gets a position of advantage, or lands a KO blow, it's going to be a stalemate-ish struggle.

Okay, this doesn’t in anyway disprove what I said. If the most he could do was stalemate him, beating him into submission clearly did not work.

At the time of the scene in question, Superman finally had gotten the clear advantage for the first time, and again to use the cage fight analogy, beating a guy into submission is a lot more likely when you have the advantageous position that Superman had. Instead of breaking the guy's neck, why not choke him out?

Assuming he didn’t accidentally kill Zod by doing this, what would he then do when Zod wakes up?

Why not punch him in the back of the head?

He literally spent the past ten minutes trying to punch out Zod. It didn’t work.

Why not tear off one of Zod's ears?

Great idea. Not only do you have a pissed off Kryptonian who is immense pain stumbling around with no way to contain him, you’ve now had Superman mutilate someone. Which the anti-Snyder crowd are going to have a field day with.

Why not use the leverage he had to reposition Zod's face?

Again, and then what? You think Zod is going to just stop because he couldn’t kill that one family?

Why not use his own heat vision on Zod (that'd probably be extreme punishment there, but he did elect to break the guy's neck, so...)?

What’s the difference here? You think that wouldn’t kill Zod?

Etc. If you give Superman enough time to analyze a situation and make a choice, then in that fight scenario he's going to have more than one choice.

Yeah, if he had more time. Which he didn’t.

[DochaDocha]

Okay, this doesn’t in anyway disprove what I said. If the most he could do was stalemate him, beating him into submission clearly did not work.


Assuming he didn’t accidentally kill Zod by doing this, what would he then do when Zod wakes up?


He literally spent the past ten minutes trying to punch out Zod. It didn’t work.


Great idea. Not only do you have a pissed off Kryptonian who is immense pain stumbling around with no way to contain him, you’ve now had Superman mutilate someone. Which the anti-Snyder crowd are going to have a field day with.


Again, and then what? You think Zod is going to just stop because he couldn’t kill that one family?


What’s the difference here? You think that wouldn’t kill Zod?


Yeah, if he had more time. Which he didn’t.

I'm a bit of an MMA fan, so let me specify the following. If dude 1 and dude 2 are standing and fighting, and trading punches, neither dude has the advantage. That fight can go on indefinitely. On the other hand, if dude 1 has an advantageous position over dude 2, and then dude 1 starts wailing on dude 2, the fight very likely is going to end in a TKO in a matter of seconds because dude 2 is going to get killed (literally) otherwise. Supes never had the advantage until the moment he went for the kill. That's a big difference in real life, and to be fair fictional fights are such nonsense and abide by few rules that apply to reality, but that doesn't mean the scene isn't open for interpretation even if the writers intended there to be nothing to interpret.

Anyway, re-emphasizing that I disagree that Superman had "no choice" but to kill. He had few choices (semantic difference but difference nonetheless), even fewer good choices, but he still had options. Breaking Zod's neck might've been a better, more strategic, decision than choking him out, but my entire point is the option was there, and that this is not a true no-choice-but situation.

[Jokerz79]

Like I mentioned prior, I'm overanalyzing, but breaking Zod's neck was not literally his only option there.

You say he tried to beat Zod into submission, but up until that point, Superman never had a clear upper hand. Two cage fighters try to beat the other guy down once the bell rings, but until one gets a position of advantage, or lands a KO blow, it's going to be a stalemate-ish struggle. At the time of the scene in question, Superman finally had gotten the clear advantage for the first time, and again to use the cage fight analogy, beating a guy into submission is a lot more likely when you have the advantageous position that Superman had. Instead of breaking the guy's neck, why not choke him out? Why not punch him in the back of the head? Why not tear off one of Zod's ears? Why not use the leverage he had to reposition Zod's face? Why not use his own heat vision on Zod (that'd probably be extreme punishment there, but he did elect to break the guy's neck, so...)? Etc. If you give Superman enough time to analyze a situation and make a choice, then in that fight scenario he's going to have more than one choice. Superman finally earned the advantage of putting Zod in a position in which he could hardly defend himself, meaning Superman had options on how to continue the offensive. Limited options? Sure, but more than one.

Anyway, I'm less questioning the direction of putting Superman into a no-choice-but-to-kill situation, I just think the scene was not constructed to be so airtight as to make the claim it was Superman's only viable choice. And again, yes, I'm overanalyzing the scene, but that's what we do as comic fans.

IMO MoS didn't well establish Superman was against killing yes he was against innocent people dying but they never established if he was against lethal force and thus it made Zod's death less impactful to me.

[Ascended]

IMO MoS didn't well establish Superman was against killing yes he was against innocent people dying but they never established if he was against lethal force and thus it made Zod's death less impactful to me.

Clark *didn't* have a no kill rule. Why would he have a rule like that? Most people don't have a rule like that; they have an idea that they don't want to do it and would avoid it as much as they can, but they don't have a sacred vow. He had never thrown a punch at anyone, much less ever been in a situation where he'd be forced to make that choice. He had saved lives and contained a disaster or two, he had never even fought crime or anything. We know that when confronted, Clark will walk away, maybe leave town, and at most wreck your truck.

The death of Zod, I suspect, was supposed to provide a foundation for Clark's aversion to killing, giving his no kill policy some meat to it, and not just idealism that'll cause serious complications in a grounded, real world type of setting.

And there are always multiple options. Clark could have let go of Zod completely and asked him real nice to stop. Clark could have covered Zod's eyes with his hands and let Zod blow a hole through them, but disrupt the beam enough to maybe save the family. He could have thrown Zod into the sun. He could have asked Zod to marry him. There are always options (not all of them as silly as the ones I listed, that was just for lol's) But Clark didn't do those things, and I very much believe the original plan was to explore the cost of that decision. And since we've seen that very story play out in the comics time and time again, I see no problem with it. It is very much well within the bounds of the character. Clark only has a no kill rule when he wants to; he's actually killed more people than most of the League, outside of maybe Arthur, Diana, and Hal (who has definitely killed more people than any other Leaguer).

It didn't matter that Clark had other options. What matters is that Clark *felt* that he didn't.

[Jokerz79]

Clark *didn't* have a no kill rule. Why would he have a rule like that? Most people don't have a rule like that; they have an idea that they don't want to do it and would avoid it as much as they can, but they don't have a sacred vow. He had never thrown a punch at anyone, much less ever been in a situation where he'd be forced to make that choice. He had saved lives and contained a disaster or two, he had never even fought crime or anything. We know that when confronted, Clark will walk away, maybe leave town, and at most wreck your truck.

The death of Zod, I suspect, was supposed to provide a foundation for Clark's aversion to killing, giving his no kill policy some meat to it, and not just idealism that'll cause serious complications in a grounded, real world type of setting.

And there are always multiple options. Clark could have let go of Zod completely and asked him real nice to stop. Clark could have covered Zod's eyes with his hands and let Zod blow a hole through them, but disrupt the beam enough to maybe save the family. He could have thrown Zod into the sun. He could have asked Zod to marry him. There are always options (not all of them as silly as the ones I listed, that was just for lol's) But Clark didn't do those things, and I very much believe the original plan was to explore the cost of that decision. And since we've seen that very story play out in the comics time and time again, I see no problem with it. It is very much well within the bounds of the character. Clark only has a no kill rule when he wants to; he's actually killed more people than most of the League, outside of maybe Arthur, Diana, and Hal (who has definitely killed more people than any other Leaguer).

It didn't matter that Clark had other options. What matters is that Clark *felt* that he didn't.

Superheroes aren't normal people superheroes are all vigilantes unless government agents which MoS Superman clearly wasn't with the ending of MoS and tossing the government satellite back at them. Once you enter the vigilante field an audience needs know where the line is are they Spider-Man or Punisher especially when trying to create an emotional ending with them killing. If you want me to feel that this was something out of the norm for the character it needs to be established or else it's just "Another Day at the Office".

[Agent Z]

Superheroes aren't normal people superheroes are all vigilantes unless government agents which MoS Superman clearly wasn't with the ending of MoS and tossing the government satellite back at them. Once you enter the vigilante field an audience needs know where the line is are they Spider-Man or Punisher especially when trying to create an emotional ending with them killing. If you want me to feel that this was something out of the norm for the character it needs to be established or else it's just "Another Day at the Office".

Superheroes are abnormal in the sense that they have abilities normal people do not. That doesn't mean they don't think as normal people do. There's an entire middle ground between Spider-Man and the Punisher and the fact that he tried to reason with Zod is more than enough evidence that this was the first time he's killed.

[stargazer01]

Superheroes aren't normal people superheroes are all vigilantes unless government agents which MoS Superman clearly wasn't with the ending of MoS and tossing the government satellite back at them. Once you enter the vigilante field an audience needs know where the line is are they Spider-Man or Punisher especially when trying to create an emotional ending with them killing. If you want me to feel that this was something out of the norm for the character it needs to be established or else it's just "Another Day at the Office".

this was literally his first official time/day as Superman in the open. Clark had never fought anyone. Before that, the only rule he had was to be extremely careful around humans and to hide because the world was not ready for him. I mean, I don't remember Reeve Superman ever saying he doesn't kill when he first started either.

[Denirac]

I liked how it was handled in the DCAU:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LkHOesDNjIg

[Username taken]

Last time they fought he actually did just lure Doomsday to the fortress to use the phantom zone projector.

Which, frankly, was maybe worse than death in the sense of the old villains and the way it used to work, how they'd be phantoms instead of just stuck in some outback like they are now. It wasn't really something Superman would resort to so much as he'd put the escapees back in though.

Yeah.

Funny enough, i actually liked the "super science" pre-crisis Superman.

Some of the stuff he used was goofy but he possessed a metric ton of options in dealing with tight solutions (I still miss the Clark Kent robots).

[Username taken]

Clark *didn't* have a no kill rule. Why would he have a rule like that? Most people don't have a rule like that; they have an idea that they don't want to do it and would avoid it as much as they can, but they don't have a sacred vow. He had never thrown a punch at anyone, much less ever been in a situation where he'd be forced to make that choice. He had saved lives and contained a disaster or two, he had never even fought crime or anything. We know that when confronted, Clark will walk away, maybe leave town, and at most wreck your truck.

The death of Zod, I suspect, was supposed to provide a foundation for Clark's aversion to killing, giving his no kill policy some meat to it, and not just idealism that'll cause serious complications in a grounded, real world type of setting.

And there are always multiple options. Clark could have let go of Zod completely and asked him real nice to stop. Clark could have covered Zod's eyes with his hands and let Zod blow a hole through them, but disrupt the beam enough to maybe save the family. He could have thrown Zod into the sun. He could have asked Zod to marry him. There are always options (not all of them as silly as the ones I listed, that was just for lol's) But Clark didn't do those things, and I very much believe the original plan was to explore the cost of that decision. And since we've seen that very story play out in the comics time and time again, I see no problem with it. It is very much well within the bounds of the character. Clark only has a no kill rule when he wants to; he's actually killed more people than most of the League, outside of maybe Arthur, Diana, and Hal (who has definitely killed more people than any other Leaguer).

It didn't matter that Clark had other options. What matters is that Clark *felt* that he didn't.

I thought Clark killed that terrorist that held Lois hostage at the beginning.

I don't see how he would survive being flown through a wall at that speed.

[GreatKungLao]

[Jokerz79]

this was literally his first official time/day as Superman in the open. Clark had never fought anyone. Before that, the only rule he had was to be extremely careful around humans and to hide because the world was not ready for him. I mean, I don't remember Reeve Superman ever saying he doesn't kill when he first started either.

I'll go with 4 seminal superhero films which were origins

Superman 1978: While portrayed as the ultimate Boy Scout where even Lois said he was too good to be true they never established it simply because that version of Superman in that film never faced anyone where killing was needed he was vastly more powerful than everyone and never needed to kill.

Batman 1989: Established that Batman would kill from thugs to Joker.

Spider-Man (2002): Established Peter wouldn't kill not even Norman.

Batman Begins: Established that Batman didn't believe in lethal measures even thought the I don't have to save you was a cop out IMO.

Now a film can be ambivalent on this subject I mean plenty of heroes films are but not if they're having a major ending where the hero kills and it's suppose to be a big deal.

[Kuwagaton]

"I don't have to save you" and Catwoman blowing Bane away seemed liked writers stuck in a corner. Can't say I get why people roll with those and balk at the deliberately written death of Zod.