Superman and Killing

[Legato]

And my version isn't a killer so I guess we just have to agree to disagree?

Fair enough.

[Legato]

Yes. And Yes.

This has been my entire belief about the killing scene, and why it didn't upset me nearly as much as it may have.

I hope you're 100% right, Gael. I can accept the killing of Zod, but only as a one-time exception kind of thing. If DC has him kill again in BvS? Then, I think we can all be quite justified in being angry. Superman shouldn't kill again for the duration of this movie universe, with the possible exception of an enemy like Doomsday, who can't be contained, neutralized, or reasoned with.

Or someone like Brainiac.

[Vanguard-01]

Or someone like Brainiac.

Eh.....Brainiac can vary wildly in how he's portrayed. It would entirely depend on what the writers do with him. Sometimes Brainiac is erudite and reasonable. He can be negotiated with and/or made to see that hurting the Earth isn't in his best interests. Other times? Yeah, Brainiac is an implacable monster who is a persistent threat to sentient life everywhere. In that scenario? Yeah, killing him may be necessary.

That one is entirely up to which Brainiac we get in the movies.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Or someone like Brainiac.

Eh.....Brainiac can vary wildly in how he's portrayed. It would entirely depend on what the writers do with him. Sometimes Brainiac is erudite and reasonable. He can be negotiated with and/or made to see that hurting the Earth isn't in his best interests. Other times? Yeah, Brainiac is an implacable monster who is a persistent threat to sentient life everywhere. In that scenario? Yeah, killing him may be necessary.

That one is entirely up to which Brainiac we get in the movies.

Eh, Superman killing Brainiac isn't really an issue. Even Morrison's Superman--a guy who in writing, Morrison once noted "My only rule with Superman is that he does not kill. That's the essential core. He always finds a way to solve every single problem without anyone being hurt."--straight-up said "My code against killing doesn't extend to machines, Brainiac." in JLA: Earth 2. Of course, you can debate the potential worth of a sufficiently advanced A.I. consciousness, but unless he uses one of his vision-based abilities to electromagnetically wipe their hard drive, pummeling a robot doesn't forbid it from being revived later.

[Powerboy]

Very true.

That scene is MUCH harder to accept than MoS's scene. In MoS, Clark killed Zod because he was an active threat and he was hellbent on killing four innocent people out of pure spite. That's much easier to justify than killing three defenseless people who may never be a threat again.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe that Superman was justified in killing them, but executing someone is still much harder to justify than killing him in the defense of others.

I thought about throwing that in. They deserved it. But it's about Superman, not about what they deserve. Sort of reminds me of that LotR line (book and movie I think) where Frodo lamented that Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance and that Gollum deserved it only for Gandalf to say that, of course he deserved it but it was the compassion and pity within Bilbo that stopped him and that was what mattered.

[Doctor Know]

I thought about throwing that in. They deserved it. But it's about Superman, not about what they deserve. Sort of reminds me of that LotR line (book and movie I think) where Frodo lamented that Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance and that Gollum deserved it only for Gandalf to say that, of course he deserved it but it was the compassion and pity within Bilbo that stopped him and that was what mattered.

Keep in mind that Zod and his followers killed 5 billion people. When Superman confronted them with their crime, they had smiles on their faces and boasts about how they would do it all again if they could.

[Powerboy]

Keep in mind that Zod and his followers killed 5 billion people. When Superman confronted them with their crime, they had smiles on their faces and boasts about how they would do it all again if they could.

Yup. They deserved it. I said that. Not a doubt that they deserved it. Except for the sheer scale, lots of villains would say that. But still, not about what they deserve but about what Superman should do when killing is not absolutely necessary to save lives. The whole "We'll find a way (somehow) to get our powers back..." even though, in their reality, gold K was the end for a Kryptonian as far as powers "...and then after (somehow) getting our powers back anyway, we'll use those powers to get to your reality where no one can stop us."

Don't know of any story where a Kryptonian got his powers back after Gold K. That's why ones where Superman got exposed to it were always "Imaginary Stories". So it's an extremely unlikely maybe that pushed him to kill. There was no immediate threat and even a possible threat was more hot air/ saving face than anything else.

At the very least, the killing had a poor setup and little justification for getting someone like Superman to do it. It required someone who could be intimidated or have his buttons of rage and righteous vengeance/ justice pushed to the point of killing and I don't see any Superman after the early Golden Age being such a person. It's way different than killing in a fight to save innocent lives that are immediately threatened.

[dupersuper]

I love Alan Moore, but that is a horribly written scene. That is incredibly immature. He can't handle killing, so he quits entirely? What if the Earth becomes endangered again? This Superman is incredibly selfish, the way I see it.

I'll never get the mindset of people accusing characters of selfishness for retiring in some way after many many years of altruistic, selfless service.

Eh, Superman killing Brainiac isn't really an issue. Even Morrison's Superman--a guy who in writing, Morrison once noted "My only rule with Superman is that he does not kill. That's the essential core. He always finds a way to solve every single problem without anyone being hurt."--straight-up said "My code against killing doesn't extend to machines, Brainiac." in JLA: Earth 2.

...and then was never able to look Reddy or The Metal Men in the optics again. Hard to believe this is the same Superman Morrison wrote in JLA 5...

[Dispenser Of Truth]

...and then was never able to look Reddy or The Metal Men in the optics again. Hard to believe this is the same Superman Morrison wrote in JLA 5...

Red Tornado has a soul of some sort, correct? The Metal Men have their responsometers, and Tomorrow Woman developed an at least rudimentary sense of conscience, with T. O. Morrow saying she'd managed to gain a soul. Brainiac's just a program gone wrong, and when he's seen to have any sort of individual sentience at all beyond the fulfillment of a programmed directive, even if that sentience is a purely evil or sadistic one, Superman still holds back. And like I said, smashing a robot doesn't necessarily mean destroying it. 'Reddy' would know all about that.

[MikeP]

I'll never get the mindset of people accusing characters of selfishness for retiring in some way after many many years of altruistic, selfless service.

He's not retiring though. He's giving up. If he decided to go into exile, that is one thing. But taking away his powers is way too drastic.

[lancerman]

It's more about a character like Superman who dedicates his life to helping and saving people because of his superior morality all of a sudden deciding that he is going to stop saving and helping people using his gifts for the benefit of humanity...for personal reasons.

I could accept Superman quitting if it was something practical like he got old, had to go help the world in another way, or simply felt he did all he could and humanity needed to grow on its own.

But whenever this happens it's always for some personal reason. He got his feelings hurt because the people of Earth sided with Magog. Lois died. He had to do something he didn't feel comfortable with because of his self appointed role? No to me that's just selfish.

[kingaliencracker]

I think people misinterpret the execution of the Phantom Zone criminals, or at least what its intent was.

The whole purpose of the story and the subsequent EXILE arc that followed was for Superman to develop his code against killing. In Pre-Crisis contunity Superman (of Earth-One anyway) didn't kill because the writers never really presented him with scenarios in which he would be forced to kill. He was so powerful and God-like that there was never really anyone or any threat that required him to use deadly force. Even when he faced equally powerful Kryptonian villains he always had the Phantom Zone projector to utilize.

Bryne's revamped Superman didn't have infinite power. He didn't have a Phantom Zone projector. And the Kryptonians had devistated the remaining life that existed in the pocket universe. Superman was presented with three options:

1) Leave them in the pocket universe where they would surely starve to death or eventually run out of oxygen.

2) Bring them to his Earth.

3) Execute them for their crimes.

Option 1 is essentially the "I'm not going to kill you but I don't have to save you" scenario from Batman Begins, which IMO is just as good as pulling the trigger yourself. If you have the power or opportunity to save someone from death - regardless of the kind of person they are - and you don't, you may as well have just murdered them yourself.

With Option 2, I would have to read the story arc again but if memory serves when Superman executed the criminals he did not know of any immediate way back to his Earth. But be that as it may, even if he had known a way back at the time there would have been no court on Earth that could try them and there was the inherent risk that they would indeed find a way to get their powers back and devastate the planet.

So that left Option 3. I don't think many would argue that the Kryptonians didn't deserve to die and Superman was the last representative of law enforcement left in the pocket universe. So he chose to execute them. This led to his breakdown and ultimately developing his code against killing, which is more logical and in line with how the character was developed post-Crisis than him simply choosing not to kill "just because".

[dupersuper]

He's not retiring though. He's giving up.

That seems like a semantic difference to me.

If he decided to go into exile, that is one thing.

That's a later story.

But taking away his powers is way too drastic.

Not to him if he no longer trusts himself with that power.

I think people misinterpret the execution of the Phantom Zone criminals, or at least what its intent was.

I always hated that Superman killed, but loved the Exile story, leaving me feeling very conflicted.

The whole purpose of the story and the subsequent EXILE arc that followed was for Superman to develop his code against killing.

Not to brag, but I developed my code against killing without having to kill any one...

[kingaliencracker]

Not to brag, but I developed my code against killing without having to kill any one...

a) You are not a super hero.

b) You have not been in a situation in which you were face-to-face with someone or a group of people who murdered 5 billion people.

[catman]

I think that superman should not kill, but even if movies make superman kill villain, I don't care(off course, it is unpleasant though…). Because I think that idea of superman will not be lost. Superman is one of the most famous and iconic characters in fiction. He has been characterlized as Best of US. This image is worldwide and any change will not spoil it. Making superman kill will never kill Superman.