Superman and Killing

[Powerboy]

*sigh* Well I just find the idea that Superman ALWAYS finds a third option, that he is so perfect and flawless, to be laughable. And then some people here call anyone who disagrees to be "superman haters". Whatever. Because obviously, people who go to pay money to see a superman movie and enjoy it totally hate the character. Its just so *clear*.

I agree with you about always being able to find a third option and about everything you said. I used the "Arrow" show as an example before. He dedicated himself to the ideal that he could never kill again. But then, when his friend was going to be killed and it was either stick to the code or kill, he killed because the only other option was to let her be killed. In other words, his dedication to the code was genuinely tested and he realized that the reality was: Never kill out of vengeance or anger or any circumstances except where not killing would be even more wrong because an innocent life would be lost if he didn't.

I realize Superman is far more powerful and faster and the threat has to be overwhelmingly greater for him to ever be in such a situation. But if he is never in a situation where the code is tested and something truly bad happens because he obeyed it, if he can always step around it without facing the consequences, then the code is meaningless, just an empty feelgood thing for the audience who can then feel he did something really moral when all he really did is power his way through the situation and evade having to make a hard choice.

I have no problem with people saying they prefer he never gets put into a situation where he has to kill because they want Superman to stay child friendly. The issue is when they start proclaiming that the Code against killing makes him morally superior. It does not. It just means he can always evade the situation. "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" is perhaps the one great example of Superman truly having to face the scenario where he had to make that choice and it is telling that it took place in an "Imaginary Story" that was also at the end of his career when all the threats other heroes could not handle were gone.

Now that I've had time to think about it, my preference would be that at a point in his career, an early to middle point, he states his Code but makes it clear he would break it if he absolutely had to to save innocent lives and maybe admits he does not know for sure what would happen once such an event occurred, that he might have to just man up and live with it like any cop or soldier would have to do. He might even make it clear he doesn't hold them to his standard because they have fewer options. Then, for the child friendliness and the less ugly, gruesome style of storytelling (and I actually dislike the more ugly, gruesome style), never have him actually face a situation where he has to kill. Let it be enough that he admits he would do it rather than let an innocent person be killed if there was no other way.

[Kurosawa]

Actually, Superman was created by a Presbyterian. Philip Wylie not only created the Superman Archtype, his book "When Worlds Collide" introduced the idea of people escaping a doomed planet to another, more hospitable one.

Even Joe Shuster acknowledged that "Jerry reversed the usual formula of the superhero who goes to another planet. He put the superhero in ordinary, familiar surroundings, instead of the other way around, as was done in most science fiction."

All of these religious metaphors, be they Jewish or Christian, are tacked on after the fact in some sort of effort to prop up their own ideologies by revising history.

By that logic, then Johnston McCulley created Batman and Alex Raymond created Star Wars.

[The Beast]

By that logic, then Johnston McCulley created Batman and Alex Raymond created Star Wars.

No, by that logic, Batman was created by Lee Falk and Walter B. Gibson. As far as Star Wars go, you, of all people should know who created that.

[Kurosawa]

No, by that logic, Batman was created by Lee Falk and Walter B. Gibson. As far as Star Wars go, you, of all people should know who created that.

The biggest influence on the creation of Batman was Zorro. And I certainly do know who created Star Wars-George Lucas did. Just like Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman, and Bill Finger and Bob Kane created Batman.

Ever read Gladiator? I have, and besides the powers, it's nothing like Superman. GA Superman is a happy guy, doing what he loves and what he feels is right. He enjoys the hell out of his life. Hugo Danner was hardly a happy, positive, upbeat guy. John Carter just as much of an influence on Superman as Gladiator was.

[Custodes]

I do not like my Superman to kill. He is better than us. Not perfect but, an example to live up to. Besides an occasional accident, he should turn his foes over to authorities or when they can not handle it, The Phantom Zone. It has worked well that way for years. I see a place for Wolverines and Deadpools in the world. I see a need for an occasional death penalty among certain cases. But, Superman is above that.

[MikeP]

I agree with you about always being able to find a third option and about everything you said. I used the "Arrow" show as an example before. He dedicated himself to the ideal that he could never kill again. But then, when his friend was going to be killed and it was either stick to the code or kill, he killed because the only other option was to let her be killed. In other words, his dedication to the code was genuinely tested and he realized that the reality was: Never kill out of vengeance or anger or any circumstances except where not killing would be even more wrong because an innocent life would be lost if he didn't.

I realize Superman is far more powerful and faster and the threat has to be overwhelmingly greater for him to ever be in such a situation. But if he is never in a situation where the code is tested and something truly bad happens because he obeyed it, if he can always step around it without facing the consequences, then the code is meaningless, just an empty feelgood thing for the audience who can then feel he did something really moral when all he really did is power his way through the situation and evade having to make a hard choice.

I have no problem with people saying they prefer he never gets put into a situation where he has to kill because they want Superman to stay child friendly. The issue is when they start proclaiming that the Code against killing makes him morally superior. It does not. It just means he can always evade the situation. "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" is perhaps the one great example of Superman truly having to face the scenario where he had to make that choice and it is telling that it took place in an "Imaginary Story" that was also at the end of his career when all the threats other heroes could not handle were gone.

Now that I've had time to think about it, my preference would be that at a point in his career, an early to middle point, he states his Code but makes it clear he would break it if he absolutely had to to save innocent lives and maybe admits he does not know for sure what would happen once such an event occurred, that he might have to just man up and live with it like any cop or soldier would have to do. He might even make it clear he doesn't hold them to his standard because they have fewer options. Then, for the child friendliness and the less ugly, gruesome style of storytelling (and I actually dislike the more ugly, gruesome style), never have him actually face a situation where he has to kill. Let it be enough that he admits he would do it rather than let an innocent person be killed if there was no other way.

Exactly, I especially agree with the bolded bit. By coddling Superman and always giving him a 3rd option, that simply weakens the character. How can anyone possibly live up to a guy that never has to make hard choices, even ones that he would rather not make? Even God, a being that is supposed the be the ultimate good in the universe, will take lives when it is necessary. No one is saying killing is a good thing, but sometimes its a NECESSARY act, even the moral one.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

The biggest influence on the creation of Batman was Zorro.

Certainly the biggest influence in the long run, but at the time of his earliest adventures Batman was practically a rip-off of The Shadow.

[Eyeswithoutaface]

When Zod tells him that if he destroys that ship he destroys Krypton and he flat out doesn't care and decides in seconds to wipe them out that makes him an villain. It wasn't even necessary to do, there was no benefit at all. It did more damage to the city and tipped Zod over the edge of killing everyone just because he did that. All he had to do was disable Zod because Zod was the one shooting at Lois and company and his reaction after doing that was to make out with Lois. To me that was his over qualified application into the Legion of Doom.

He did it because he's a petty *******, and because he's cruel. He is no better than Zod, in fact he is worse because Zod makes no pretensions at being a hero of any sort. The logical endgame for MOS Superman is the Injustice scenario, especially with his obsession with Lois. He has more in common with Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader than he has with any legitimate version of Superman (apart from Ultraman). In fact, the only way to salvage MOS would be to reveal in an upcoming movie that this is actually Earth-Three and these characters are actually the Crime Syndicate.

There's one last little gem that truly underscores how clumsy the whole scene is with Superman pissing off Zod by zorching the Kryptonian Genesis Pod Ship carrying all those eggs, and smashing it into buildings. In the very next scene with Clark, he extricates himself from the wreckage, catches Lois Lane, and gets to first base with her. 'They say it's all downhill after the first kiss' she says. 'I'm pretty sure that only counts when you're kissing a human' Clark cleverly replies. Once again, this is just another one of those scenes from the movie that lacks common sense to me. I mean, who would behave like this given what has just transpired? Apparently Clark would since both the film maker and the actor make sure to remind us with terribly dull lines that he's not human. Literally. He's not a regular sociopath.

[Clark_Kent]

You do realize that Superman was created by left-leaning Urban Jewish Americans, and was created to champion the common man against the wealthy elite, correct? Superman is not a right wing icon by any stretch of the imagination, not until Byrne ruined him, anyway. Superman fought for the poor, fought for worker's rights and destroyed private property because he felt it endangered people. In the war on reckless drivers story, he destroyed used cars of low quality and destroyed an auto plant that built unsafe cars. Even later on when he became very whitebread and establishment, Superman advocated for equality and tolerance. That is why his evolution into being against the death penalty-which was also done by Jerry Siegel-fits the character perfectly.

That said, if the Superman in MOS had been more like the Golden Age Superman-less powerful, much more cocky, much younger, and full of "piss and vinegar", and if Zod had been more clearly despicable to the point that the viewers really wanted to see him die, it could have worked. So I am not completely opposed to this idea, although it is not my first choice.

I'm not sure how Jerry felt about the editorial decision to end Superman killing, although he did not have Superman do it much and he favored humor over brutality, but Bill Finger was grateful for the edict that stopped Batman from killing and from carrying a gun-he felt it was the right decision.

I see you make this argument all the time, and let me first say that I respect your opinion & your knowledge of Superman. Your GA & SA knowledge far surpasses mine.

But I honestly don't know how, with a straight face, this argument can continue to hold water because Siegel & Schuster's 1938 "Superman" is NOT 2014's "Superman". They share similarities, true; but so do the original "Robocop" and the 2014 remake of "Robocop". But I would not argue that the new should be held to the same standards/beliefs/motivations of the old. Daniel Craig's James Bond has a license to kill much like Sean Connery's James Bond. Again, I don't hold the new to be strictly in line with the old.

Characters & concepts are rebooted / remade / reimagined all the time. It's a given. The Superman of 1974 was not Siegel & Schuster's '38. Nor was the '88 version the same as the '74. '14 is not '88. Why should this fictional character be held to the standards of 2 men from 1938? God Bless the both of them for their creation, and everyone owes them a debt of thanks for coming up with a template. But Superman was changed long before Byrne came along and, as you say, "ruined him". The character has been rebooted / remade / reimagined more times than most could accurately count. Sometimes it's book to book, depending on the creative team.

I agree that many writers have not known what to do with the character, and Superman has suffered during those times. But there are so many out there who LOVE him. Should they have to handicap their stories to fit the mold of 1938 Superman? Should Morrison have not written All-Star the way he did? Should Moore have not given Superman the sendoff in Whatever Happened...the way he did? Because Siegel & Schuster never imagined Superman doing those things or acting that way. Perhaps instead of trying to save the Earth, or instead of saving a baby sun eater, or instead of creating life itself, Superman should have spent that time destroying businesses that put people out of work. Because nothing helps the little guy quite like destroying the town factory. Maybe instead, he could have educated them about the bad cars they were making. I have not read this story, so I apologize if he did; but the way you described it, it just sounds like he took the place down.

And this brings us to "Man of Steel". An amalgamation of pretty much all eras of Superman. I guess it sucks for some that the 100% 1938 version was nowhere to be seen, but you know what? Neither was "my" Superman. This does not mean the filmmakers "don't get the character." It means that you didn't get the version they presented. I really don't think audiences want 1938 from a Superman movie. If they want powered down, vulnerable heroes, they have Marvel films for that. But people don't think "factory wrecker" when they hear Superman's name. They think of flight. Who doesn't wish they could fly? It's such a large part of who he is as a character. It's wish fulfillment. It's......not the 1938 Action Comics #1 Superman.

I don't know Siegel & Schuster personally, or their heirs, and I don't think they and I are friendly enough to use first names as if we were old drinking buddies. I also won't waste my time imagining what "Jerry" or "Joe" would have said/thought about the film. I would "bet", for lack of a better term, that they would both be in awe of the fact that a character that began under their pen 76 years ago has the 2nd most recognized symbol on the entire planet today...and I would, again for lack of better term, "bet" that they wouldn't mind that the symbol is not even their design.

It's been 60 years or more since they stopped working at DC, right? Let's stop thinking of what "Jerry & Joe" would have done.

[The Beast]

The biggest influence on the creation of Batman was Zorro. And I certainly do know who created Star Wars-George Lucas did. Just like Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman, and Bill Finger and Bob Kane created Batman.

Ever read Gladiator? I have, and besides the powers, it's nothing like Superman. GA Superman is a happy guy, doing what he loves and what he feels is right. He enjoys the hell out of his life. Hugo Danner was hardly a happy, positive, upbeat guy. John Carter just as much of an influence on Superman as Gladiator was.

Au contraire, mon ami. Remember the context of our discussion is "by that logic", and that logic is crediting the creators of the archetypes who served as the seminal influence for the corporate owned adaptations you hold so near and dear to your heart.

Without Hugo Danner there is no Superman, without When World's Collide, John Carter, or Flash Gordon there is no Krypton. Likewise without The Phantom, The Shadow, Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel there is no Batman. And "by that logic", without The Hidden Fortress there is no Star Wars.

Siegel, Shuster, Kane, Finger and Lucas did fine work in creating the art that they did but they don't deserve the pedestals that you would place them on. All they did was adapt and tweak existing works, unlike their predecessors like Philip Wylie, who truly created something original out of nothing.

Exactly, I especially agree with the bolded bit. By coddling Superman and always giving him a 3rd option, that simply weakens the character. How can anyone possibly live up to a guy that never has to make hard choices, even ones that he would rather not make? Even God, a being that is supposed the be the ultimate good in the universe, will take lives when it is necessary. No one is saying killing is a good thing, but sometimes its a NECESSARY act, even the moral one.

Amen. At that point the character is no longer inspirational because the game is rigged in his favor on top of his omnipotence. His adventures are boring because victory is a foregone conclusion and the only point to his stories are an examination of minutiae, which is really lame.

[Powerboy]

Au contraire, mon ami. Remember the context of our discussion is "by that logic", and that logic is crediting the creators of the archetypes who served as the seminal influence for the corporate owned adaptations you hold so near and dear to your heart.

Without Hugo Danner there is no Superman, without When World's Collide, John Carter, or Flash Gordon there is no Krypton. Likewise without The Phantom, The Shadow, Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel there is no Batman. And "by that logic", without The Hidden Fortress there is no Star Wars.

Siegel, Shuster, Kane, Finger and Lucas did fine work in creating the art that they did but they don't deserve the pedestals that you would place them on. All they did was adapt and tweak existing works, unlike their predecessors like Philip Wylie, who truly created something original out of nothing.

Amen. At that point the character is no longer inspirational because the game is rigged in his favor on top of his omnipotence. His adventures are boring because victory is a foregone conclusion and the only point to his stories are an examination of minutiae, which is really lame.

Okay buuut at that point, how far do we have to take it?

Without Hugo Danner, there would have been no Superman.

Without Heracles, there would have been no Hugo Danner.

Without perhaps some other characters lost in the mists of prehistory, there would have been no Heracles.

As you said, all of these characters, including Superman and Batman (Danner, Carter, Heracles, Shadow, etc.), have enough about them that is original that they deserve credit as original ideas even though, strictly speaking, everybody is influenced by what they've read and experienced and no character is absolutely original. They all have inspirations.

[Powerboy]

I see you make this argument all the time, and let me first say that I respect your opinion & your knowledge of Superman. Your GA & SA knowledge far surpasses mine.

But I honestly don't know how, with a straight face, this argument can continue to hold water because Siegel & Schuster's 1938 "Superman" is NOT 2014's "Superman". They share similarities, true; but so do the original "Robocop" and the 2014 remake of "Robocop". But I would not argue that the new should be held to the same standards/beliefs/motivations of the old. Daniel Craig's James Bond has a license to kill much like Sean Connery's James Bond. Again, I don't hold the new to be strictly in line with the old.

Characters & concepts are rebooted / remade / reimagined all the time. It's a given. The Superman of 1974 was not Siegel & Schuster's '38. Nor was the '88 version the same as the '74. '14 is not '88. Why should this fictional character be held to the standards of 2 men from 1938? God Bless the both of them for their creation, and everyone owes them a debt of thanks for coming up with a template. But Superman was changed long before Byrne came along and, as you say, "ruined him". The character has been rebooted / remade / reimagined more times than most could accurately count. Sometimes it's book to book, depending on the creative team.

I agree that many writers have not known what to do with the character, and Superman has suffered during those times. But there are so many out there who LOVE him. Should they have to handicap their stories to fit the mold of 1938 Superman? Should Morrison have not written All-Star the way he did? Should Moore have not given Superman the sendoff in Whatever Happened...the way he did? Because Siegel & Schuster never imagined Superman doing those things or acting that way. Perhaps instead of trying to save the Earth, or instead of saving a baby sun eater, or instead of creating life itself, Superman should have spent that time destroying businesses that put people out of work. Because nothing helps the little guy quite like destroying the town factory. Maybe instead, he could have educated them about the bad cars they were making. I have not read this story, so I apologize if he did; but the way you described it, it just sounds like he took the place down.

And this brings us to "Man of Steel". An amalgamation of pretty much all eras of Superman. I guess it sucks for some that the 100% 1938 version was nowhere to be seen, but you know what? Neither was "my" Superman. This does not mean the filmmakers "don't get the character." It means that you didn't get the version they presented. I really don't think audiences want 1938 from a Superman movie. If they want powered down, vulnerable heroes, they have Marvel films for that. But people don't think "factory wrecker" when they hear Superman's name. They think of flight. Who doesn't wish they could fly? It's such a large part of who he is as a character. It's wish fulfillment. It's......not the 1938 Action Comics #1 Superman.

I don't know Siegel & Schuster personally, or their heirs, and I don't think they and I are friendly enough to use first names as if we were old drinking buddies. I also won't waste my time imagining what "Jerry" or "Joe" would have said/thought about the film. I would "bet", for lack of a better term, that they would both be in awe of the fact that a character that began under their pen 76 years ago has the 2nd most recognized symbol on the entire planet today...and I would, again for lack of better term, "bet" that they wouldn't mind that the symbol is not even their design.

It's been 60 years or more since they stopped working at DC, right? Let's stop thinking of what "Jerry & Joe" would have done.

Agreed except for one point. The Superman of 1938 is very much a wish fulfillment fantasy, doing the right thing or, more accurately, whatever he thinks is the right thing by his own rules. He is far more of a wish fulfillment fantasy than the self-controlled Superman of the Silver Age and, indeed, of pretty much all eras after the early Golden Age. Though the GA Superman could not fly (though his leaps often were more like flying), his powers were far enough above what he was up against that it very much had a wish fulfillment fantasy aspect to it.

As to the rest of it, yes. As one actor once put it, we "reimagine" even Shakespeare and if we can do that, we can certainly do it with other stories and characters. Now I think a more child friendly Superman could have been done but you cannot pull off 1938 Superman in 2014 and even less 1958 Superman. I don't think these people hate Superman. They see the essence but try to adapt it to the time.

Personally, as much as I liked many of those GA Superman stories, I grew to dislike him far more than I could ever dislike MoS movie Superman though it admittedly took a couple of dozen stories for that dislike to grow. The problem with GA Superman was his arrogant attitude combined with knowing that almost nobody had any chance against him. There was a point where I started to get the same reaction I have to Stephen Seagal which is, "Somebody please just stomp this pompous butthole." Which, to be fair, led to the Silver Age where they realized that, if you are going to make him more powerful than everybody else, he better be humble and self-controlled

[The Beast]

Okay buuut at that point, how far do we have to take it?

Without Hugo Danner, there would have been no Superman.

Without Heracles, there would have been no Hugo Danner.

Not at all, Heracles wasn't invulnerable nor possessed super speed. Before Hugo Danner, no fictional character was strong, fast and invulnerable. The parallels between Heracles and Hugo Danner are superficial at best, while the parallels between Danner and Superman are too numerous to ignore.

Same with Batman and his pulp fiction era contemporaries.

Without perhaps some other characters lost in the mists of prehistory, there would have been no Heracles.

As you said, all of these characters, including Superman and Batman (Danner, Carter, Heracles, Shadow, etc.), have enough about them that is original that they deserve credit as original ideas even though, strictly speaking, everybody is influenced by what they've read and experienced and no character is absolutely original. They all have inspirations.

Of course they do, art is transformative by nature but there is a huge difference between a source of inspiration and a seminal influence. In order to properly acknowledge the fine work that Siegel, Shuster, Kane and Finger did isn't it reasonable to consider the true influences that they were inspired by, even if it diminishes their accomplishments?

[Clark_Kent]

Agreed except for one point. The Superman of 1938 is very much a wish fulfillment fantasy, doing the right thing or, more accurately, whatever he thinks is the right thing by his own rules. He is far more of a wish fulfillment fantasy than the self-controlled Superman of the Silver Age and, indeed, of pretty much all eras after the early Golden Age. Though the GA Superman could not fly (though his leaps often were more like flying), his powers were far enough above what he was up against that it very much had a wish fulfillment fantasy aspect to it.

As to the rest of it, yes. As one actor once put it, we "reimagine" even Shakespeare and if we can do that, we can certainly do it with other stories and characters. Now I think a more child friendly Superman could have been done but you cannot pull off 1938 Superman in 2014 and even less 1958 Superman. I don't think these people hate Superman. They see the essence but try to adapt it to the time.

Personally, as much as I liked many of those GA Superman stories, I grew to dislike him far more than I could ever dislike MoS movie Superman though it admittedly took a couple of dozen stories for that dislike to grow. The problem with GA Superman was his arrogant attitude combined with knowing that almost nobody had any chance against him. There was a point where I started to get the same reaction I have to Stephen Seagal which is, "Somebody please just stomp this pompous butthole." Which, to be fair, led to the Silver Age where they realized that, if you are going to make him more powerful than everybody else, he better be humble and self-controlled

Agreed, and just to clarify quickly: my point of the wish-fulfillment / power fantasy was in relation to flight (which was added later to the character by the radio program, I believe), butI didn't mean to imply that the original '38 version wasn't also.

Following WWI & the depression, the idea of a near invulnerable strongman beating up abusive husbands & fathers, while taking onthe corrupt? You bet your bottom dollar that resonated with kids. And considering how different the laws were back in regards to hitting your kids, I'm sure there were lots of fist-pumps from readers when Superman would throw another drunk through a wall

[Powerboy]

Not at all, Heracles wasn't invulnerable nor possessed super speed. Before Hugo Danner, no fictional character was strong, fast and invulnerable. The parallels between Heracles and Hugo Danner are superficial at best, while the parallels between Danner and Superman are too numerous to ignore.

Same with Batman and his pulp fiction era contemporaries.



Of course they do, art is transformative by nature but there is a huge difference between a source of inspiration and a seminal influence. In order to properly acknowledge the fine work that Siegel, Shuster, Kane and Finger did isn't it reasonable to consider the true influences that they were inspired by, even if it diminishes their accomplishments?

Oh, the powers, yes, absolutely. Not only did Action Comics #1 Superman have the same exact powers as Hugo Danner but he had them to the exact same degree. Leap an eighth of a mile, outrun a speeding train. Bursting shell to penetrate his skin.

But Philip Wylie even compared Danner to Heracles in the book, referring to him as someone that even the mythical Heracles would be a pygmy by comparison. And yet, despite his durability and speed, one could argue that Danner and Heracles are closer than Danner and Superman when it comes to the character and the story. Heracles and Danner are men who go by their real names, don't wear costumes, are dark characters who face trials and tribulations with their abilities often seeming more a curse. Then, on another level, one could better compare Heracles and Superman. Both from another world (well, sort of half from another world for Heracles), both gods who came to Earth, etc. But yes, the specific powers, the Danner/ Superman comparison is stronger.