Page 1 of 71 123451151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1055
  1. #1
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Judea
    Posts
    151

    Default Superman and Killing

    I started this thread because the MOS appreciation thread went off topic, but I do want to respond to this post here:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Beast View Post
    It depends who is doing the interpreting. Most comic book fans who go into the movie to evaluate it based on accuracy to the source material but movie fans don't. They have their own expectations and one of them, more often than not, is that the villain must die. So a clash of tropes ensues and a filmmaker has to choose which audience they are going to aim for. It not a mistake or they didn't get it right if they chose movie fans over comic fans because it's a Movie first and foremost.

    There's no logical reason for super heroes not to use lethal force if the situation warrants it. The no kill rule is a throwback to 1950's McCarthyism/Werthamism, ultra-conservative values imposed on comic books when they were solely children's entertainment. Times have long since changed and comic books are adolescent power fantasies again so there's nothing wrong with Superman using lethal force every once in a while against unstoppable foes.

    Every time I see a superhero refuse to kill, it ruins my suspension of disbelief because I know the only real reason they have is children may be watching from the other side of the 4th wall. I've felt this way ever since I was 14 and fortunately CoIE, DKR and Watchmen came along or else I probably would have stopped reading comic books 30 years ago.
    Debating Superman or any superheroes using lethal force is another topic all to itself, although as I said, I do plan to catalog all of his uses of lethal force in this thead. But I do think that it needs to be clarified that Superman and in fact all DC heroes stopped using lethal force in the early 40's, years before SOTI came out (which was in 1954), and before the adoption of the CCA. So neither McCarthy nor Wertham had any involvement in Superman not killing after 1942. It was a business decision by National Comics due to the popularity of comics among children and concerns raised by some groups over the content of comics. It was not forced censorship, it was self-censorship. Just like the more recent decisions to have all heroes kill, including Superman, has been made for business reasons to appeal to readers and viewers like yourself.

    I know you dislike Maggin (which is your choice but is certainly odd), but it was really him that turned the no-kill code into something deeper, although also a good bit of the groundwork for that was laid down in the Silver Age with the Phantom Zone. Being strictly against the death penalty was a pretty radical thing at the time and still divides people today. Part of why I admire Superman and Krypton's culture so much is I personally am very strongly against the death penalty.

  2. #2
    Astonishing Member Dispenser Of Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,853

    Default Superman and Killing

    Well, since it seems we can respond here, here's what I wanted to say to The Beast before my response was deleted.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Beast View Post
    It depends who is doing the interpreting. Most comic book fans who go into the movie to evaluate it based on accuracy to the source material but movie fans don't. They have their own expectations and one of them, more often than not, is that the villain must die. So a clash of tropes ensues and a filmmaker has to choose which audience they are going to aim for. It not a mistake or they didn't get it right if they chose movie fans over comic fans because it's a Movie first and foremost.
    The problem with Superman killing in II isn't a moral issue from a superhero standpoint, it's a problem from a killing helpless individuals and giggling about it is horrifying standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Beast View Post
    There's no logical reason for super heroes not to use lethal force if the situation warrants it. The no kill rule is a throwback to 1950's McCarthyism/Werthamism, ultra-conservative values imposed on comic books when they were solely children's entertainment. Times have long since changed and comic books are adolescent power fantasies again so there's nothing wrong with Superman using lethal force every once in a while against unstoppable foes.
    Aside from in-story, symbolic and very practical reasons (can't get rid of the supervillains, after all), there's a very fine line with Superman in particular. With that dude, any sort of indication that he might be anything less than absolute and unimpeachable in his morality, the idea of someone with that much power declaring he's going to do what he thinks is right stops being comforting and inspiring and becomes absolutely goddamned terrifying. That wasn't really a problem in the Golden Age, the most unsophisticated (if also one of the most fun and inventive) era of superhero comics, but once you add any sort of sense of empathy or regard for consequences into the equation, it stops working.

    Also, yes, superhero comics are indeed sliding back into adolescent male power fantasies, and that's horrible. The comics you mention below were very much born of an attempt to move beyond that sort of mindset, and while I'm fine with comics just about good guys fighting bad guys, the day we lose the Astro Cities, Miraclemen, Stormwatches and New Frontiers of the world is the day I give up on the superhero genre altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Beast View Post
    Every time I see a superhero refuse to kill, it ruins my suspension of disbelief because I know the only real reason they have is children may be watching from the other side of the 4th wall. I've felt this way ever since I was 14 and fortunately CoIE, DKR and Watchmen came along or else I probably would have stopped reading comic books 30 years ago.
    There are so many, MANY other reasons for that. It's not like kids aren't familiar with good guys finishing off the bad guy, and not everything needs to operate on action movie standards in terms of how stories are resolved. All this though, reminds me of something I've wanted to recommend to you a couple times. I know you have a vehement hate for anything that could be perceived as 'cliché', and while I don't think that's something that really works over the long term, it reminded me of something you might enjoy. It's a Steam game, The Stanley Parable, that plays around with the idea of possibility and choice in narrative, and it's a hoot. I suspect you might enjoy it.
    Buh-bye

  3. #3
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Judea
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Superman was also substantially less powerful, especially in the early Golden Age. So the idea that him killing criminals could snowball into him taking over the Earth was not as feasible as it was for later versions. Of course, GA Superman did have clashes with the Police and the Military, especially in an early story where he destroyed the slums of Metropolis so the Government would be forced to build better housing. In later years, he would do the demolishing and the rebuilding himself, but at this time, Superman and the planes that bombed him (to no avail) tore down the slums together.

    Of course, the ultimate question of is it stupid for superheroes to kill or not really goes back to the Joker question. You can make the strongest argument there for a superhero using lethal force than with any other character. If you have a world where most heroes kill if necessary, you would think someone would try to kill Joker besides Jason Todd, who was doing it for revenge, not to stop the Joker from killing again and again.

    Although Superman has some evil and ruthless villains, for the most part none of them are Joker level homicidal maniacs. Ironically one of the ones that is a serial killer in the comics is Faora.

  4. #4
    Chronic MasterDebater The Beast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    The true north strong and free!
    Posts
    247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post

    I started this thread because the MOS appreciation thread went off topic, but I do want to respond to this post here:



    Debating Superman or any superheroes using lethal force is another topic all to itself, although as I said, I do plan to catalog all of his uses of lethal force in this thead. But I do think that it needs to be clarified that Superman and in fact all DC heroes stopped using lethal force in the early 40's, years before SOTI came out (which was in 1954), and before the adoption of the CCA. So neither McCarthy nor Wertham had any involvement in Superman not killing after 1942. It was a business decision by National Comics due to the popularity of comics among children and concerns raised by some groups over the content of comics. It was not forced censorship, it was self-censorship. Just like the more recent decisions to have all heroes kill, including Superman, has been made for business reasons to appeal to readers and viewers like yourself.
    I don't want to bother auguring semantics over what kind of censorship it was or where it came from. We can both agree that the no kill rule came about as an editorial mandate that felt it would better resonate with their audience at the time. We also agree that during the 80's, another editorial mandate came about to relax the no killing rule because adolescents like myself at the time demanded less nonsensical characterization.

    Can we agree then it's not "wrong" to have Superman kill, since it's all up to editorial? Probably not. Superman has been killing since the 80's, at the end of CoIE, when Kal-L killed the Anti Monitor. Then every few years after that, Superman is faced with the responsibility of using lethal force against an unstoppable foe, as it should be. Next with Zod and co. then Doomsday and Hank Henshaw's attempted murder. After that there was Imperiex and Brainiac 13.

    In the New 52 it's kind of ambiguous; he kills parademons and lobotomizes self aware robots. Things like Superdoom conveniently self destruct when needed and when Superman has to kill H'El, he refuses and Jor-El gets impaled. Then Superman's alternative to "murder" is beating H'El senseless and imprisoning his essence within chronal strands "into a perpetual loop of freezing and thawing for time immemorial."

    Seems like editorial is trying to have its cake and eat it too, nowadays.

    I know you dislike Maggin (which is your choice but is certainly odd), but it was really him that turned the no-kill code into something deeper, although also a good bit of the groundwork for that was laid down in the Silver Age with the Phantom Zone. Being strictly against the death penalty was a pretty radical thing at the time and still divides people today. Part of why I admire Superman and Krypton's culture so much is I personally am very strongly against the death penalty.
    Then it shouldn't surprise you why I don't like Maggin; his interpretation of Superman is too far left for my tastes because it doesn't line up with my personal ideologies. That's the same reason you don't like Snyder and Goyer's interpretation and it doesn't make their version any less "valid" or "true" than Maggin's.

    Just imagine, if the Krytponians were in favor of the death penalty then thousands of Metropolitans would still be alive and Mount Rushmore would be intact. It's repeat offenders like the phantom zone villains that the death penalty is made for.

    Frogs should never turn their back on scorpions, unless the goal is to tell fairy tales to children.
    Last edited by The Beast; 06-09-2014 at 02:03 AM.

  5. #5
    Chronic MasterDebater The Beast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    The true north strong and free!
    Posts
    247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispenser Of Truth View Post
    Well, since it seems we can respond here, here's what I wanted to say to The Beast before my response was deleted.



    The problem with Superman killing in II isn't a moral issue from a superhero standpoint, it's a problem from a killing helpless individuals and giggling about it is horrifying standpoint.



    Aside from in-story, symbolic and very practical reasons (can't get rid of the supervillains, after all), there's a very fine line with Superman in particular. With that dude, any sort of indication that he might be anything less than absolute and unimpeachable in his morality, the idea of someone with that much power declaring he's going to do what he thinks is right stops being comforting and inspiring and becomes absolutely goddamned terrifying. That wasn't really a problem in the Golden Age, the most unsophisticated (if also one of the most fun and inventive) era of superhero comics, but once you add any sort of sense of empathy or regard for consequences into the equation, it stops working.

    Also, yes, superhero comics are indeed sliding back into adolescent male power fantasies, and that's horrible. The comics you mention below were very much born of an attempt to move beyond that sort of mindset, and while I'm fine with comics just about good guys fighting bad guys, the day we lose the Astro Cities, Miraclemen, Stormwatches and New Frontiers of the world is the day I give up on the superhero genre altogether.



    There are so many, MANY other reasons for that. It's not like kids aren't familiar with good guys finishing off the bad guy, and not everything needs to operate on action movie standards in terms of how stories are resolved. All this though, reminds me of something I've wanted to recommend to you a couple times. I know you have a vehement hate for anything that could be perceived as 'cliché', and while I don't think that's something that really works over the long term, it reminded me of something you might enjoy. It's a Steam game, The Stanley Parable, that plays around with the idea of possibility and choice in narrative, and it's a hoot. I suspect you might enjoy it.
    The only cliches that I hate are comic book ones where the behavior of the characters involved specifically panders to imaginary children on the other side of the 4th wall. As far as being terrified of a Superman who uses justifiable lethal force, just like the opinion that adolescent power fantasies are horrible, well that's your issue not mine. Like Kurosawa, you continuously project your values onto what Superman should be and anything to the contrary is wrong in your mind. I accept that Superman's values reflect the times and the audience in different ways and while I have my personal preferences, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer although I would argue that my favourite version appeals to a wider audience than yours.

    Have either of you ever read this article about Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty?

  6. #6
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Beast View Post
    The only cliches that I hate are comic book ones where the behavior of the characters involved specifically panders to imaginary children on the other side of the 4th wall. As far as being terrified of a Superman who uses justifiable lethal force, just like the opinion that adolescent power fantasies are horrible, well that's your issue not mine. Like Kurosawa, you continuously project your values onto what Superman should be and anything to the contrary is wrong in your mind. I accept that Superman's values reflect the times and the audience in different ways and while I have my personal preferences, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer although
    I would argue that my favourite version appeals to a wider audience than yours
    .

    Have either of you ever read this article about Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty?
    This is to be debated as a good portion of the critics who did not like the movie refer to the killing as part of the problem with the movie.

    But you are correct in saying we all see Superman differently and that is part of the reason the character reaches so many people and is so special. It's all a matter of how you see the character and why this above all else is why we will never have a perfect telling of the character in cinema because so many different ways of seeing the character.

    The Golden Age when he killed is as much a part of the character and what he is as any other part of the characters history when he did not kill.

  7. #7
    Mighty Member Joe Acro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Near Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    If the premise was to address Superman killing, examples of such, historical context, and comparing those (or non-kill examples) to examples from other stories, then it deserves its own thread, not piggybacking on an unrelated topic.

    As such, I've moved those posts here.

  8. #8
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Judea
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Beast View Post
    I don't want to bother auguring semantics over what kind of censorship it was or where it came from. We can both agree that the no kill rule came about as an editorial mandate that felt it would better resonate with their audience at the time. We also agree that during the 80's, another editorial mandate came about to relax the no killing rule because adolescents like myself at the time demanded less nonsensical characterization.

    Can we agree then it's not "wrong" to have Superman kill, since it's all up to editorial? Probably not. Superman has been killing since the 80's, at the end of CoIE, when Kal-L killed the Anti Monitor. Then every few years after that, Superman is faced with the responsibility of using lethal force against an unstoppable foe, as it should be. Next with Zod and co. then Doomsday and Hank Henshaw's attempted murder. After that there was Imperiex and Brainiac 13.

    In the New 52 it's kind of ambiguous; he kills parademons and lobotomizes self aware robots. Things like Superdoom conveniently self destruct when needed and when Superman has to kill H'El, he refuses and Jor-El gets impaled. Then Superman's alternative to "murder" is beating H'El senseless and imprisoning his essence within chronal strands "into a perpetual loop of freezing and thawing for time immemorial."

    Seems like editorial is trying to have its cake and eat it too, nowadays.



    Then it shouldn't surprise you why I don't like Maggin; his interpretation of Superman is too far left for my tastes because it doesn't line up with my personal ideologies. That's the same reason you don't like Snyder and Goyer's interpretation and it doesn't make their version any less "valid" or "true" than Maggin's.

    Just imagine, if the Krytponians were in favor of the death penalty then thousands of Metropolitans would still be alive and Mount Rushmore would be intact. It's repeat offenders like the phantom zone villains that the death penalty is made for.

    Frogs should never turn their back on scorpions, unless the goal is to tell fairy tales to children.
    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.

  9. #9
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Interesting topic. I always enjoy this debate when it comes along.

    One thing that always throws me however, is how a person's political opinions influence their entertainment. I'm not an overly right-wing sort of guy, but I enjoy the hell out of Hawkman and Icon, both of whom are steadfast Republicans. I'm also not a knee-jerk liberal like Ollie Queen used to be, and I disagreed with some of his politics, but I enjoy the hell out of the character and feel that without that polarizing viewpoint the character is missing something intrinsic.

    Why is it that we demand our fictional characters conform to our own personal views? I disagree with the politics of Tyrion Lannister but I absolutely adore him in Game of Thrones. Likewise I love the character of Elric, but I certainly dont agree with him.

    Why then is it so important that Superman share our views? Is it because the character has come to represent the very best of us, and we all want to believe that our views are best? Or are we all so self-centered now that we refuse to accept a difference of opinion as anything less than a blow to our self-esteem? News groups that target certain demographics and political affiliations (Fox, Im looking at you!) would certainly indicate that's possible. How do we account for the passing of time and the changing of social norms then? I bring this up a lot, but as we know Superman used to tell us it was okay to slap a Jap. That's no longer okay and many of us would faint to see Superman saying such things today but those remarks are as canon as anything else.

    And are those changing social norms a part of this current debate about Superman's (no)-kill code, and the ambiguous nature it seems to currently be in? In a post-9/11 world, where college shootings are commonplace, terrorists attack innocent people daily, and real-world horrors rival anything fiction throws at us, are more people not merely accepting of a killing Superman, but perhaps expecting it? Are more people thinking that "rabid dogs should be put down", and Superman is merely reflecting that sociological change? I have no data to disprove or support this, but I wonder. When the nation (as a whole) celebrates the death of bin Laden like its a new Independence Day, does that signal that the days of a Superman who refused to take a life under any circumstances are over (for now)? And if that is the case, if we as a people are currently thinking that some monsters just deserve to die, then should Superman, who has always been a reflection of us, follow suit until such thinking sways the other way (as students of history know it will)?

    I have no answers, personally. I know that I do not support a Superman who kills, outside a small handful of exceptions to that rule (Zod being the primary one). But I do know that Superman has always been a forward thinking character, designed to embrace the newest ideas and values of society. And I believe, with all of my essence, that the world needs a Superman. In this age of science and enlightenment, we may need him more than we need god. If Superman has to embrace lethal force (at least in certain circumstances) to stay viable and survive the ages so he can continue to inspire young children (and old children) then that is something I feel I have to support. For my kids, if not myself.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  10. #10
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
    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'd argue that when the world of comics entered WWII Superman became something of a right wing character. By todays standards certainly. And I think in large part that era is what crafted a lot of the stereotypes many people have about Superman.

  11. #11
    Savior of the Universe Flash Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,021

    Default

    I loved MAN OF STEEL, the film had a lot of great moments for me, but that last scene is still hard to watch. I felt like it wasn't Superman. He'd find another way. He has the option to, yet at the same time there's something beautifully humbling about it. He'll forever understand us because of it. He was forced to break his code, and now he'll understand how we work.

    I, now, have no problem with Superman taking Zod out. I don't think he should kill, but I understand it as a plot point.

  12. #12
    Astonishing Member Francisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,068

    Default

    MOS Superman never had a no kill code to begin with

  13. #13
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Judea
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Interesting topic. I always enjoy this debate when it comes along.

    One thing that always throws me however, is how a person's political opinions influence their entertainment. I'm not an overly right-wing sort of guy, but I enjoy the hell out of Hawkman and Icon, both of whom are steadfast Republicans. I'm also not a knee-jerk liberal like Ollie Queen used to be, and I disagreed with some of his politics, but I enjoy the hell out of the character and feel that without that polarizing viewpoint the character is missing something intrinsic.

    Why is it that we demand our fictional characters conform to our own personal views? I disagree with the politics of Tyrion Lannister but I absolutely adore him in Game of Thrones. Likewise I love the character of Elric, but I certainly dont agree with him.

    Why then is it so important that Superman share our views? Is it because the character has come to represent the very best of us, and we all want to believe that our views are best? Or are we all so self-centered now that we refuse to accept a difference of opinion as anything less than a blow to our self-esteem? News groups that target certain demographics and political affiliations (Fox, Im looking at you!) would certainly indicate that's possible. How do we account for the passing of time and the changing of social norms then? I bring this up a lot, but as we know Superman used to tell us it was okay to slap a Jap. That's no longer okay and many of us would faint to see Superman saying such things today but those remarks are as canon as anything else.

    And are those changing social norms a part of this current debate about Superman's (no)-kill code, and the ambiguous nature it seems to currently be in? In a post-9/11 world, where college shootings are commonplace, terrorists attack innocent people daily, and real-world horrors rival anything fiction throws at us, are more people not merely accepting of a killing Superman, but perhaps expecting it? Are more people thinking that "rabid dogs should be put down", and Superman is merely reflecting that sociological change? I have no data to disprove or support this, but I wonder. When the nation (as a whole) celebrates the death of bin Laden like its a new Independence Day, does that signal that the days of a Superman who refused to take a life under any circumstances are over (for now)? And if that is the case, if we as a people are currently thinking that some monsters just deserve to die, then should Superman, who has always been a reflection of us, follow suit until such thinking sways the other way (as students of history know it will)?

    I have no answers, personally. I know that I do not support a Superman who kills, outside a small handful of exceptions to that rule (Zod being the primary one). But I do know that Superman has always been a forward thinking character, designed to embrace the newest ideas and values of society. And I believe, with all of my essence, that the world needs a Superman. In this age of science and enlightenment, we may need him more than we need god. If Superman has to embrace lethal force (at least in certain circumstances) to stay viable and survive the ages so he can continue to inspire young children (and old children) then that is something I feel I have to support. For my kids, if not myself.
    To me, it's less that I want Superman to conform to my own political ideals as much as it is I like Superman (the Golden Age version) because he has similar beliefs to mine. And the same goes with the Silver and Bronze Age versions, Bronze Age in particular.

    Of course, with many of us, we love these characters just because we loved them as children. I have a friend-more of a former friend, we don't really talk much anymore-who has developed into a far-right conservative, even down to the point of supporting the "lost cause" of the old Confederacy. Yet Cap is one of his favorite characters. And when I asked him how could he like a character who represents a country that he doesn't even feel has the right to exist, he answered because he liked Cap as a kid. Then of course he tried to bring up the Steve Gerber origin where Cap was from Virginia and all that, and he pretty much ignored my counterpoint that Cap was created by liberal New York Jews...but in a sense, he was right: people mostly like these characters because they remember them from their childhoods.

    How does this fit with Superman? Well, to me, we have a culture where every character kills when they have to. So I like for Superman to be different, to be deeper, and to be as close to a non-violent activist as a costumed superhero can without being The Dove. I think Superman should be so great that in situations where even the best heroes have no choice but to kill, he can find another way. Some heroes can occasionally make the impossible possible. I feel Superman and Superman alone should be able to make the impossible practically routine.

    Quote Originally Posted by lancerman View Post
    I'd argue that when the world of comics entered WWII Superman became something of a right wing character. By todays standards certainly. And I think in large part that era is what crafted a lot of the stereotypes many people have about Superman.
    Not really...the US Government during WWII was still led by a very strong leftist President. He fought Fifth Columnists and enemy spies, but that is hardly a right or a left wing battle, that is everyone's fight.
    Last edited by Kurosawa; 06-09-2014 at 09:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Nostalgia Fanwanker Pharozonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    4,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Francisco View Post
    MOS Superman never had a no kill code to begin with
    Unfortunately
    "In any time, there will always be a need for heroes." - the Time Trapper, Legion of Superheroes #61(1994)

    "What can I say? I guess I outgrew maturity.." - Bob Chipman

  15. #15
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Judea
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pharozonk View Post
    Unfortunately
    Yeah, any guy who could just stand there and let his daddy die isn't gonna give a crap about snapping some screaming a-hole's neck, especially after he wrecked a city fighting that same a-hole, killing thousands of people.

    MOS Superman is partially to blame for the deaths of thousands...129,000 dead, 250,000 missing, and a million injured. Or 5,000 if you believe Snyder, but I believe in science myself.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •