Here we go again. JL Atlantis DVD SPOILER

[Superlad93]

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.

I've explained this in my other post. The answer is comic books being an action medium but not meaning that killing must enter it.

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.

He's not letting me down because he's only articulating and symbolizing real ideas by filtering them through two fisted comics. It's like Superman is physically fighting intangible ideas like depression, loneliness, fear, xenophobia, intolerance, small mindedness by putting a face to them and punching then. The same way that we beat back these thing but by being better and stronger people. Physically killing these personifications is a whole other matter that deals with how you would get rid of these issue.

But yeah again he's not letting me down because that is how the medium requires him to express himself and his message. It makes for an exciting read and visual rush when done well in regards to this particular character (how it's expressed can be different from character to character and the intent behind of those characters. The controlled brutality of Batman or the cartoon and sometimes abstract nature of a Green Lantern)

The physicality of a Superhero comic is something that I've thought of quite a bit past just the obvious fighting styles and such. There's a whole language to it that is unique to each character comic. A flavor really. And like I said before it would be quite the interesting take if we were presented with a pacifist Superman who used his powers as tools in clever ways to beat his foes. For a while we the reader would be none the wiser because it's not spelled out that he is in fact a pacifist. It could work just as well as a hot blooded two fisted Superman (which I do enjoy).

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?

That that's not what the character is about. He's only better than us in the sense that he is fictional and able to do anything. This is beautifully visually articulated by in story power and capability. But what it really comes down to is the fact that he is a better version of us that we can get to if we try hard enough. Not literally but figuratively. If we just try our very uncompromising best in our own personal superverses than we can be Superman.

The in story articulation of this idea changes from era to era depending on what we need from Superman at the time. So to answer your question directly I'd say DC would be writing an interesting story where Superman would have to show the world and it's people just how special they are in just being themselves, thus bringing us back to his prime directive of being a metaphor or living symbol. It could actually be an interesting character arc for the people of DC. A nice on the noise commentary about what Superman is about and means to us.

I've thought about a story along these lines before but just not in such a liner manner. So yes I like the idea quite a bit.

[Superlad93]

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.

Superman is not real. Whatever power or intellect he has is created right on the spot by a man or woman with a pen and paper. By your logic, Superman and all fictional characters can never be inspirational because they are made from ink and paper and our imagination. What I think you are arguing is how much you believed or enjoyed the way he saved the day (because he will always do that). That is a person to person issue. You find less contrivance in Man of Steel than I do. But I seem to find quite a bit just with a "realistic" paint job over it to as it plays at something more. Enjoyable movie in some regards, but it's no documentary on the alien named Kal-el. How "believable" something is, is up to the viewer and creator at different points. What one sees as believable is not indicative to what the other will think. I find some "reality" shows false even with the documentary style film making.

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.

But there were just as much contrivances in that movie as there are in sliver age books. How did Superman get a hold of Zod after a whole fight of being virtually out matched at all points? Why didn't the rest of Zod's men go out and fight Superman? Two of them had the ability to nearly kill him. Zod nearly killed him on his own. I'm very sure a ship full could have ripped him apart in no time at all. Why was Zod not sucked into the zone? It seems like the plot just need one more fight and a person for Superman to kill. Why didn't Superman instantly go and ask his space dad about Zod and his crew to get more information and possibly stop things before they got too far? Why is Lois on that got damn ship?

The answer to all of these questions and more is "because the story wanted it that way that's why". They wanted to put him in a situation where he'd be feared etc to grow more story from that particular angle. Nothing wrong with that. But they could have easily not done that or gone in that direction and the only change would have been in what sort of contrivances they would use to get to their ends.

It's all a story and they're all imaginary. Man of Steel is no exceptions. How invested in the story and how much you like it is the deciding factor for all of these imaginary tales.

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.

This is all in the presentation of the story and how it is fed to you. You like it one way while others like it another. But it's all make believe and the good guys win in the end. I for one know that there are great "Superman saves everyone" stories that have been made with amazing ethos and pathos, and I'm sure more still can be made. Again *spoilers* he always saves the day no matter what.

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.

And that's fine. I find other characters inspirational for a wealth of different reasons. Superman doesn't own a monopoly on inspiration. You can find both compelling and inspirational. Sometimes you could feel more like Batman's lone sane voice in a world of madness is speaking to you more. Or Spider-man's responsible power in a life that puts him down calls to you more. Then sometimes you do feel like Superman where life is epic and big and you've only got so much time to save the day but you do it because you're being the best you.

It's more than likely that I'm just alone for the moment on this thread in my ways of thinking about the character which is fine. I'm knocking anyone for having a view that may not be as abstract as mine own or is just different from it. But in any case I hope I've presented my views on the character in a respectful and clear manner.

[The Overlord]

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.

So how far does Superman's code against killing go then? Is he a vegetarian? Is he totally anti abortion? Does he worry about harming microbes while flying around?

I can see Superman having a code against killing sentient life, but I'm not sure that should extend to non sentient life. That is why I don't have problem with Superman killing Doomsday, Doomsday was not a sentient creature and driven by instinct to kill. A rabid animal that kills people will often get put down and the person who does that is not charged with murder. I would kill a rapid animal if it were attacking me and would feel no guilt about it.

I don't think Superman killing a sea monster is in the same league as killing a sentient being, I think Superman's code against killing should be subject to some common sense, otherwise you can say Superman is murderer every time he smashes a robot.

[Flash Gordon]

Superman takes out a sea monster that's gonna eat everyone?

This takes nitpicking to a whole other level. Superman is always fighting giant monsters and such, jeez.

[Sacred Knight]

The vegan thing was just Birthright. He hasn't been portrayed as such anywhere else to my knowledge.

[Cypher]

If he had said sentient androids, then I could see the point. Since that would technically involve consciousness, and comic book magic. And thats technically not a robot then.

But a toaster isnt a life form or conscious because it has a programmable timer on it. Nor is any other robot in general. Comparing destroying a piece of machinery and that its the same as killing an animal is silly.