It would have been better if _________ killed Superman instead of Doomsday

[Superlad93]

No to both questions in the OP.

Conceptually Doomsday is solid. He's a personification of the very thing that we assume Superman to be up to the task to bring to heel: nature. He's every natural disaster and and wild animal given form and fist to fight back against the previously insurmountable Man of Tomorrow. Everything in the universe that acts as a reminder to us that we're small and don't have as much control as we think. THAT is Doomsday. You put a plan or a hand wringing mastermind to that and you're undercutting the whole thing by overestimating human sensibilities when held next to the vastness of creation. And that's a mistake because THAT is Clark's job in this conflict. He fights on the behalf of reason and personhood. He looks into the void and puts up his dukes as our representative.

There's only really two issues with Doomsday: His design is poor, and he's spoiled by the fact that he has any sort of a back story/explanation.

Issue one is subject, but...c'mon, right? However, issue two is where the main problem is. Like the Joker, YOU SHOULDN'T NEED DOOMSDAY'S BACKSTORY, and telling it takes something very vital from the "nowness" of him. Clark and the reader would love nothing more than to explain Doomsday, and maybe even give him a reason where common ground can be found. That anthropomorphizes him and allows Clark to but his brain to work in solving the issue. The more you explain a monster the less of a monster it becomes. Now what? Doomsday's just some sad super baby who never got a chance at life and is taking it out on the whole world? Oh? And he's also Kryptonian sometimes maybe?

Boy, isn't it nice how we can both explain why he's so strong and why he's so angry?

Know what would've been more scary? If we simply didn't know. Why's he so strong? Who knows. What did he want? Beats me. Are there more of him? No clue. You INSTNATLY put not just the world but Clark himself in more danger from then on-- not just because of Doomsday, but because of the idea that the universe just has something like that moving about unchecked. And you're not beholden to make good on that in the form of more Doomsdays or a planet full on him or whatever, but you've introduced true variability to Superman.

TLDR: Doomsday fine. He was just made in an era where by nature everything looked shitty and was over explained.

[williamtheday]

Funnyface kills superman with imagination and science... A comicstrip creator kills Superman by erasing very the idea and concept of him.Who knows if superman will be remade into something different or the creator realises it's a futile childish excercise?

I like it!

[The Frog Bros]

I think I have more issues with the way it happened. I don't like the way he was beaten to death with sheer brute strength. In my headcanon, Doomsday's bones are made of Kryptonite. (I'd love to one day make a custom of it). I know death by kryptonite might've been cliche but it's what I'd have preferred.

I do ultimately like that it was a new character but I wish Doomsday was more complex, and was both a physical and intellectual threat. My favorite version of Doomsday is actually the New 52 virus spewing version. I also think that having Superman die without that having a huge detrimental impact on the entire world was a missed opportunity. They should've really changed up the status quo across the entire line and maybe show a world where the villains were winning or where the world had actually been taken over by Mongul or the Cyborg Superman as a result of things being left wide-open in Superman's absence.

I dig it. This just may make it's way to my own head cannon.

No to both questions in the OP.

Conceptually Doomsday is solid. He's a personification of the very thing that we assume Superman to be up to the task to bring to heel: nature. He's every natural disaster and and wild animal given form and fist to fight back against the previously insurmountable Man of Tomorrow. Everything in the universe that acts as a reminder to us that we're small and don't have as much control as we think. THAT is Doomsday. You put a plan or a hand wringing mastermind to that and you're undercutting the whole thing by overestimating human sensibilities when held next to the vastness of creation. And that's a mistake because THAT is Clark's job in this conflict. He fights on the behalf of reason and personhood. He looks into the void and puts up his dukes as our representative.

There's only really two issues with Doomsday: His design is poor, and he's spoiled by the fact that he has any sort of a back story/explanation.

Issue one is subject, but...c'mon, right? However, issue two is where the main problem is. Like the Joker, YOU SHOULDN'T NEED DOOMSDAY'S BACKSTORY, and telling it takes something very vital from the "nowness" of him. Clark and the reader would love nothing more than to explain Doomsday, and maybe even give him a reason where common ground can be found. That anthropomorphizes him and allows Clark to but his brain to work in solving the issue. The more you explain a monster the less of a monster it becomes. Now what? Doomsday's just some sad super baby who never got a chance at life and is taking it out on the whole world? Oh? And he's also Kryptonian sometimes maybe?

Boy, isn't it nice how we can both explain why he's so strong and why he's so angry?

Know what would've been more scary? If we simply didn't know. Why's he so strong? Who knows. What did he want? Beats me. Are there more of him? No clue. You INSTNATLY put not just the world but Clark himself in more danger from then on-- not just because of Doomsday, but because of the idea that the universe just has something like that moving about unchecked. And you're not beholden to make good on that in the form of more Doomsdays or a planet full on him or whatever, but you've introduced true variability to Superman.

TLDR: Doomsday fine. He was just made in an era where by nature everything looked shitty and was over explained.

Couldn't agree more. There are some aspects of writing (or moviemaking or whatever else) that are tried and true (for me, anyway). Such as knowing how and when to effectively end a story (i.e. sticking the proverbial landing and not dragging on overstaying one's welcome); not divulging too much about a character (mystique and the unknown can be an incredibly effective way to make a character all the more memorable). Frankly, these days it seems like every character gets a prequel, backstory, etc. Too much exposition can def be a detriment to a character. Looking at you, Boba Fett...

But yeah, to answer the original question, I'm ok with Doomsday being the one to kill him and like that it was a new character.

[Vordan]

I personally would’ve picked Metallo. For an Anti-Superman weapon he sure does suck at actually beating Clark in a fight, and something like that would’ve elevated him as an opponent. Doomsday isn’t going anywhere so fine, but Christ why did they tell us where he came from and what his deal was? Part of his appeal was the mystique! He came out of nowhere and beat Superman to death! At best they should have had a million different stories and legends about where he comes from and never tell us which is true. Instead they went with the most boring option: he’s another Kryptonian too. Booooooring! All that did was make the universe feel so small, of course the only other guy out there who could kill Supes has to be from Krypton too because God forbid we ever build up other areas of the DCU.

[exile001]

Instead they went with the most boring option: he’s another Kryptonian too. Booooooring! All that did was make the universe feel so small, of course the only other guy out there who could kill Supes has to be from Krypton too because God forbid we ever build up other areas of the DCU.

To be fair, this is a Johns post-Infinite Crisis retcon that annoyingly stuck.

Doomsday wasn't Kryptonian originally, although the planet on which the experiments that created/evolved Doomsday happened to be a primordial Krypton.

That said, I am 100% with you on "...From Krypton!" being the least interesting (and overused) Superman trope.

[JBatmanFan05]

It would have been better if Lex Luthor killed Superman instead of Doomsday.

Superman's final defeat should come in dramatic fashion at the hands of his greatest enemy. The story has been done. Superman #149.

In the tale dead is dead. Superman does not come back to life. Luthor is tried and banished to the Phantom Zone and Supergirl takes on the mantel of Superman- becoming the defender of Truth and Justice. Superman #149 took place in a single issue. It would have been even more powerful if it had taken place over a string of issues like the Doomsday sage. Maybe DC will one day do an updated version of The Death of Superman as an Elseworlds story and give it the treatment is deserves.

Yeah, if I had could have opted for a different villain, I would have opted for Lex and perhaps doing a drawn out updated version of Superman #149. Of course, dead should not have meant dead, and Lex should have lost again when Superman returns.

[Zero Hunter]

The only way you can use someone like Lex and still keep him usbale afterwords is if say Lex had found Doomsday and experimented on him and accidentally made him more powerful which led to him going out of control. If Lex actually killed Superman he would not be usable again. Batman alone would make sure Lex never set foot outside of a cell. Either that or when Superman came back the dynamic between Lex and and Superman would be so different it would be hard to tell any story where they deal with each other without it coming of weird.

[Jon Clark]

The only way you can use someone like Lex and still keep him usbale afterwords is if say Lex had found Doomsday and experimented on him and accidentally made him more powerful which led to him going out of control. If Lex actually killed Superman he would not be usable again. Batman alone would make sure Lex never set foot outside of a cell. Either that or when Superman came back the dynamic between Lex and and Superman would be so different it would be hard to tell any story where they deal with each other without it coming of weird.

Why? Lex tries to kill Superman frequently. Other than Lex actually succeeding what would have changed?

I see the "unknown character appears and kills/cripples our hero" to be harder to swallow than "guy who has battled our hero a thousand times before finally gets a win".

As for Batman, why would he be any better at keeping Lex imprisoned than he is at doing the same to the Joker? It's like that goofy bit after Clark revealed his identity to the world and suddenly every hero on Earth was supposed to be watching the Planet and the Kent farm. It all works until it doesn't. The Planet will be just as vulnerable the next time a writer needs to attack it and the Kent farm was taken out in SSOK in a few panels. Batman and his protection squad did nothing. And no one reading really complained.

[exile001]

Why? Lex tries to kill Superman frequently. Other than Lex actually succeeding what would have changed?

I see the "unknown character appears and kills/cripples our hero" to be harder to swallow than "guy who has battled our hero a thousand times before finally gets a win".

Every time Doomsday shows up his killing Superman is mentioned and the main underpinning of the drama.

You couldn't have that with Lex, who was essentially a supporting cast member at the time.

It would either dilute the death/return really quickly making the effort worthless or become such a big focus that Lex would have to be written out. Either way, it removes Lex's threat going forward. It's the old maxim of the chase being better than the catch.

Doomsday will never kill Superman again and its rep is based on the fact that it did. Lex, on the other hand, could kill Superman at any point in future and, as contrary to logic as it may seem, that potentially makes him more dangerous.

On the new guy vs old foe debate, wanting to see, say, Lex finally succeed is absolutely valid.

Superman had no idea what to do with Doomsday, having never faced anything with its shear power and fury, so can only try to put himself between Doomsday and anything else. That ultimately leads to his death.

What could Lex have done that hadn't been done before, that Superman wouldn't see coming, and that would be so fresh people could overlook Lex's several pervious attempts (to be fair, he didn't overtly try to kill Superman as much in the Byrne/Triangle Era)?

Personally, I imagine a long chessmatch of events and counters between the two until Superman is ultimately lured to the perfect place at the perfect moment for Lex to spring his final trap*. Of course, to my mind, any time Lex finally wins would have to be Superman's ultimate victory, as Lex's ego would force him to try to be the new Superman and eventually turn into the world's greatest hero and force for good.

Or Metallo could throw a Kryptonite rock at him. A big Kryptonite rock.

*like Light and L in Death note but with powers and villainous schemes. Lol.

[Jim Kelly]

I'm generally bugged by the way writers always introduce new villains and supporting characters, ignoring previous creations that serve the same purpose. In the terribly named villain of this thread you've got the Galactic Golem crossed with the Kryptonoid.

Superman isn't the only character where this happens, but if writers are always producing new characters to take the place of old ones, the bodies start to pile up and we just have a lot of good concepts that were junked in favour of yet another one. It means that we have a few rogues and a few supporting characters that have remained in place for decades but everyone else has been recycled out in favour of the newest writer's darling.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Shouldn't Luthor be the only choice?

[Agent Z]

Every time Doomsday shows up his killing Superman is mentioned and the main underpinning of the drama.

You couldn't have that with Lex, who was essentially a supporting cast member at the time.

It would either dilute the death/return really quickly making the effort worthless or become such a big focus that Lex would have to be written out. Either way, it removes Lex's threat going forward.

These issues arguably apply more to Doomsday than to Lex. Especially the part about diminishing threat. If anything, using Doomsday again is a bigger issue since he doesn't have anything going for him besides killing Superman other than Lex.