REVIEW: Superman Unchained, #9

[Myskin]

By the way, now that I think about it, I really hope that Supes' newest inclination to the use of lethal force is simply the result of bad writing or bad editing, contained to a single story, and that it's not the result of Dc's programmatic approach to Supes, maybe in accordance with his cinematic version. That's really something I would not stand.

[CliffHanger2]

Yeah, that's kind of exactly what I mean. Murder doesn't stop being an unpleasant thing to a person or cease having meaning altogether, most especially on the scale in here, for no other reason than that the other guy happens to be kind of a prick. By that reasoning, no soldier in the history of war would have had issues with killing someone, much less thousands upon thousands. What would possibly make you think this guy



wouldn't be inclined to some severe hesitation on the matter?



It is literally called "Philosophy of War" and as one of the most basic things in the human experience that's pretty obviously something to philosophize over.

No killing someone who's actively trying to kill you isn't murder even in legal terms. Especially in the context of war. It's not a matter of a guy just being a prick. Really? "Hey this guy's trying to kill me what a prick."lol. C'mon man.

Severe hesitation in that situation would just lead to said soldier getting killed and his fellow soldiers killed. It's called being a coward.

[Myskin]

No killing someone who's actively trying to kill you isn't murder even in legal terms. Especially in the context of war. It's not a matter of a guy just being a prick. Really? "Hey this guy's trying to kill me what a prick."lol. C'mon man.

Severe hesitation in that situation would just lead to said soldier getting killed and his fellow soldiers killed. It's called being a coward.

If that's so simple, ask yourself: why are there literally thousands of movies, books and TV series - even set in realistic, albeit fictional worlds (including works which are generally favorable to militaristic interventions) - which deal with the ethical and moral implications and consequences of war situations? Answer: because they are very rarely morally black-and-white situation, and they are generally extremely ambiguous from a moral point of view. In real life, I mean.

Since Superman Unchained do not even deal with real-life events, there's absolutely no excuse not to deal with the moral implications of Superman consciously choosing to kill thousands of living beings.

Especially since we are talking about friggin superheroes here.

Especially when we are talking about Superman, whose no-killing rule has been for years one of the fundamentals of the character (even Zack Snyder's MOS dealt with the ethical consequences of Supes' actions more extensively than Scott Snyder, and that's really saying something).

Especially when he already repelled alien invasions thousands of times, always thanks to non-lethal decisions.

[CliffHanger2]

If that's so simple, ask yourself: why are there literally thousands of movies, books and TV series - even set in realistic, albeit fictional worlds (including works which are generally favorable to militaristic interventions) - which deal with the ethical and moral implications and consequences of war situations? Answer: because they are very rarely morally black-and-white situation, and they are generally extremely ambiguous from a moral point of view. In real life, I mean.

Since Superman Unchained do not even deal with real-life events, there's absolutely no excuse not to deal with the moral implications of Superman consciously choosing to kill thousands of living beings.

Especially since we are talking about friggin superheroes here.

Especially when we are talking about Superman, whose no-killing rule has been for years one of the fundamentals of the character (even Zack Snyder's MOS dealt with the ethical consequences of Supes' actions more extensively than Scott Snyder, and that's really saying something).

Especially when he already repelled alien invasions thousands of times, always thanks to non-lethal decisions.

Yes very rarely it's black and white but in this situation it was, there's nothing wrong with that. He really had no choice and didn't have time to time to spend years thinking about this, the bad guys were the bad guys and that's that. Why does every story have to be morally gray? And if Superman is a man of action why would he approach a life and death situation like an arm-chair intellectual?

In the story he was willing to sacrifice himself to save the planet. Honestly that takes more character and altruism than someone "who can always find a way" because that's a cop out. I mean how bad should he feel about killing invading aliens? And what consequences should he face? A trial the threat of imprisonment? That's kind of crazy.

[Myskin]

He really had no choice

How is this alien invasion situation different from the 100, 1000, 10000 alien situations with 'no hope', 'no choice', 'no alternative', which were told in earlier Superman stories? It's just another - and extremely generic, by the way - alien invaders story. Come on. How Superman deals with it, that's something which depends entirely on the writer. If Snyder chooses to make Superman use a pocket black hole to send the aliens on the other side of the universe, he can do it. If he wants superman to build a giant shrinking ray to reduce the alien ships to miniatures, he can do it.

On the contrary, if he decides to present a real, completely inescapable 'no choice' situation (that is, something which in comics never, ever happens, or at least very rarely), he should devote to this at least a couple of issues. Because, as I said, presenting Superman - who may be a man of action but not a soldier, nor a character willing to kill with easiness (he's not the Wolverine, nor the Winter Soldier) - ready to kill thousands of bad guys, you - the writer - should have the dignity of presenting the situation in a plausible way. You should have the guts to show Superman ready to kill and make him break his own rules. And then make him face the consequences.That's how you write a story. Especially a story like this, which potentially changes Superman's character for good. In case someone hadn't noticed, making Superman ready to kill thousands of bad guys is more or less comparable to making Batman cut the Joker's throat once and for all.

That's absolutely NOT what happens in the story, it's just Superman deciding to kill in a single panel, as if it was completely characteristic for him.

Why does every story have to be morally gray?

Not every story must be morally gray, but Superman Unchained was a morally gray story from the very beginning, since it was supposed to confront Wraith's and Superman's different philosophies. The final outcome is another failure of the story, since everything Wraith has understood, from Superman's teachings, and HOW he understood it, is completely confusing. The growth of the two characters is simply a mess.

In the story he was willing to sacrifice himself to save the planet. Honestly that takes more character and altruism than someone "who can always find a way" because that's a cop out.

Come on. As if there were a real alternative. Just name a superhero who wouldn't be open to self-sacrifice to save the world. Batman would do it. Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Captain America, Wolverine, everybody would do it. Probably, even John Constantine and Booster Gold would do it. Self-sacrifice is one of the quintessential characteristic of every superhero by default. HOW a supehero deals with a menace, that's the real interesting point.

[CliffHanger2]

How is this alien invasion situation different from the 100, 1000, 10000 alien situations with 'no hope', 'no choice', 'no alternative', which were told in earlier Superman stories? It's just another - and extremely generic, by the way - alien invaders story. Come on. How Superman deals with it, that's something which depends entirely on the writer. If Snyder chooses to make Superman use a pocket black hole to send the aliens on the other side of the universe, he can do it. If he wants superman to build a giant shrinking ray to reduce the alien ships to miniatures, he can do it.

On the contrary, if he decides to present a real, completely inescapable 'no choice' situation (that is, something which in comics never, ever happens, or at least very rarely), he should devote to this at least a couple of issues. Because, as I said, presenting Superman - who may be a man of action but not a soldier, nor a character willing to kill with easiness (he's not the Wolverine, nor the Winter Soldier) - ready to kill thousands of bad guys, you - the writer - should have the dignity of presenting the situation in a plausible way. You should have the guts to show Superman ready to kill and make him break his own rules. And then make him face the consequences.That's how you write a story. Especially a story like this, which potentially changes Superman's character for good. In case someone hadn't noticed, making Superman ready to kill thousands of bad guys is more or less comparable to making Batman cut the Joker's throat once and for all.

That's absolutely NOT what happens in the story, it's just Superman deciding to kill in a single panel, as if it was completely characteristic for him.


Not every story must be morally gray, but Superman Unchained was a morally gray story from the very beginning, since it was supposed to confront Wraith's and Superman's different philosophies. The final outcome is another failure of the story, since everything Wraith has understood, from Superman's teachings, and HOW he understood it, is completely confusing. The growth of the two characters is simply a mess.


Come on. As if there were a real alternative. Just name a superhero who wouldn't be open to self-sacrifice to save the world. Batman would do it. Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Captain America, Wolverine, everybody would do it. Probably, even John Constantine and Booster Gold would do it. Self-sacrifice is one of the quintessential characteristic of every superhero by default. HOW a supehero deals with a menace, that's the real interesting point.

It's different because of the time constraint. The invasion was revealed at the very end so no he didn't have time to think about it or find another way. Thankfully he didn't spend a few issues thinking about this it was spontaneous as action should be. That's what made it plausible.

I disagree it's akin to Batman killing the Joker because it's faceless aliens ,it's not like he killed Lex Luthor. Add to that it is a reboot universe the character's are not exactly the same as they've been for the past decade or so they're being redefined.

Yes so, any superhero would sacrifice themselves but how often are they shown doing that? It makes a bigger statement about their character than showing someone all wrapped up in themselves issue after issue dealing with their personal demons/ trying to figure out how not to kill someone lethal to them etc.etc. and again i ask what should be the consequences for him killing invading aliens? It's like you're implying it was criminal somehow.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Severe hesitation in that situation would just lead to said soldier getting killed and his fellow soldiers killed. It's called being a coward.

So a man who's never killed before needing a second to think things through before deciding to kill thousands would be shameful. Got it.

[CliffHanger2]

So a man who's never killed before needing a second to think things through before deciding to kill thousands would be shameful. Got it.

That second might cost him his life and the life of others he's with. There's a good movie out right now called Fury that deals with that topic.

[Cypher]

I assumed those ships werent manned, that they were artificial intelligence. Similar to the intelligence/non-physical entities that took over in the previous issues.

If they were manned he technically killed one entire ship filled with people. I still think they probably werent manned.

[Myskin]

It's different because of the time constraint.

Exactly as it happened in millions of other occasions. This invasion is not taking place in the real world. Time is completely relative in narrative, especially in superhero comics. There are comics about superheroes evacuating whole cities in seconds. There is absolutely no reason to think that Superman wouldn't have been able to think something else, if Snyder wanted him to.

On the other hand, if Snyder really wanted to show Superman contemplating ALL- and I mean ALL of the possible alternatives and then choosing the lethal one, he should have devoted more space to this point. It should have been necessary, by the way, since it is such a radical situation. He could have shown Superman look for possible alternatives in Fortress' ruin. He could have devoted some space to Supes' inner monologue, focusing on his internal struggle. We don't see anything of this. And that's because Snyder wants to imply the thing, but without going through to the end.

This explains why Wraith takes Supes' place for no discernible reason at all. As I said, it's as if Snyder said, let's make Superman kill without killing. And by the way, that's why the aliens are faceless. The reviewer on comicbook.com is perfectly right. These aliens are faceless uniquely because Snyder chooses not to show their faces nor their intentions. We know that they are evil, but they are intelligent nonetheless. They have feelings (maybe destructive feelings, that's not the point). They are more or less "human". Snyder simply chooses to dehumanize them. And you know why? Because making them more akin to Wraith, giving them a face, would have made Superman's decision to kill them extremely more difficult to accept to common readers. Instead of depicting Superman's internal struggle, Snyder simply chooses to dehumanize the enemy. Which is sheer hypocrisy on Snyder's part.

Yes so, any superhero would sacrifice themselves but how often are they shown doing that?

Always. Superheroes ready to sacrifice their own life for a greater good is perhaps the most common topic in superhero comics. It's basically the pillar of their existence. That's the reason they are called super-heroes.

It's like you're implying it was criminal somehow.

In a way it is, because if this Superman is the very same character depicted in comics for 60+ years, (New52 included) he deliberately chooses to kill intelligent living beings instead of opting for an alternative. The very fact of operating in non-lethal ways is one of the pillars of Superman's existence. Whole storylines are devoted to this. Superman is not a soldier, nor a policeman, and is, well, Superman. That is, someone who - thanks to his superpowers - has been always depicted while being able to overcome the difficulties of the situation, especially when he apparently had lethal, offensive options in front of him. It is not a case that every single one of Superman's "killings" (the Pocket dimension criminals, Zod in MOS, etc.) has always been extremely controversial, and generally never presented in a very convincing way. It's the same thing of Batman stories depicting Bats with a gun.

All in all, that's not even the problem, because Superman doesn't exist, and calling him criminal simply doesn't make sense. The point is, whenever you present a killing - especially mass killing - in a story, it should ALWAYS be presented with the dignity and the accuracy such a delicate and serious situation deserves. That should simply be honesty on the writer's part. As I said, if you, the writer, want to write story about Superman killing, you can do it (hint: in all probability nobody will never be allowed to write such a story in continuity, because it would irreversibly destroy the character). But you should know what you are facing. You should present the situation with fairness, in all its tragic elements.

That's not what Snyder did. He deliberately used cheap narrative tricks in order to avoid the depiction of the most delicate and potentially controversial implications of Supes' actions. Basically, he "covered" the story with a thin veil of drama, but the heart of the story, its inner meanings, are void. And that's simply inexcusable.

[Myskin]

I assumed those ships werent manned, that they were artificial intelligence.

As far as I remember, nothing vaguely implies that the ships are AI commanded.

[Cypher]

As far as I remember, nothing vaguely implies that the ships are AI commanded.

True, but at the same time nothing implies that theyre physically manned.

Which I figure would be a problem that would go with mention, since Superman had an issue killing that man as a child. (Good thing he revived him, wouldve been pissed if he didnt)

[Ascended]

If by "sentient beings" you mean people who plan to basically wipe out the human race so they can have the planet no I don't see the need for distress or agony over it. It's war kill or be killed these aren't things to philosophize over.

Im going out on a limb here and assuming you've never been in a combat zone or served as a soldier. Because what you're saying? Doesnt actually work like that. I havent known a soldier, especially one who saw combat, walk out with a perfectly clear conscience and no ghosts haunting them. And before you ask, yes I did serve.

There's a reason all these psychological and therapeutic resources are made available to soldiers coming back from active duty. Its because war takes its toll, even when you have a perfectly valid reason to be there.

We'll take this sort of ridiculous concept, that thousands of aliens are going to invade, and run with the idea that lethal force is the only choice. Okay, so its us or them and they're violent monsters. You dont think that killing thousands of beings isnt going to cause some mental damage because "they started it"? Who, exactly, is the monster here?

[Myskin]

True, but at the same time nothing implies that theyre physically manned.

Look, as far as I am concerned, having a whole army of alien ships commanded by living beings is the most obvious situation. That's the way the situation was interpreted by me, the reviewers and, well, anybody else. When you hear hoofbeats, do you think of a zebra?
By the way, if the army is commanded by AIs, why not mention it clearly within the story? It would have eliminated the most controversial plot point ever.

[Cypher]

Hmm... I find arguing about this with you rather trite.

For the simple fact of choosing which parts you want to reply to. Like I said, and you ignored, clearly Superman has a problem with killing.

And just like there are non-physical entities that were controlling others and giving Lois a hassle, you could assume there might be non-physical or artificial intelligences controlling the ships.