Superman and Killing

[Dispenser Of Truth]

The matter of the fact is that your Superman is boring Kurosawa. PerfectMan is boring.

This dude



Is infinitely closer to being 'perfect', in terms of lacking doubts, personal issues or a need to solve problems with anything other than his fists, than this guy:

Got news for you. Superman is just another hero.

No. Sorry, but it's absolutely 100% as simple as that. His symbolic value is immeasurably greater than any other superhero, even if he isn't as wildly celebrated in the public eye.

Giving Superman a legitimate struggle is fine, but muddying his message by forcing him into all these insane situations is another thing entirely. The point of Superman is that he always rises to any challenge he faces. He may struggle, he may falter but he always overcomes. MOS sells another message entirely. That even Superman can't win sometimes. Even Superman has to compromise. Keep your gifts a secret. Give into fear. Do what others tell you. There isn't always a way. Even Superman has to blink in the face of evil.

Superman is suppose to be an example, symbol of hope. He is everything we can be. If even the best of us has to be painted in shades of gray, what hope do we have?

Thank you; I hadn't quite articulated the issue in that matter before, and it kind of brought it back home for me.

Edit: I think really it comes down to whether you think Superman should be taken seriously as some sort of "inspiration" or whether you think that's a silly pretense because he is really a fun fictional character designed for entertainment. If the latter, fine. No killing ever.

I'd say it's the other way around. But as far as no killing being an applicable thing, he's powerful and clever enough that even up against huge-scale threats he doesn't have to resort to that. There's a big "fighting spirit, never give up" feel to him, but against the idea of evil as a whole, rather than individual threats who rarely challenge him on a huge level. Plenty of other superheroes struggle with the issue of killing to save lives, and that's a good thing. With Superman, the issue is, as Greg Pak put it, one of whether or not it's okay to "punch down".

And it was never great as it once was before COIE.

Ehhh...

[Lexrules]

This dude



Is infinitely closer to being 'perfect', in terms of lacking doubts, personal issues or a need to solve problems with anything other than his fists, than this guy:





No. Sorry, but it's absolutely 100% as simple as that. His symbolic value is immeasurably greater than any other superhero, even if he isn't as wildly celebrated in the public eye.



Thank you; I hadn't quite articulated the issue in that matter before, and it kind of brought it back home for me.



I'd say it's the other way around. But as far as no killing being an applicable thing, he's powerful and clever enough that even up against huge-scale threats he doesn't have to resort to that. There's a big "fighting spirit, never give up" feel to him, but against the idea of evil as a whole, rather than individual threats who rarely challenge him on a huge level. Plenty of other superheroes struggle with the issue of killing to save lives, and that's a good thing. With Superman, the issue is, as Greg Pak put it, one of whether or not it's okay to "punch down".



Ehhh...

I find it funny that the most recognizable and respected story of the last 30 years is a basically a Silver Age story. Sure says something doesn't it.

[Kurosawa]

I find it funny that the most recognizable and respected story of the last 30 years is a basically a Silver Age story. Sure says something doesn't it.

It says that the Silver Age way (updated) is what works for Superman. If only they would just let Superman be himself all the time.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Why should it never happen? I agree it is a made up story so they could do whatever they wanted and they wanted Superman to kill Zod. So he killed Zod.

Because it's a fantasy story for kids. Zach Snyder's desire to make it all dark and edgy so he can make his mark on it is a perverse, self-aggrandizing impulse.

A story where Superman thinks he might have to kill, but then uses his brains and heart to find a better way, is a better story than a story where he gets backed into a corner and kills because he isn't smart enough to think of another solution.

[Francisco]

Because it's a superhero story for kids. Zach Snyder's desire to make it all dark and edgy so he can make his mark on it is a perverse, self-aggrandizing impulse.

MOS was not for kids but for teenagers and adults. Superman as originaly conceived wouldn't be for kids either. No you're wrong. He wanted to make a movie that people actually wanted to see. There was already a movie aimed at kids that didn't work Superman returns.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

MOS was not for kids but for teenagers and adults. Superman as originaly conceived wouldn't be for kids either. No you're wrong. He wanted to make a movie that people actually wanted to see. There was already a movie aimed at kids that didn't work Superman returns.

I cannot imagine a kid that Superman Returns would be made for. It was pure nostalgia-wanking; I wouldn't have known what the hell to make of that thing at 11 if I hadn't had a dad super into comics that I watched the first movies with.

[Lexrules]

MOS was not for kids but for teenagers and adults. Superman as originaly conceived wouldn't be for kids either. No you're wrong. He wanted to make a movie that people actually wanted to see. There was already a movie aimed at kids that didn't work Superman returns.

Oh boy.... This where I leave because now where pulling at straws for no reason and aimed at the wrong movie to be called a kids movie.

[Doctor Know]

MOS was not for kids but for teenagers and adults. Superman as originaly conceived wouldn't be for kids either. No you're wrong. He wanted to make a movie that people actually wanted to see. There was already a movie aimed at kids that didn't work Superman returns.

@Bold Correction: Superman Returns was aimed at a women audience/"The Devil Wears Prada crowd" according to Bryan Singer. lol

But I agree with what you said. MOS reached financial success because it appealed to the teenage/young adult/adult male crowd. Look at Transformers, Pacific Rim, Marvel's movies. Your target audience with a go-get'em action movie is the male demographic primarily

[Flash Gordon]

No. Sorry, but it's absolutely 100% as simple as that. His symbolic value is immeasurably greater than any other superhero, even if he isn't as wildly celebrated in the public eye.

Well said mate.

SUPERMAN is THE superhero. He's not just another superhero, he defines the term. His symbol is literal hope, even in our world of meat and bone.

[Kurosawa]

Superman Returns was made for adults who loved the Reeve/Donner movies. Man of Steel was made for adults who hate Superman. The last Superman movie that was made for kids was IV, and it stunk.

It's all in the execution. You can make a Superman movie for kids or for adults and either way it can be good or it can suck-and usually, it sucks.

Six "live action" Superman movies (half of MOS and a quarter of SR was CGI) movies, and five of them suck. Bad percentage.

[Pharozonk]

Correction: Superman Returns was aimed at a women audience/"The Devil Wears Prada crowd" according to Bryan Singer. lol

But I agree with what you said. MOS reached financial success because it appealed to the teenage/young adult/adult male crowd. Look at Transformers, Pacific Rim, Marvel's movies. Your target audience with a go-get'em action movie is the male demographic primarily

Pacific Rim and the Marvel movies are on a different level from Transformers and Man of Steel, which are generic mindless action movies. Man of Steel commits a greater sin by pretending its a grand, deep movie with something actually to say but is just a pretentious mess.

[Shawn Hopkins]

MOS was not for kids but for teenagers and adults. Superman as originaly conceived wouldn't be for kids either. No you're wrong. He wanted to make a movie that people actually wanted to see. There was already a movie aimed at kids that didn't work Superman returns.

That's what's wrong with MOS. It should have been for kids, and adults who are mature enough to appreciate things for kids, but it was aimed at moody, lonely young men with anger issues and left the one audience it should have been catering to out in the cold. And this thing about Superman not originally being conceived for kids is ahistorical. Just because standards were looser and Superman was a little more aggressive doesn't mean comic strips, and especially comic books, at the time were an "adult" medium. They were designed for and marketed primarily at kids.

[Doctor Know]

Pacific Rim and the Marvel movies are on a different level from Transformers and Man of Steel, which are generic mindless action movies. Man of Steel commits a greater sin by pretending its a grand, deep movie with something actually to say but is just a pretentious mess.

Pacific Rim is no different than any of the other anime where mecha fight monsters or power rangers/super sentai series. Marvel's movies (ASM, Rami SM, IM, Thor, Avengers, Capt Amer, X-Men) are all the same breed of popcorn flicks with cool action in them. None of them are deep or have messages. They only exist to entertain an audience for 2 hours or more.

How is MOS pretending to be deep or grand? All the savior talk is used in every Superman movie and most comics. It's obligatory honestly. MOS is a summer action movie that like the aforementioned Marvel movies is meant to entertain for 2 hours or more.

[Pharozonk]

Pacific Rim is no different than any of the other anime where mecha fight monsters or power rangers/super sentai series. Marvel's movies (ASM, Rami SM, IM, Thor, Avengers, Capt Amer, X-Men) are all the same breed of popcorn flicks with cool action in them. None of them are deep or have messages. They only exist to entertain an audience for 2 hours or more.

How is MOS pretending to be deep or grand? All the savior talk is used in every Superman movie and most comics. It's obligatory honestly. MOS is a summer action movie that like the aforementioned Marvel movies is meant to entertain for 2 hours or more.

I'm not claiming that Pacific Rim or the Marvel movies have deep messages. Part of the reason they are good films is that they don't try to present grand themes. They know that they are just fun movies for everyone to watch. Man of Steel, on the other hand, is about as subtle as a brick to the face. The scenes of Clark floating in space in a Jesus on the cross fashion or him sitting in a church with stained glass images behind him are almost painful to watch.

[Kurosawa]

MOS is comicially heavyhanded with it's push of Superman as an ideal, but all it does is talk-it never shows him doing anything but the opposite of being an ideal. It shows him being a menace, a killer, and a villain.