Here we go again. JL Atlantis DVD SPOILER

[Lax]

When I see that scene I'm thinking to myself "why did he actually have to try an kill it?". I mean I have no indication that this Superman knew that thing would live or did live so I'm left scratching my head as to why he's made to try an kill it. Would it not have been more bad-ass for Superman to get in some good shots and then scare it away with a puffed out chest and stern look in his eye? Then he'd look back at Aquaman with a smile indicating that the creature didn't know any better. He would have look like less of a desperate random cape just looking to get out of there by the skin of his teeth and looked more like Superman the biggest gun with the biggest heart. He's Superman he works on the scale of the giants, so their monsters are right in his wheel house to be tamed.

I was thinking "Why is that creature not running away after getting it's tentacles burned off?", there has to be easier prey out there than this bite-sized snack.

To your second point I have to say that then there are those of us who obviously like the more compassionate benevolent nature he is normally known to exude. Crippling defect? Dear god, that is hyperbole. I mean is it such a crippling defect that ever profitable and human (!) Batman doesn't kill? What stories are we really missing out on? The end of the Joker? Then last Lex story? Superman not killing only becomes an issue if one insist on making literal what is clearly a figurative and expressive character that's was created for allegory, escapism and the venting of ideas. It was all tikker taped together in a bright gaudy suit, big smile and cheek bones.

When taken to a fanatical extreme, compassion, like anything else, can be a crippling defect. It can lead to inaction and make even the easiest decision unnecessarily taxing on the soul.

I remember how he struggled with the idea of killing Doomsday. He couldn't dimension dump him, he couldn't reason with him, he was regarded as the only being powerful enough to stop him and he knew Doomsday was going to slaughter everyone on the planet if he failed.

Killing Doomsday under those circumstances was still a difficult choice for Superman because of "compassion". I didn't respect or admire his internal conflict, I found it pathetic and self-serving at best, utterly insane at worst.

Superman and the superhero is short hand for articulating the best in us. It's not articulating the best in us if he is a character that is constantly made to compromise and bend knee to "it was a necessary evil", "I didn't see any other way", or "it was in the heat of the moment". Those are excuses that we shouldn't instantly look to as our safe passage from hard work and being just a bit more clever to get the job done right. Superman is the short hand expression of the feeling of being at your very best. He's not a fire man, police man, doctor, or politician. Those people can let you down. Superman can never let you down no matter what the situation throws his way. He's simply better than them and he's better than that. That's not discrediting those people or professions because of the simple fact that Superman is made up. He has the power to do anything so he does.

Acknowledging the existence of "necessary evil" within a story is a form of making excuses?

If so, why draw the line at killing?

Edit: With all this said I don't see why Superman has to kill. You can harp about contrivances all you'd like but is it any more contrived that the good guys always win? That earth isn't blown up? Or that somehow during a fight with a super powered alien our man of steel finds this never before seen grip strength and puts the evil alien in an inescapable headlock that affords no other option but death? All while the one family is being targeted for death? Just because there are "realistic" elements in a comic book doesn't make it any less contrived. All it does make me feel sad that people enjoy the contrivance where the people die as opposed to the one where they live.

Where the evil people die.

The innocent people are usually going to die throughout the course of the story anyway. Their lives being threatened is why the issue comes up in the first place. They are used as sacrificial lambs to showcase the power and/or ruthlessness of the villain. I don't sympathize with Zod, I don't pity Doomsday and I don't weep for a sea predator because it had the rotten luck of trying to kill prey that could actually fight back.

With all this said I don't mean to "take this out on you". My intent is more to reply to the thread rather than you specifically (you are however welcome to reply back along with anyone else). In any case I hope I was able to share myself in a clear and polite manner as that was my intent with this.

Cheers everyone!

Likewise hostility is not my intent.

[Superlad93]

I was thinking "Why is that creature not running away after getting it's tentacles burned off?", there has to be easier prey out there than this bite-sized snack.

I put the blame on Superman the stronger, faster, smarter, and all around more capable creature of the two. He tried to kill it because he couldn't spare a moment to take a breath and think (at super speed mind you) to make make a better solution. I mean were we really on the edge of our seats? Did we really think random creature of the deep was going to beat Superman and the JLA? Why not be more clever with the story and use it as a moment to show some personality for Superman (who very much lacked it in this movie)?

Could he not have had a small fight then burned the creature a bit, puffed his chest out and given it a stern look making it run away? Then Superman would turn to Aqua man with a smile and say something along the lines of "doesn't matter how big or mean a bully is, they'll back down if you find a way to stand up to them". This would not only make Superman come off as cool for the solo fight he just had with the thing and chasing it off, but it would also give him more personality and warmth even in a fight separating him from the pack a bit. It could also be a teaching moment for Aqua man and could come back in the form of words of wisdom in the final fight with his brother. Lastly it would be a solid message for the kids in our world who are on their way to discovering their own inner Superman.

Crashing a bunch of rocks on a creature in a generic personality devoid fight does nothing for the narrative that a more clever solution could not have done and then some.

When taken to a fanatical extreme, compassion, like anything else, can be a crippling defect. It can lead to inaction and make even the easiest decision unnecessarily taxing on the soul.

This is a more a compelling weakness to a god if you ask me rather than a defect that stops any story. Impractical in our stuffy glue-like world but totally possible in Superman's world of the impossible where, again, everything isn't literal but figurative shorthand for ideals. Getting all strung up over the idea of if so much of this is practical would eventually kill the character because in the end nothing about Batman or Superman is completely practical as it falls hard under the weight of hard enough logic.

Superman works on a figurative and allegorical level where you can take a situation from our world and extrapolate the raw emotion and ideas from it and canvas it onto Superman's world to make something new that he can deal with in his way.

Purposefully putting Superman in a situation similar to ours that warrants him to act as we would and not better seems like it's just there to validate our impotence. If we can make the perfect man fail in the same situation that we would, then we'd feel a bit better about the situation and could close the book on it in our minds with a (frankly) distressing feeling of accomplishment.

Acknowledging the existence of "necessary evil" within a story is a form of making excuses?

If so, why draw the line at killing?

What other one's pertaining to Superman do you mean? But I must say this already sounds like it's going to be a storm of real life concrete to the core logic that won't prove anything more than Superman is made out of paper and ink. This is a fact that I am already aware of and have made my peace with. So again I'll say that it's not all meant to be taken literally but figuratively as a form of expressionist art (your jackson pollocks, or byzantine art) rather than photo realistic art.

Where the evil people die.

The innocent people are usually going to die throughout the course of the story anyway. Their lives being threatened is why the issue comes up in the first place. They are used as sacrificial lambs to showcase the power and/or ruthlessness of the villain. I don't sympathize with Zod, I don't pity Doomsday and I don't weep for a sea predator because it had the rotten luck of trying to kill prey that could actually fight back.

I don't speak just on Zod or Man of Steel or even just the villain dying. I'm talking about them sure, but also about the stories where it's more "realistic" with the contrivance that the people had to die to earn it it's "realism". Sure there is place and time for that in comics to deliver a specific effect. I'm not arguing that. I just find it odd that the story where Superman can only save 10 people rather than 20 is better or "more real". Or the one where he is forced into a tight spot and has to kill Zod is better or "more real" . One can say that "well life doesn't give you what you want sometimes and you have to deal with it". Superman is both not real and not simply us. He doesn't have to accept that and remains there as a figurative reminder for the idea of "maybe if I do a little more", or "maybe if I'm a little more clever with this". The embodiment of the resilient and stubborn human spirit that lest us push past the known or the currently possible. It's lest us walk on the moon even though not too long ago we thought the earth was flat. He is the spirit of that progressive challenge to look outside of the easy or the known and do the impossible.

Likewise hostility is not my intent.

None is taken.

[DochaDocha]

Could he not have had a small fight then burned the creature a bit, puffed his chest out and given it a stern look making it run away?

I thought about that, then realized they used that visual earlier in the movie, when Superman slammed the ground, got all glowy-eyed, and told the Trenchers to "Retreat." You could argue that they should've saved the intimidation for the creature, but you could also argue that they didn't want to recycle the visual bit, and they felt it worked better as it did.

[Superlad93]

I thought about that, then realized they used that visual earlier in the movie, when Superman slammed the ground, got all glowy-eyed, and told the Trenchers to "Retreat." You could argue that they should've saved the intimidation for the creature, but you could also argue that they didn't want to recycle the visual bit, and they felt it worked better as it did.

I half thought of that but since I was only speaking on the one instance with the monster I left it alone. But if I were to decide, I would have kept the intimidation for the monster and found another cooler way for Superman to make his grand entrance in the other fight.

What if there was a rumbling under the small island that our heroes are on before Superman arrives. Wonder Woman gets a call on the com link from a familiar voice saying "tell our people to secure themselves" (or something to that effect). Then either a very large chunk or the whole of the rock is lifted into the air and shaken out into the sea like a box of cereal into a vast bowl of milk. Then heat vision boils a line in front of the creatures in the sea, and they retreat.

It's a call back to the "boiling sea" line of the comic and a more direct show, not tell (he didn't even really get that here did he), of Superman's powers vast capability. This makes his ineffectiveness against Ocean Master due to magic even more devastating. In the movie he looked less than spectacular in nearly everything he did from competence to power and skill. Don't think I didn't notice how he had nothing to add when the whole team was figuring out the sub attack mystery. If he is to be the "biggest guy that gets knocked down to show how awesome the villain is" then why not make me believe the first part a bit more and by proxy enhance the last?

I think it would've shown a Superman brand of skill that no other hero is really geared for physically and mentally. Batman would think small scale mental and physical tactics. Wonder Woman would think in terms of battle and warfare tactics. But Superman is thinking on the scale of someone who sees a bigger picture and has more literal tactics. He's the only one of the team to think of moving a planet out of the way and figuring out how to make that work rather than building an ark or some other closer to plausibility solution. So I think him literally "clearing the battle field" like you or I clear a table would have been both a cool visual and a way to show what makes him special in a fight in comparison to an Aqua man or a Wonder Woman other than he has no swords or giant forks.

[Lax]

I put the blame on Superman the stronger, faster, smarter, and all around more capable creature of the two. He tried to kill it because he couldn't spare a moment to take a breath and think (at super speed mind you) to make make a better solution. I mean were we really on the edge of our seats? Did we really think random creature of the deep was going to beat Superman and the JLA? Why not be more clever with the story and use it as a moment to show some personality for Superman (who very much lacked it in this movie)?

He put it down because he was already wounded, Aquaman couldn't handle it, it was trying to kill him, his girlfriend, the rest of his allies, and showed it wasn't going to stop even after he burned it's tentacles off.

Could he not have had a small fight then burned the creature a bit, puffed his chest out and given it a stern look making it run away? Then Superman would turn to Aqua man with a smile and say something along the lines of "doesn't matter how big or mean a bully is, they'll back down if you find a way to stand up to them". This would not only make Superman come off as cool for the solo fight he just had with the thing and chasing off a monster, but it would also give him more personality and warmth even in a fight separating him from the pack a bit. It could also be a teaching moment from Aqua man and could come back in the form of words of wisdom in the final fight with his brother. Lastly it would be a solid message for the kids in our world who are on their way to discovering their inner Superman.

Crashing a bunch of rocks on a creature in a generic personality devoid fight does nothing for the narrative that a more clever solution could not and then some.

After Superman burned it's tentacles off to protect his friends, the creature then tried to kill him.

It showed no signs of being intimidated.

This is a more a compelling weakness to a god if you ask me rather than a defect that stops any story. Impractical in our stuffy glue-like world but totally possible in Superman's world of the impossible where, again, everything isn't literal but figurative shorthand for ideals. Getting all strung up over the idea of if so much of this is practical would eventually kill the character because in the end nothing about Batman or Superman is completely practical as it falls hard under the weight of hard enough logic.

Superman works on a figurative and allegorical level where you can take a situation from our world and extrapolate the raw emotion and ideas from it and canvas it onto Superman's world to make something new that he can deal with.

Purposefully putting Superman in a situation similar to ours that warrants him to act as we would and not better seems like it's just there to validate our impotence. If we can make the perfect man fail in the same situation that we would then we'd feel a bit better about the situation and could close the book on it in our minds with a (frankly) distressing feeling of accomplishment.

What is the value of being a "perfect man" in a world that will alter itself specifically to make the impossible possible? He isn't rising above the challenge, the challenge is tailoring itself to be overcome with zero fallout.

You say "putting Superman in a situation similar to ours" as if our world isn't the basis for the one he lives in. As if "a situation similar to ours" is a writer rigging the game against Supes as oppose to exploring a question the character is often shielded from having to answer.

I find that the people who get "strung up" are the ones who don't want him to kill. They are the ones with this standard of perfection for the character. They are the ones who create "Hear we go again" threads when their standards aren't met.

I've said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again "I suppose I don't feel comfortable holding him to a different standard than everybody else just because he is Superman. Logically that opens up a big can of worms."

I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for a good man.

What other one's pertaining to Superman do you mean? But I must say this already sounds like it's going to be a storm of real life concrete to the core logic that won't prove anything more than Superman is made out of paper and ink. This is a fact that I am already aware of and have made my peace with. So again I'll say that it's not all meant to be taken literally but figuratively as a form of expressionist art (your jackson pollocks, or byzantine art) rather than photo realistic art.

Violence.

This is a man who routinely hurts people to protect himself and others. He, as a perfect man, should be able to "find a way" to save everyone without hurting anyone right? It doesn't matter how unrealistic or impractical "finding a way" is, he's Superman, he can do the impossible.

Logic is okay when it's time to inflict the horrible pain of burning a creatures tentacles off, but logic is out of bounds when it's time to possibly kill said creature. The brutalization is fine but the logical extension of that brutalization isn't.

I don't speak just on Zod or Man of Steel or even just the villain dying. I'm talking about them sure, but also about the stories where it's more "realistic" with the contrivance that the people had to die to earn it it's "realism". Sure there is place and time for that in comics to deliver a specific effect. I'm not arguing that. I just find it odd that the story where Superman can only save 10 people rather than 20 is better or "more real". Or the one where he is forced into a tight spot and has to kill Zod is better or "more real" . One can say that "well life doesn't give you what you want sometimes and you have to deal with it". Superman is both not real and not simply us. He doesn't have to accept that and remains there as a figurative reminder for the idea of "maybe if I do a little more", or "maybe if I'm a little more clever with this". The embodiment of the resilient and stubborn human spirit that lest us push past the known or the currently possible. It's lest us walk on the moon even though not too long ago we thought the earth was flat. He is the spirit of that progressive challenge to look outside of the easy or the known and do the impossible.

I'm going to cut to the chase.

The realism vs fantasy angle is a smokescreen topic fogging up the real discussion. The core issue is with killing and how people feel about Superman preforming the act. It's a moral line that some fans arbitrarily draw for what is acceptable for the character, then act as if the character is ruined or otherwise wronged when that arbitrary line is crossed.

If Superman found a way to stop that sea creature, or Zod, or Doomsday without killing them I'd be fine with that. However, if he can't neutralize the threat without ending it, or if trying to do so created more problems then it solved, I'd expect him to do what is just, because that's part of being a good man too.

If there is blame to be had, it doesn't lie with Superman.

[Superlad93]

He put it down because he was already wounded, Aquaman couldn't handle it, it was trying to kill him, his girlfriend, the rest of his allies, and showed it wasn't going to stop even after he burned it's tentacles off.

Creating a cover with the whirlpool effect of super breath. Make a waterspout by swimming and "changing the course of [the] mighty river". Use his vision powers to tap a latent volcano to scare the creature away.

He put it down because he wasn't as clever as he should have/could have been, and yet it still didn't add to the story.

After Superman burned it's tentacles off to protect his friends, the creature then tried to kill him.

It showed no signs of being intimidated.

Yet it didn't have to. That was the decision of the writers. It very well could have crumbled under Superman's promise of continued retaliation. The very worst part is I see no good that came of the scene as it was. What did we learn? What was illustrated about the characters that is unique to them? Where was the innovation in the scene? I mean, again, I'm pretty sure no one was on the edge of their seats wondering if the nameless creature 20 minutes into the movie would spell doom for the man of steel and his friends. And him actually killing it didn't really say or do much else that not killing it wouldn't have. At the very least the alternative that I proposed would have seen a display of character, hopefully a clever fight, and a teaching moment.

The moment just stuck out to me as vapid and wasted space in a team movie where that is not an option. Each little moment is a moment to learn about a character in a new way I feel. But with that said, I may seem like I'm fighting hard on this but I really don't care very much on the subject of him killing monstrosities and such. The whole movie and the current movement for the character is just rubbing me wrong since after Morrison left and maybe the end of Pak's first arc. I'm not saying the books and the mass media are all crap. Like all art it has it's flaws and it's merits

I feel like I'm a little more than just another Sliver age Superdad lover (considering I'm WAAAAAAAY too young to have too have a lasting love for that era). I'll actually continue this later...

What is the value of being a "perfect man" in a world that will alter itself specifically to make the impossible possible? He isn't rising above the challenge, the challenge is tailoring itself to be overcome with zero fallout.

It would very well seem like it all just works out for someone if they were perfect, now wouldn't it? But you seem to be speaking of plot contrivances and to that I say they would still be alive and well if he were not at his apex. Don't get me wrong. There are stories to be had with a true every man (even though even at his most perfect he is still and every man) Superman who makes mistakes. My only issue is that everything doesn't have to be that same guy.

You say "putting Superman in a situation similar to ours" as if our world isn't the basis for the one he lives in. As if "a situation similar to ours" is a writer rigging the game against Supes as oppose to exploring a question the character is often shielded from having to answer.

Allegorically and symbolically obviously they are our situations. I've been saying that this whole time. I'm saying that literally putting Superman in a situation where it's almost a 1 to 1 redrawing of issues in our world solves nothing. The is taking him too literally. What was once a free bird moving gracefully in the sky in now stuck in the all covering glue of our actual world.

Superman can deal with our issue quite well actually but it seems more useful of the characters talents to make it allegorical or symbolic. It seems to me like more mileage could be gotten out of the raw emotions and primal ideas of the real world issue than the issues themselves. A Jackson Pollocks, or Byzantine art rendering style rather than a 1 to 1 photo with Superman Photoshoped in there.

But again this is more complicated than just saying one is wright and the other is wrong. I can find things to enjoy about seeing Superman struggle with the weight of our much heavier world for a while. I'm not too ridged on the matter. But one does call to me and my natural proclivities more than the other so that's why I sit here today even defending.

I find that the people who get "strung up" are the ones who don't want him to kill. They are the ones with this standard of perfection for the character. They are the ones who create "Hear we go again" threads when their standards aren't met.

Try to keep this about you, me, and the character please and leave other posters out of it. But I do feel like your view is rather ridged when it comes to people who aren't okay with the character killing. It's not as simple as lumping us all in one group think. You'll find that I don't share quite a few of opinions with that group you may have in mind.

I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for a good man.

You may find that a good man can be perfect by just being themselves and doing the best they can. Superman shows symbolically (that is key) this simply doing what can in the best way possible.

Violence.

Sure, there have actually been times in past publication where he didn't actually use violence. His strength was there to lift and haul. His speed where there to give him more time to build create and fix. Even his super nova hot heat vision was there to to weld, mend, and warm. A completely pacifist Superman is actually not out of the question and I await the day of such a take. I actually feel it would necessitate quite a bit of skill to keep such a character fresh and engaging in this Michael Bay Transformers ear that we've happened on. The most interesting and hard to jump through hoop I think would be not even calling it to the attention of the reader. They'd have this moment of "huh you know I don't think I've ever actually seen him throw a punch at another soul", but they would have been enjoying the fun and ideas of the character so much it wouldn't matter.

But sure I won't deny that I enjoy the slightly punchy nature of the character all the way back to his leaping tall building days. Superman must fit in with the public consciousness of the ear as best he can while still keeping himself him. So he fights but doesn't kill. But again you make it literal to it make me seem like I'm advocating torture of the animal but not killing it. That's simply not the case obviously. The show of force that Superman uses, even though it's force, is measured and deliberate. It's almost symbolic for the stern though love that a parent gives a child. The slap on the wrist or the slight spank of the bottom. It's all played on a giant scale and given "BANG, ZOOM, POW" backdrops.

The action medium he lives in needs to see him adventuring and being physical, but nowhere is it a necessity that he end the lives of foes.

I'm going to cut to the chase.

The realism vs fantasy angle is a smokescreen topic fogging up the real discussion. The core issue is with killing and how people feel about Superman preforming the act. It's a moral line that some fans arbitrarily draw for what is acceptable for the character, then act as if the character is ruined or otherwise wronged when that arbitrary line is crossed.

It's not really that simple at least not for myself.

[The Beast]

He put it down because he was already wounded, Aquaman couldn't handle it, it was trying to kill him, his girlfriend, the rest of his allies, and showed it wasn't going to stop even after he burned it's tentacles off.



After Superman burned it's tentacles off to protect his friends, the creature then tried to kill him.

It showed no signs of being intimidated.



What is the value of being a "perfect man" in a world that will alter itself specifically to make the impossible possible? He isn't rising above the challenge, the challenge is tailoring itself to be overcome with zero fallout.

You say "putting Superman in a situation similar to ours" as if our world isn't the basis for the one he lives in. As if "a situation similar to ours" is a writer rigging the game against Supes as oppose to exploring a question the character is often shielded from having to answer.

I find that the people who get "strung up" are the ones who don't want him to kill. They are the ones with this standard of perfection for the character. They are the ones who create "Hear we go again" threads when their standards aren't met.

I've said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again "I suppose I don't feel comfortable holding him to a different standard than everybody else just because he is Superman. Logically that opens up a big can of worms."

I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for a good man.



Violence.

This is a man who routinely hurts people to protect himself and others. He, as a perfect man, should be able to "find a way" to save everyone without hurting anyone right? It doesn't matter how unrealistic or impractical "finding a way" is, he's Superman, he can do the impossible.

Logic is okay when it's time to inflict the horrible pain of burning a creatures tentacles off, but logic is out of bounds when it's time to possibly kill said creature. The brutalization is fine but the logical extension of that brutalization isn't.



I'm going to cut to the chase.

The realism vs fantasy angle is a smokescreen topic fogging up the real discussion. The core issue is with killing and how people feel about Superman preforming the act. It's a moral line that some fans arbitrarily draw for what is acceptable for the character, then act as if the character is ruined or otherwise wronged when that arbitrary line is crossed.

If Superman found a way to stop that sea creature, or Zod, or Doomsday without killing them I'd be fine with that. However, if he can't neutralize the threat without ending it, or if trying to do so created more problems then it solved, I'd expect him to do what is just, because that's part of being a good man too.

If there is blame to be had, it doesn't lie with Superman.

Outstanding post!

[Cypher]

The problem is here not that he killed the thing (Though I'm worried here of those saying its ok to kill if its not human) but the image theyre pushing of Superman killing openly. Superman tries to save, and values all life. If theres no need to destroy something he wont. These new iterations in comics and movies haven't been showing that or that he tries.

Pre-52 Superman wouldnt have killed the thing.

[Vakanai]

Really? Zod sure, the guy in War okay, but this? It was an evil Cthulhu-like killer sea squid monster. Even if he had a no kill rule it'd probably not extend to inhuman monsters. The guy ain't Buddhist. He isn't vegan as far as I know. Yeah, I'm one of those people who thinks Superman should never kill a villain, but there's a difference between sapient, intelligent life and evil sea monster (and let's not argue if the creature was evil or not, something just after food should have fled when the prey fought back that hard). I hate that some people think Superman has to kill to be cool or relateable these days, but there is such a thing as pushing an issue too far. This ain't 'killer' Superman, this is like Supes living out some dream of being a calamari chef at best.

[Lax]

Creating a cover with the whirlpool effect of super breath. Make a waterspout by swimming and "changing the course of [the] mighty river". Use his vision powers to tap a latent volcano to scare the creature away.

He put it down because he wasn't as clever as he should have/could have been, and yet it still didn't add to the story.

I repeat, he put it down because he was already wounded, Aquaman couldn't handle it, it was trying to kill him, his girlfriend, the rest of his allies, and showed it wasn't going to stop even after he burned it's tentacles off.

If the pain of heat induced dismemberment isn't enough to deter the creature from it's quest to kill Superman and his people, I see no reason to assume a whirlpool, waterspout or latent volcano is frightening enough to do so. Superman's triumph added to the story by allowing the League to get past a threat that would have otherwise killed them had Aquaman lacked the presence of mind to free Supes.

Yet it didn't have to. That was the decision of the writers. It very well could have crumbled under Superman's promise of continued retaliation. The very worst part is I see no good that came of the scene as it was. What did we learn? What was illustrated about the characters that is unique to them? Where was the innovation in the scene? I mean, again, I'm pretty sure no one was on the edge of their seats wondering if the nameless creature 20 minutes into the movie would spell doom for the man of steel and his friends. And him actually killing it didn't really say or do much else that not killing it wouldn't have. At the very least the alternative that I proposed would have seen a display of character, hopefully a clever fight, and a teaching moment.

The good that came out of it was that Superman, his girlfriend, and the rest of his allies get to see another day thanks to him. Which in turn allowed the war to be stopped before it really got a chance to build up momentum, these are the factors that made Superman's actions worthwhile.

We may not doubt his survival, but a wounded Superman cannot afford to think in those terms.

The moment just stuck out to me as vapid and wasted space in a team movie where that is not an option. Each little moment is a moment to learn about a character in a new way I feel. But with that said, I may seem like I'm fighting hard on this but I really don't care very much on the subject of him killing monstrosities and such. The whole movie and the current movement for the character is just rubbing me wrong since after Morrison left and maybe the end of Pak's first arc. I'm not saying the books and the mass media are all crap. Like all art it has it's flaws and it's merits

I feel like I'm a little more than just another Sliver age Superdad lover (considering I'm WAAAAAAAY too young to have too have a lasting love for that era). I'll actually continue this later...

I felt the same way about Lane's random and unproductive contribution toward Superman & Wonder Woman's date. At least your gripe actually involves a character important enough to justify eating up the limited amount of time.

It would very well seem like it all just works out for someone if they were perfect, now wouldn't it? But you seem to be speaking of plot contrivances and to that I say they would still be alive and well if he were not at his apex. Don't get me wrong. There are stories to be had with a true every man (even though even at his most perfect he is still and every man) Superman who makes mistakes. My only issue is that everything doesn't have to be that same guy.

I wouldn't know because nobody is perfect.

I find holding a character to an impossible standard less than reasonable, particularity when that standard is not held for everyone else.

Allegorically and symbolically obviously they are our situations. I've been saying that this whole time. I'm saying that literally putting Superman in a situation where it's almost a 1 to 1 redrawing of issues in our world solves nothing. The is taking him too literally. What was once a free bird moving gracefully in the sky in now stuck in the all covering glue of our actual world.

Superman can deal with our issue quite well actually but it seems more useful of the characters talents to make it allegorical or symbolic. It seems to me like more mileage could be gotten out of the raw emotions and primal ideas of the real world issue than the issues themselves. A Jackson Pollocks, or Byzantine art rendering style rather than a 1 to 1 photo with Superman Photoshoped in there.

But again this is more complicated than just saying one is wright and the other is wrong. I can find things to enjoy about seeing Superman struggle with the weight of our much heavier world for a while. I'm not too ridged on the matter. But one does call to me and my natural proclivities more than the other so that's why I sit here today even defending.

To literal in relation to what? It satisfies the curiosity of having an answer to a question that writers frequently avoid asking in the name of protecting the character's image. That's no more literal than exploring any other aspect of Superman's moral fiber.

Superman can deal with the topic of killing quite well? Seems like even broaching the topic with this guy is some form of sacrilege. For example, we don't even know if that sea creature this thread was created for is actually dead. I'm okay with making the assumption that it was killed for the sake of argument, but that's an assumption none the less.

In JL:War Green Lantern assumed that Supes was trying to kill them yet Batman assumed otherwise despite the savagery in Superman's aggression.

Try to keep this about you, me, and the character please and leave other posters out of it. But I do feel like your view is rather ridged when it comes to people who aren't okay with the character killing. It's not as simple as lumping us all in one group think. You'll find that I don't share quite a few of opinions with that group you may have in mind.

Likewise, I find your view of placing "the blame on Superman" for his method of self-defense quite ridged.

You may find that a good man can be perfect by just being themselves and doing the best they can. Superman shows symbolically (that is key) this simply doing what can in the best way possible.

Do you overlap those terms in relation to Superman killing, or is he not trying hard enough when that happens?

Sure, there have actually been times in past publication where he didn't actually use violence. His strength was there to lift and haul. His speed where there to give him more time to build create and fix. Even his super nova hot heat vision was there to to weld, mend, and warm. A completely pacifist Superman is actually not out of the question and I await the day of such a take. I actually feel it would necessitate quite a bit of skill to keep such a character fresh and engaging in this Michael Bay Transformers ear that we've happened on. The most interesting and hard to jump through hoop I think would be not even calling it to the attention of the reader. They'd have this moment of "huh you know I don't think I've ever actually seen him throw a punch at another soul", but they would have been enjoying the fun and ideas of the character so much it wouldn't matter.

My point is that few, if any, seem to have an issue with the use of violence as an alternative to pacifism when it comes to neutralizing a threat to the innocent. The former is accepted as a "necessary evil" not because the character is taken to literally, but because stopping the treat is a higher priority than worrying about it's well-being.

But sure I won't deny that I enjoy the slightly punchy nature of the character all the way back to his leaping tall building days. Superman must fit in with the public consciousness of the ear as best he can while still keeping himself him. So he fights but doesn't kill. But again you make it literal to it make me seem like I'm advocating torture of the animal but not killing it. That's simply not the case obviously. The show of force that Superman uses, even though it's force, is measured and deliberate. It's almost symbolic for the stern though love that a parent gives a child. The slap on the wrist or the slight spank of the bottom. It's all played on a giant scale and given "BANG, ZOOM, POW" backdrops.

It's about protecting the innocent through whatever level of force is necessary to achieve success.

Sometimes the threat will earn a trip to prison, sometimes they'll earn a trip to the hospital, and sometimes, if they're extra relentless, they'll earn a trip to the morgue.

By the way, that trip to the hospital or morgue? Those are journeys Superman can take himself if he fails, victory is not guaranteed and with stakes this high he doesn't have the luxury of behaving as if it were. Measured and deliberate force does not exclude lethal force.

[Lax]

The action medium he lives in needs to see him adventuring and being physical, but nowhere is it a necessity that he end the lives of foes.

Yes, but I'm not talking about adventuring or being physical. I'm talking about the very concept of "necessarily evil" for the greater good. He hurts others, he does so often, and fans don't seem to have a problem with it because of his in-story reasons.

Take out the word "Hurting", insert the word "Killing" and watch that entire line of reasoning become malleable and warped. He kills others, he does so rarely, and yet the act is highlighted as a problem among fans regardless of his in-story reasons.

You mentioned earlier that the concept of "necessary evil" within a story was an "excuse". My point is that even when you reduce that concept to an "excuse", it's still an "excuse" that people are perfectly willing to accept when it suits their sensibilities.

Superman is the short hand expression of the feeling of being at your very best. He's not a fire man, police man, doctor, or politician. Those people can let you down. Superman can never let you down no matter what the situation throws his way. He's simply better than them and he's better than that.

So the question for me is this, if he's letting you down when he kills others, why isn't he also letting you down when he harms others? If he's supposed to be perfect to the point that the situation itself is no obstacle, then he has no "excuse" to justify failing to met a standard for good, right? This is one of the reasons why I dislike holding Superman to a higher standard because he happens to be Superman.

If there was a story where the DC public believed that Superman was letting them down because he refused to rule the world, and they based their belief on the premise that he's "better than them", what would you say?

[hellacre]

What is the value of being a "perfect man" in a world that will alter itself specifically to make the impossible possible? He isn't rising above the challenge, the challenge is tailoring itself to be overcome with zero fallout.

You say "putting Superman in a situation similar to ours" as if our world isn't the basis for the one he lives in. As if "a situation similar to ours" is a writer rigging the game against Supes as oppose to exploring a question the character is often shielded from having to answer.

I find that the people who get "strung up" are the ones who don't want him to kill. They are the ones with this standard of perfection for the character. They are the ones who create "Hear we go again" threads when their standards aren't met.

I've said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again "I suppose I don't feel comfortable holding him to a different standard than everybody else just because he is Superman. Logically that opens up a big can of worms."

I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for a good man.

Wow well said.

This is such an important point. I think it is why many people think the character gets it all on a platter and has it too easy. I don't think anyone could argue someone is better if the situation is constantly manipulated to keep him lily white. Emotional stakes carry little weight nor does the consequences in the situation itself feel authentic. If he is more human than us which is what they say he is or even better than us...that still should not make him above experiencing what humans have to grapple with and that is tough decisions with consequence. It's as bad as bat shark repellent. Superman having to be a saint results in some bad stories as well because it leads to this thing many have come to dislike in him from last canon and it is inaction and re-activeness. Now I am the last person advocating Superman to go kill lightly but cutting tentacles being seen as some crime to the character to me is absurd. The guy routinely bloodies his fists on foes on a constant basis. And if a writer has to jump the shark so he does not have to deal with consequences of a tough decision ...then that is pandering than truly exploring character.

[ekrolo2]

"Superman is the short hand expression of the feeling of being at your very best. He's not a fire man, police man, doctor, or politician. Those people can let you down. Superman can never let you down no matter what the situation throws his way. He's simply better than them and he's better than that."

This sentiment right here is one of my biggest problems with the character of Superman, which is incidentally his greatest super power. His power to bend the ENTIRE universe to his will just so he can get the perfect, fairy tail ending out of every situation no matter how implausible, bs and boring it may be. If Superman achieved this on his own terms, by his own intellect or powers, I would find that inspirational. But it never is.

As Lax put it, its not a "perfect man" overcoming a problem, its the problem itself being warped so its convenient for it not to be a real problem for him anymore. Now this is definitely going to open up a can of worms, but I am so happy that there is a Superman who doesn't have this magic ability to save everyone and do everything perfectly just on the merit he's Superman. The MoS version. The one who was in a sticky situation and managed to get probably the best possible outcome out of it, but he still didn't entirely succeed. The public fear him, he had to take a life and he has to rise above all that and continue his mission regardless of it.

Do I want every story about Superman failing and needing to overcome it? No, I want diverse stories, but the comics have almost universally gone the exact opposite route of putting him in situation where there is simply no God damn way he should be having this neatly tied in a bow perfect ending but he does anyway, just because he's Superman. And that pisses me off.

Personally I find Matt Murdoch, a guy who's life is complete and utter hell who still keeps on going is a far more inspirational character than Superman who wins just because of the fact he is who he is.

[Superlad93]

I repeat, he put it down because he was already wounded, Aquaman couldn't handle it, it was trying to kill him, his girlfriend, the rest of his allies, and showed it wasn't going to stop even after he burned it's tentacles off.

If the pain of heat induced dismemberment isn't enough to deter the creature from it's quest to kill Superman and his people, I see no reason to assume a whirlpool, waterspout or latent volcano is frightening enough to do so. Superman's triumph added to the story by allowing the League to get past a threat that would have otherwise killed them had Aquaman lacked the presence of mind to free Supes.

I imagine being removed from the area by a whirlpool or the promise of a whole volcano killing it would be enough to scare it or at the very least put enough distance between them and it. Moreover so simply because it's gotten a little harder with his vague wounds then he should just take the easy way out?

And I'm sorry but your argument about his friends being in such immediate danger and him being hurt and so on and so on fall apart when you actually watch the scene in question and see that Aquaman had already gotten everyone away while Superman distracted it. Then Superman shows his superior strength and knocks the beast one on the chin sending it for a loop. After this he proceeds to ram it into a giant rock formation knocking it out. At this point the threat is neutralized and Superman can use his superior speed to leave before it wakes. But no he zooms away then back to push a rock formation on it in order to crush it.

He was not in the immediate life or death struggle for his life "his girlfriend and the rest of his allies" life as you keep trying to paint it. He beat the thing then decided to go back for more. Why? Was it gonna track him after it woke from it's concussed state? The next time Superman saves a person from a shark should he kill it and every other shark like it because of the idea that they may attack again someday?

If it were just the idea that they were getting past the threat then you really could have used any other character at the moment. Superman could have been one of the allies in the beast grip. Aquaman could have freed anyone it seems. A sword to the head, ear shattering sonic cannons, and a whole host of constructs could have done the trick it seems if the only reason for that part was filler conflict. Vapid is all it is.

The good that came out of it was that Superman, his girlfriend, and the rest of his allies get to see another day thanks to him. Which in turn allowed the war to be stopped before it really got a chance to build up momentum, these are the factors that made Superman's actions worthwhile.

That would've happened regardless in the movie about the JLA. That is an inevitability. What good did it do for themes and story of the movie? How was it more than a vapid killing of time? Again this is an ensemble movie so what time is given should be used to tell us and show us aspects about our stars that we don't already get from the pure visual of them. As I said before: not only is that part odd from it's needless suggested killing but also in how it served nothing about the story or characters. It seems like it was there just because it would have been odd to show the JLA free in the next shot.

We may not doubt his survival, but a wounded Superman cannot afford to think in those terms.

Every time he's hurt he should throw it all out the window and look out for number one? That's what he did in the film. His friends safe, he'd bested the monster very convincingly even with his "wounds", and was in great position to fly away. I think he could have afford to just go. The actual movie didn't show him to be in much of any danger after a very small amout of time.

To literal in relation to what?

Real actual you and me life.

It satisfies the curiosity of having an answer to a question that writers frequently avoid asking in the name of protecting the character's image. That's no more literal than exploring any other aspect of Superman's moral fiber.

As I said before it just seems rather ridged in the same way a photo is to an expressionist art painting. You have a limited number of answers because real life is so concrete. But if you take the ideas that go along with killing and even the meta of protecting his image you get a much more robust and wide area to play in. On interpretation do we see how the more abstract picture relates to the idea of killing and image and from there we can get, I think, a more intimate feel of the story and even the character since we figured it out parallel to the character. A story about if he should or shouldn't kill isn't bad or wrong. No, by no means is that what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it seems more stale and formulaic than Superman wining the day all the time. You are just put in the same predictable situation of person(s) who has done something bad enough to deserve being killed and Superman in a position to kill them. Will he wont he? Or maybe it's a good person who must die and Superman in that position. Or a loved one who needs to die and Superman in that position. Or lots of good or bad people who need to die and, you guessed it, Superman in that position.

If only the concrete situation is used then I think it is in fact rather stale as opposed to the ideas and emotions surrounding it being extrapolated and used as paint on the vast canvas that Superman's world is. But this is more my view on it rather than a fundamental defect in the exploration of him killing. You and many others my not share my taste in storytelling so such ideas my sound rather unappealing.

In JL:War Green Lantern assumed that Supes was trying to kill them yet Batman assumed otherwise despite the savagery in Superman's aggression.

Yes and it was played out by three beings who could talk and confirming it. But in this movie he was fighting a non speaking creature so he had no one to deliver exposition on his actions and we had no end point in his actions beyond the creature being crushed under rock. So given that and the fact that Superman had long since won the fight and knocked out the beast I don't have any reason to think he didn't kill it when he came back to attack it more. I doubt he was trying to intimidate the already unconscious beast.

Do you overlap those terms in relation to Superman killing, or is he not trying hard enough when that happens?

He's just not trying hard enough if he lets the situation control him like that the whole way through.

[Superlad93]

My point is that few, if any, seem to have an issue with the use of violence as an alternative to pacifism when it comes to neutralizing a threat to the innocent. The former is accepted as a "necessary evil" not because the character is taken to literally, but because stopping the treat is a higher priority than worrying about it's well-being.

And I've explained this by saying that it is a physical and violent medium. That is inescapable in our Michael Bay western two fisted justice world. Not even Superman can chance the course of the mighty social/cultural/pop cultural river that predates him and is both master and servant of the people who write his stories. Superman must in order to live conform in some ways to this greater force that made him. So he fights and he fights very hard. The medium call for him to punch and brawl because that's how things are expressed in this medium. Simple as that.

But the violence of the medium does not call for killing on Superman's part. The violence is more how points are gotten across in the medium. I mean you don't get in a physical fight with every new person you see over a contrived misunderstanding, do you? You don't punch family members when you disagree with them? A comic but expresses all of the average aspects of our life in a larger than life sort of way. It's more likely that you get into small disagreements or verbal battles that are solved over some food later. A comic articulates that and the robust feelings that can not be seen but come with it in a more visually interesting way. But as I said before killing doesn't have to be in that equation.

It's about protecting the innocent through whatever level of force is necessary to achieve success.

Sure if you're a cop or part of the armed forces it is. It doesn't have to be if you're a Superhero. Batman and Superman don't have to kill anyone to protect everyone they are not real.

Sometimes the threat will earn a trip to prison, sometimes they'll earn a trip to the hospital, and sometimes, if they're extra relentless, they'll earn a trip to the morgue.

By the way, that trip to the hospital or morgue? Those are journeys Superman can take himself if he fails, victory is not guaranteed and with stakes this high he doesn't have the luxury of behaving as if it were. Measured and deliberate force does not exclude lethal force.

And he's fine to put his life on the line like that while upholding his morals because he's Superman and he's also not real. This is why I always appreciate it when writers have him say "I'll do what I can". At first glance it sounds like the promise of failure. It sounds like the promise of a half done job with a nice little excuse at the end of it. But in reality he might as well be saying "I'll save without fail so you can stop worrying". What Superman can do is a lot. When he tries his very best it all works out because he's playing to his level. From our perspective it may seem cumbersome and impractical, but that's because we're not Superman. But don't mistake this as a self loathing rant on human impotence. No, quite the opposite in fact. It's a renascence view on personal achievement and hard work. We are all Superman everyday in our lives our victories might seem small in comparison to the big guys but to us we stand just as tall. That single mom who works 3-4 jobs, takes care of 2 kids, and still finds time to put a smile on their faces every morning? That is Superman. To the outside there are more logical and easier ways to go about her life: adoption, abortion (this is in no way indicative of my views on this matter), giving up etc. But she is Superman and she doesn't do things that way. To her the other stuff isn't even an option to be discussed so with no other way she finds one.

Putting things in perspective to Superman, he plays to the best of his abilities and those abilities are vast due to the nature and meta of the concept and character. We he does his best everything turns out fine.

All in all I'm fine with our fundamental difference in view of the character. I never expect others to think just as I do no matter how I explain it. Yet we can enjoy the same stories just fine