The execution of the Phantom Zone criminals

[Kuwagaton]

That's really assuming it was the point, but it's not something Superman explicitly says and once again, the following writers doubled down on his decision. He never, in about fifteen years of continuity, says "I shouldn't have executed them."

[kingaliencracker]

That's really assuming it was the point, but it's not something Superman explicitly says and once again, the following writers doubled down on his decision. He never, in about fifteen years of continuity, says "I shouldn't have executed them."

If the point of the story wasn't for Superman to understand that killing is wrong (which is pretty absurd but at least I can understand the intent)...if the point really was just for Superman to execute the Kryptonians because their crimes were that serious in his eyes to warrant death...then I think that's pretty bad story telling, and certainly a writer injecting his ideology onto a character who, up to that point (even under the reboot), had a strict code against taking a life.

Again, I don't know what Byrne's true intent was with the story. When I used to post on his forum, I had asked him that question once and he deleted it without responding (which may lead credence to the idea that it was an "FU" to DC on his way out). The only thing I can derive from it is that he wanted Superman to go to the brink to understand that he should always find a better way. If that's not the case, then it really seems like one of those stories that was controversial for the sake of controversy.

But there were many aspects to the story that were really convoluted and contrived anyway. It having no point other than to be controversial would not likely change my opinion of its quality one way or the other. As I said, it was a moderately entertaining story with a dumb ending. In reading the handful of issues leading up to it, you can tell Byrne's enthusiasm had dwindled substantially.

[Kuwagaton]

I didn't like the Doom Patrol story myself but Action #600, then Return to Krypton coupled with World and Earth Stealers was imo his peak. I can imagine burnout for anyone who handled three titles at once but the other artists seemed like a short boost.

The frustrating thing is that Robotics should offer a ton of great insight but ... maybe makes some things worse. As for inserting opinions though, that's pretty much just writing in general. When I read the minority of feedback from the Byrne era, a lot of people were mad that he wrote a different version somewhat like a different version. But now, that's the most dominant form and typically enjoyed by many who don't care for a firm continuing narrative anyway. Waid doing his own Man of Steel where Superman has life vision and doesn't eat meat. Morrison having characters use British slang and depicting Clark as Peter Parker by way of Harry Potter. Mark Russell literally just writing himself. And so on.

It's very likely that Byrne used his own beliefs to write Superman as someone firm enough to deal out capital punishment but human enough to acquire PTSD. I think that fits his logical style more than having Superman naively do something grievous as his own lesson. I don't think, being a professional, a massive Superman fan, and friend to the guys who took over, that he did it as a middle finger for a company he'd agree to work for not long after. But what do I know.

[kingaliencracker]

I didn't like the Doom Patrol story myself but Action #600, then Return to Krypton coupled with World and Earth Stealers was imo his peak. I can imagine burnout for anyone who handled three titles at once but the other artists seemed like a short boost.

The frustrating thing is that Robotics should offer a ton of great insight but ... maybe makes some things worse. As for inserting opinions though, that's pretty much just writing in general. When I read the minority of feedback from the Byrne era, a lot of people were mad that he wrote a different version somewhat like a different version. But now, that's the most dominant form and typically enjoyed by many who don't care for a firm continuing narrative anyway. Waid doing his own Man of Steel where Superman has life vision and doesn't eat meat. Morrison having characters use British slang and depicting Clark as Peter Parker by way of Harry Potter. Mark Russell literally just writing himself. And so on.

It's very likely that Byrne used his own beliefs to write Superman as someone firm enough to deal out capital punishment but human enough to acquire PTSD. I think that fits his logical style more than having Superman naively do something grievous as his own lesson. I don't think, being a professional, a massive Superman fan, and friend to the guys who took over, that he did it as a middle finger for a company he'd agree to work for not long after. But what do I know.

To be clear, I consider myself a fan of the Byrne-era of Superman and the reboot in general, my thoughts on this story aside.

But if the point was for Superman to face this ridiculous set of circumstances, make an out-of-character decision, suffer incredible guilt over it, only to come out of it and say he would do it all over again...sounds to me like you're being controversial for the sake of controversy. But again, Byrne has never addressed the issue head-on that I'm aware of, so I'm not going to needlessly speculate on his motives.

[Kuwagaton]

One thing I meant to emphasize is that this Superman is only similar to the pre crisis versions in ways that don't contradict what came during or after MoS. So it can't be out of character technically and when we look at Jonathan as a war vet and the history of Clark's Kryptonian education, there's not much reason to believe that he must be against any sort of killing at all.

[scary harpy]

Losing story opportunities also means losing bad story opportunities. Superman has a pretty large rogues gallery and we got evil Kryptonians again eventually.

A large rogues gallery, maybe...but not one of the best rogues gallery, as I understand.

We also lost good story opportunities.

...

The number of Faora stories from 1973-1986 and from 2008-2023 might well be less than two. If they wanted to use her, they really would have by now. I mean even lesser villains like Amalak and Terra Man get features.

...

DC is extremely adept at mismanaging it's IPs.

Depowered, Faora would make an excellent Batman villain. She would be an overmatch for a depowered Kal-El.

Powered, she is one of the few women who can go toe-to-toe with Superman...and could win.

[Agent Z]

A large rogues gallery, maybe...but not one of the best rogues gallery, as I understand.

We also lost good story opportunities.



DC is extremely adept at mismanaging it's IPs.

Depowered, Faora would make an excellent Batman villain. She would be an overmatch for a depowered Kal-El.

Powered, she is one of the few women who can go toe-to-toe with Superman...and could win.

Maxima could have had that role. But they wasted her and her characterized with a pathetic obsession with Superman's sperm.

[marshal88]

superman talked about the killing of zod and why he didn't kill manchester black in 'the ending battle' storyline to his therapist clair foster.

[JBatmanFan05]

Anyhow, what are your thoughts on the controversial story 35 years later?

For me, it's by far the worst moment in Superman comics and/or history. When I or someone else types about the Marvelization of Superman Post-Crisis, it's moments/stuff like this that leap first to mind. I will never praise Byrne's solid run too, too much due to this abominable event, that black stain. I simply deeply disagree fundamentally with anyone that believes Superman can be written to kill if the story deems it necessary (Elseworlds is the way to explore such stories IMHO, not main continuity).

[Kuwagaton]

superman talked about the killing of zod and why he didn't kill manchester black in 'the ending battle' storyline to his therapist clair foster.

I did actually forget about this. As an overall rejection I think it's pretty well said until you start taking some flawed reasoning into account. He says the experience of killing is a fact he had to reckon with in his decision to not do it again. Though he also... clearly explains how the situation was different. I also think it's pretty flawed to say "justified or not" while also saying it was war. Not only does that last part tend to make for a lousy excuse for compromising morals in general but we know that it wasn't true. Man of Steel 2013 was a good exploration of what this comic tried to say because the threat was inevitable if not subject to immediate intervention. There was nothing inevitable or immediate in Superman #22, and misremembering that wouldn't be as bad if they didn't clearly explain the context within that same #797 scene.

As a big Joe Kelly fan I think he tends to stumble explaining some points, especially in that DC era. The awkwardness with returning Lena, that time travelling JLA plot, the fallout from the death of Sam Lane, his time in Japan, etc. Every once in a while Action #775 comes up here and it probably doesn't seem like I give much slack to those saying its point is muddy but really, I can understand. Looking just a bit later at the Pok Zod, I can't say the question of lethal force was the easiest for him to answer.

[All Star Superman]

For me, it's the by far the worst moment in Superman comics and/or history. When I or someone else types about the Marvelization of Superman Post-Crisis, it's moments like this that leap first to mind. I will never praise Byrne's run too too much due to this abominable event, that black stain. I simply disagree fundamentally with anyone that believes Superman can be written to kill if the story deems it necessary (Elseworlds is the way to explore such stories IMHO, not main continuity).

I agree with you 100 percent. Most folks (some of whom have posted here) miss the point of this argument: it's not that Superman can't kill, it's that he should not and should never be put into that situation as a character. It's simply not his archetype and is an issue that is better explored with other characters. For example, it was fitting that Peter Parker, rooted in Marvel's "world outside your window," face the realities of drug addiction through his best friend's struggles. It's an entirely different issue with Superman in DC's "a world that could exist in a distant, fantasy reality" to be forced to deal with the issue of capital punishment. No matter Byrne (or David Goyer or Hack Snyder's) reasons, they simply don't understand the unities of the character and his archetype and, thus, fail to understand why this is not the kind of story that is told with Superman. The same goes for "fans" who will push and then break the boundaries of logic to defend what cannot be defended.

If you think Superman should kill, go ahead and have teenaged Kara Zor-El get pregnant and decide to get an abortion.

However, the issue of capital punishment can and should be addressed in Superman's world, just not in this way. Perhaps someone close to him (NOT Batman or another superhero) takes a life or a villain is sentenced to death. Superman, considering all life as sacred, would have something to say about that and that's how you address such an issue with Superman.

Of course, those people who claim to know and understand Superman will continue to defend anything that "makes him cooler" or "more relatable," thus proving they neither know or understand the character.

[Agent Z]

I agree with you 100 percent. Most folks (some of whom have posted here) miss the point of this argument: it's not that Superman can't kill, it's that he should not and should never be put into that situation as a character. It's simply not his archetype and is an issue that is better explored with other characters. For example, it was fitting that Peter Parker, rooted in Marvel's "world outside your window," face the realities of drug addiction through his best friend's struggles. It's an entirely different issue with Superman in DC's "a world that could exist in a distant, fantasy reality" to be forced to deal with the issue of capital punishment. No matter Byrne (or David Goyer or Hack Snyder's) reasons, they simply don't understand the unities of the character and his archetype and, thus, fail to understand why this is not the kind of story that is told with Superman. The same goes for "fans" who will push and then break the boundaries of logic to defend what cannot be defended.

If you think Superman should kill, go ahead and have teenaged Kara Zor-El get pregnant and decide to get an abortion.

However, the issue of capital punishment can and should be addressed in Superman's world, just not in this way. Perhaps someone close to him (NOT Batman or another superhero) takes a life or a villain is sentenced to death. Superman, considering all life as sacred, would have something to say about that and that's how you address such an issue with Superman.

Of course, those people who claim to know and understand Superman will continue to defend anything that "makes him cooler" or "more relatable," thus proving they neither know or understand the character.

I understand the argument just fine. I just think it's an argument built on faulty logic and childishly simple morality.

[Hypestyle]

how many versions of Zod exist at this point? with the multiverse in mind, "does it matter" if any of them get killed?
considering the abilities of kryptonians under a yellow sun, morally unhinged folks like Zod are a permanent super-threat.

[exile001]

I agree with you 100 percent. Most folks (some of whom have posted here) miss the point of this argument: it's not that Superman can't kill, it's that he should not and should never be put into that situation as a character. It's simply not his archetype and is an issue that is better explored with other characters. For example, it was fitting that Peter Parker, rooted in Marvel's "world outside your window," face the realities of drug addiction through his best friend's struggles. It's an entirely different issue with Superman in DC's "a world that could exist in a distant, fantasy reality" to be forced to deal with the issue of capital punishment. No matter Byrne (or David Goyer or Hack Snyder's) reasons, they simply don't understand the unities of the character and his archetype and, thus, fail to understand why this is not the kind of story that is told with Superman. The same goes for "fans" who will push and then break the boundaries of logic to defend what cannot be defended.

If you think Superman should kill, go ahead and have teenaged Kara Zor-El get pregnant and decide to get an abortion.

However, the issue of capital punishment can and should be addressed in Superman's world, just not in this way. Perhaps someone close to him (NOT Batman or another superhero) takes a life or a villain is sentenced to death. Superman, considering all life as sacred, would have something to say about that and that's how you address such an issue with Superman.

Of course, those people who claim to know and understand Superman will continue to defend anything that "makes him cooler" or "more relatable," thus proving they neither know or understand the character.

Ah, yes, gatekeeping at its finest.

MY Superman doesn't X, therefore nobody who is a real fan could ever want X, Y or Z explored.

PS, throwing in teenage pregnancy as your moral panic equivalent to Superman killing is laughably outdated.

[Ascended]

Not reading all these pages, but my two cents....

Full disclosure: I've never actually read this story. Not a big fan of Bryne's reboot.

That said, I'm fine with Clark taking the occasional life. Despite being one of the loudest "no killing!" advocates, Clark's killed more people than most of his League peers and has taken a life in many (maybe even most) iterations, especially if we include sentient non-humans and beings who can't be 'killed' in conventional ways. It happens often enough, across a wide enough spectrum, that I think it's part of the character. And his vocal stance against it, his 'do as I say not as I do' attitude, adds to other layers of self-blindness and hypocrisy, making Clark a more complex, interesting character with flaws as fascinating as his best traits. It also makes his anti-killing stance resonate better (for me) when he knows what it's like to kill, when he has the experience for his opinion to be 'hard-won advice' instead of 'morality preaching.' So I've nothing against the idea of Clark killing once in a very great while. Especially a Zod; lots of Clarks have killed Zods.

But I never agreed with this particular execution. As I understand it the faux Zoners were permanently powerless, trapped in a pocket reality with no resources, and no allies. Did they even have food? The odds of them escaping to cause trouble again were basically nil. And correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that dimension also imploding?

They didn't pose a clear and present danger to anyone. This wasn't Clark making a choice with lives on the line (including his own) and seconds on the clock. This wasn't a man out of options and full of desperation with the world in the balance. This was a man who was just afraid, and acting on that fear. Clark killed them on nothing more than a slim, almost-impossible *chance* that they "might" someday escape, that they "might" somehow get their powers back.

This wasn't justice, it was cowardice. And it's the first of two examples I can think of where Clark killed somebody and was in the wrong for it. The other being when he threw Darkseid into the Source Wall. Yes yes, that might not be 'death' as one might define it, but it's as close to death as something like Darkseid can get and Clark knew that so I think it counts, and Clark did it for revenge, not justice or in the service of saving lives.

And I reject the argument that this isn't a story you can tell with Clark, that it's beyond his archetype. That's saying the character doesn't have the breadth or range to include such a nuanced, morally complex tale. It's not a story that should be told often, it loses its potency when you overplay it. But I don't believe there's many stories you *can't* tell with Superman. I won't do the character the disservice of saying he's too limited for it.