Superman: Doomed--Week 1 (Spoilers)

[misslane]

How do you prove a negative? If Superman isn't convinced by now, what would it take?

The absence of proof means there's enough ambiguity to produce unease about the final decision, that's all. In Doomed #1, Superman tries to make peace with his course of action via two means: he tries to get a definitive answer about Doomsday's sentience from Dr. Shay Veritas, and he tries to get encouragement from Perry White. Even as he is engaged in his final battle with Doomsday, he tries to discern if Doomsday is sentient; yet he's distracted by the cries of people suffering. The total effect is absolutely a sympathetic one, as killing a such a lethal beast with billions of lives at stake is what serves the greater good. But even after his final scene with Diana, Superman is obviously still concerned about Doomsday's sentience. Doing what he had to do was not easy for him.

Is Doomsday secretly a self aware being when nobody is looking like the toys in Toy Story? Supes just waiting for a chance to jump out of the bushes and say "Gotcha!".

I don't know, frankly. It's the writers who chose to raise the question of sentience as something which should matter to Superman and to us as readers for the purposes of whatever larger themes they want to explore with this arc.

If it's in character and consistent for her that's a good thing from a writing perspective. I highly doubt she processes this as something that requires sensitivity in the first place. I don't and I'm the reader.

So, Wonder Woman doesn't think she should be sensitive to what should be her boyfriend's distress about killing? I said should be, because one of my problems with the scene is that all of Superman's prior seriousness about killing Doomsday seems to have evaporated even though the writers planned on making the issue of killing a continuous one (it'll have drastic consequences, and it raises a central question for the arc as a whole, according to them). To reiterate, these are the two different ways you and I are approaching this scene: You reject the premise of Superman's moral/emotional conflict, so you think Wonder Woman's attitude and Superman's labeling of her attitude as romantic are just fine. I am examining this scene not in terms of liking/disliking, but pure writing mechanics. I see that the writers' goal was to make killing Doomsday a tough decision for Superman to make, so to see Wonder Woman and Superman cavalierly flirting about it feels out of step with the writers' overarching plot and character goals. You are criticizing the writing of the whole arc by rejecting its premise and themes, while I'm criticizing the writing of just this one scene.

Writers have their agendas and sometimes to make that work the characters themselves come off looking bad.

My tolerance for this type of writing is fairly low, especially when there are readers and reviewers who seem to overlook them to praise these writers' efforts when they're riddled with flaws.

[Lax]

The absence of proof means there's enough ambiguity to produce unease about the final decision, that's all. In Doomed #1, Superman tries to make peace with his course of action via two means: he tries to get a definitive answer about Doomsday's sentience from Dr. Shay Veritas, and he tries to get encouragement from Perry White. Even as he is engaged in his final battle with Doomsday, he tries to discern if Doomsday is sentient; yet he's distracted by the cries of people suffering. The total effect is absolutely a sympathetic one, as killing a such a lethal beast with billions of lives at stake is what serves the greater good. But even after his final scene with Diana, Superman is obviously still concerned about Doomsday's sentience. Doing what he had to do was not easy for him.

What's ambiguous about it? He goes "Graarr" and "Raoaarr" while trying his best to kill you. I'd love to see Superman try to reason with it just to see the epic fail.

Doomsday: "Roarr."

Me: "Hey Supes, teach him about the sanctity of life."

Doomsday: "Roarr."

Me: "Still trying to kill you, eh? Try harder."

Doomsday: "Roarr."

Me: "Still doing the killing bit, eh? Try talking to him about his childhood."

Doomsday: "Roarr."

Me: "Clearly we have a slow learner, that's okay, it's not like stopping him is important or anything, so whatever."

Doomsday: "Roarr."

Me: "Remember Supes, there are no bad students, only bad teachers. You're failing him right now."

Doomsday: "Roarr."

Me: "Nope, he's just not feeling it Big Blue. You've got to dig deeper, really get at the heart of his issues."

Doomsday: "ROARR."

Me: "Oh! I think he said someth- oh wait, that's just a louder 'roar'."

Doomsday: "Roarr."

Me: "You know, I've been thinking, maybe that's not even roaring? Maybe that's just really bad kryptonian ya know?"

Doomsday: "Roarr."

Me: "In fact, maybe he's not even trying to kill you right now? Maybe that's just his version of sign language? I can't believe no one has ever thought of that."

Doomsday: "Roarr."

Me: "So really, when he beats the stuffing out of you, he's just crying for help in his own way. I don't know how folks managed to confuse that with being a mindless beast all these years."

I don't know, frankly. It's the writers who chose to raise the question of sentience as something which should matter to Superman and to us as readers for the purposes of whatever larger themes they want to explore with this arc.

Yeah? Well let me know when Doomsday does something worthy of consideration because right now that tale is woefully incomplete.

So, Wonder Woman doesn't think she should be sensitive to what should be her boyfriend's distress about killing? I said should be, because one of my problems with the scene is that all of Superman's prior seriousness about killing Doomsday seems to have evaporated even though the writers planned on making the issue of killing a continuous one (it'll have drastic consequences, and it raises a central question for the arc as a whole, according to them). To reiterate, these are the two different ways you and I are approaching this scene: You reject the premise of Superman's moral/emotional conflict, so you think Wonder Woman's attitude and Superman's labeling of her attitude as romantic are just fine. I am examining this scene not in terms of liking/disliking, but pure writing mechanics. I see that the writers' goal was to make killing Doomsday a tough decision for Superman to make, so to see Wonder Woman and Superman cavalierly flirting about it feels out of step with the writers' overarching plot and character goals. You are criticizing the writing of the whole arc by rejecting its premise and themes, while I'm criticizing the writing of just this one scene.

Even in that case the writers still dropped the ball long before Wondy hit the scene, because they failed to give Superman a real reason to feel the way that he did.

That's actually important, it's the first step to building something, if the foundation is off you can't expect anything built on top of it to be structurally sound.

My tolerance for this type of writing is fairly low, especially when there are readers and reviewers who seem to overlook them to praise these writers' efforts when they're riddled with flaws.

How do you enjoy any of it? Comics are filled with more holes than swiss cheese if you look at it too hard logically. Why didn't Wondy use god-mode against Doomsday? Why do people not recognize Superman when he has glasses on? Why doesn't he use his super-speed more often? Why don't they call the League more often?

If closing this stuff up is what makes one worthy of praise then no writer is worthy of it.

[misslane]

What's ambiguous about it? He goes "Graarr" and "Raoaarr" while trying his best to kill you. I'd like to see Superman try to have a conversation with it and see how that goes.

Based on the story as written in Doomed #1, even a brilliant scientist like Dr. Shay Veritas was in doubt about it, so regardless of what might seen an obvious truth, it apparently wasn't obvious; thus Superman didn't make the decision to kill lightly.

Even in that case the writers still dropped the ball long before Wondy hit the scene, because they failed to give Superman a real reason to feel the way that he did.

That's actually important, it's the first step to building something, if the foundation is off you can't expect anything built on top of it to be structurally sound.

Oh, I agree. There's something off about how this was written.

How do you enjoy any of it? Comics are filled with more holes than swiss cheese if you look at it too hard logically. Why didn't Wondy use god-mode against Doomsday? Why do people not recognize Superman when he has glasses on? Why doesn't he use his super-speed more often? Why don't they call the League more often?

All of those things do decrease my enjoyment. What's annoyed me with Doomed so far is that it has so many problems with it that it doesn't really hold together much, as far as I'm concerned.

[Lax]

Based on the story as written in Doomed #1, even a brilliant scientist like Dr. Shay Veritas was in doubt about it, so regardless of what might seen an obvious truth, it apparently wasn't obvious; thus Superman didn't make the decision to kill lightly.

Then I'd whip that question right around to her, what's up Doc? Can't quite figure out if a being is intelligent? Where did you say you graduated from again? Have you taken any narcotics recently?