Superman and Killing

[Kurosawa]

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'll start here. Up until 1986, Superman was more a character that slowly evolved than a character who was rebooted. Reboots didn't start until COIE in comics, and they haven't stopped since then. The Barry Allen Flash was not a reboot because the existence of that Flash did not delete the existence of the Jay Garrick Flash. What was done with Superman from 38-86 was a natural evolution where the core principles that Siegel and Shuster established were kept and expanded on. Not because DC respected them, but because what they created worked so well.

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.

Both of those stories fit and are beautifully evolved from what Siegel and Shuster created. Siegel wrote Superman for years, and wrote him again in the Silver Age-in fact, he wrote his best stories in the Silver Age. So both of those stories were written with Siegel's Superman.

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.

It has nothing to do with any era of Superman apart from Post-Crisis. There is not a single trace of anything from 38-86 in MOS: the Superman in it has no morals or ethics, there is no nebbish Clark Kent, no utopian Krypton, and no moral mentor in the person of Jonathan Kent. MOS would make a pretty good origin for Ultraman, however. That's the only way I can accept MOS, is if I consider the heartless murderer who is called Superman in it Ultraman.

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.

Actually, when STM came out, Siegel had suggestions for how it could have been improved, so I would expect they would have a similar reaction to MOS. And the reason Superman has had a 25+ year decline is because they stopped thinking of what Jerry and Joe would have done.

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.

Well, when I say "by your logic", I of course mean there is no logic because claiming that Philip Wylie actually created Superman is, IMO, absurd.

[gwhh]

On cracked.com they said he killed all the time in the very beginning, so did batman!

[Kurosawa]

On cracked.com they said he killed all the time in the very beginning, so did batman!

Yes, he did, and as I have noted on many occasions, if he was written as the kind of character he was in the beginning, I would have had no problem with it. GA Superman killed because the people he killed were so vile they, in his opinion, deserved it, and he didn't scream like a bitch after he did it. If the MOS Superman had been a wild and rowdy shitkicker like GA Supes, I would have been fine with it.

[Powerboy]

On cracked.com they said he killed all the time in the very beginning, so did batman!

I think "all the time" is vastly exxagerating. Not sure about the WWII adventures but I can only remember one of the early ones where he intentionally killed somebody, maybe two if you count his first encounter with the Ultra Humanite where he did something he thought had killed him but he survived.

[lorec]

I do not have the immense knowledge of Superman many of you obviously have. However, I do have an opinion on the MOS movie. When I first saw it, and Superman killed Zod, I was initially taken aback. I was like, Superman doesn't kill. Then I saw it a second time with my daughter, who was 14 at the time. I asked her what she thought about Superman killing. She's been involved with comics since before she could read, but more importantly, she represents the generation DC is trying to capture. She didn't have an issue with it and saw it as the only way Superman could have saved that family. Faced with the same decision, she said she would have done the same in his position. My daughter isn't violent, I don't teach or advocate violence. But what she did was identify with Superman. To me, that made him more human because here he is with all this power and the only way to save these people was to kill. In the movie, Clark was still raised by Martha and Johnathan Kent. By all indications, he was raised to respect all life and to not use his powers to hurt others. So while I don't agree with him killing, I totally understand the reasoning behind it.

As comic book fans, we always want to see our favorite versions of our favorite characters in comics, in television, in cartoons, and on the big screen. The reality is, the companies have to market the versions of the characters that will allow them to make the most money. Sometimes that version is acceptable to the comic fans, sometimes the marketable version creates a totally new version of the character. None of it is wrong, it's just different. For my money, I like the MOS version of Superman. It gives the character a chance to grow, to learn, and we get to see that.

[Clark_Kent]

I do not have the immense knowledge of Superman many of you obviously have. However, I do have an opinion on the MOS movie. When I first saw it, and Superman killed Zod, I was initially taken aback. I was like, Superman doesn't kill. Then I saw it a second time with my daughter, who was 14 at the time. I asked her what she thought about Superman killing. She's been involved with comics since before she could read, but more importantly, she represents the generation DC is trying to capture. She didn't have an issue with it and saw it as the only way Superman could have saved that family. Faced with the same decision, she said she would have done the same in his position. My daughter isn't violent, I don't teach or advocate violence. But what she did was identify with Superman. To me, that made him more human because here he is with all this power and the only way to save these people was to kill. In the movie, Clark was still raised by Martha and Johnathan Kent. By all indications, he was raised to respect all life and to not use his powers to hurt others. So while I don't agree with him killing, I totally understand the reasoning behind it.

As comic book fans, we always want to see our favorite versions of our favorite characters in comics, in television, in cartoons, and on the big screen. The reality is, the companies have to market the versions of the characters that will allow them to make the most money. Sometimes that version is acceptable to the comic fans, sometimes the marketable version creates a totally new version of the character. None of it is wrong, it's just different. For my money, I like the MOS version of Superman. It gives the character a chance to grow, to learn, and we get to see that.

Extremely well said. It brings Superman to a new generation of fans that only knew him by jokes about his costume. This, in turn, has provided a springboard for the Justice League & for characters that never would have gotten exposure on the big screen otherwise.

I'd gladly trade "my" version of Superman for that because our industry is dying...it needs all the outside exposure it can get.

[Blue Light]

If the MOS Superman had been a wild and rowdy shitkicker like GA Supes, I would have been fine with it.

Well, we got a touch of that with the truck stop scene. The over the top, dramatic destruction of that jerk's truck seems like the sort of thing GA Superman would've done.

[llozymandias]

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?

And Popeye the sailor predates Hugo Danner. By a year. Popeye first appeared in January, 1929. From what little I have read the bald villain (with super mental powers) Superman was not influenced by Hugo Danner. The Philip Wylie/Hugo Danner came in when they ( Jerry & Joe) decided to make their character a hero with different powers. Iow to say no Hugo Danner would mean no Superman is utter & absolute nonsense.

[Prime]

Why is WB so adamant to make Superman look like the bad guy?

[lancerman]

Why is WB so adamant to make Superman look like the bad guy?

Do you really think at the end of this Superman is going to be portrayed as a bad guy or a hero who might be getting unfairly blamed for something he had limited control over?

It's less about Superman being the bad guy and more about a prevailing sentiment for the last decade plus of people hearing the name Superman and going "ugh he's too perfect, he's too un-relatable". And rightly or wrongly this shaped a lot of people's perceptions on the character. So making him a little more fallible and human was a priority. And what's more human than not always living up to your own standards when they are tested to a high degree? I assure you nobody walked out of MOS thinking Superman was a bad guy besides people who have a problem with Superman being anything less than perfect.

[AJBopp]

I assure you nobody walked out of MOS thinking Superman was a bad guy besides people who have a problem with Superman being anything less than perfect.

I left the movie convinced that Superman is a good guy but that the creative team tried everything they could think of to make me believe otherwise.

[lancerman]

I left the movie convinced that Superman is a good guy but that the creative team tried everything they could think of to make me believe otherwise.

Okay cause I saw a movie where Superman stopped a bunch of evil Aliens from destroying the planet as best he could. There was some collateral damage he couldn't stop and the last guy put him between a rock and a hard place and he had to do something he really wish he didn't need to do and pretty much begged the other guy to stop before he did it. I don't know how that equates to writers trying to make Superman be a bad guy.

[AJBopp]

Okay cause I saw a movie where Superman stopped a bunch of evil Aliens from destroying the planet as best he could. There was some collateral damage he couldn't stop and the last guy put him between a rock and a hard place and he had to do something he really wish he didn't need to do and pretty much begged the other guy to stop before he did it. I don't know how that equates to writers trying to make Superman be a bad guy.

You do realize that the creative team made conscious decisions to create those situations, don't you? You understand that they could have told the story without creating situations like that?

[lancerman]

You do realize that the creative team made conscious decisions to create those situations, don't you? You understand that they could have told the story without creating situations like that?

Duh? Why does everybody whose against that always say "well the writers didn't have to put him in that situation". Of course they didn't. They did. Why did they? Because it was the most compelling situation they could put him in. Why do I know this? Because they are the two biggest talking points of the film.

They put a character who is defined by his near perfection in a no win scenario where he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils. That's compelling. What does the ultimate good guy do when he has a gun to his head and can either save innocents or let the villain live?

Here's the problem, Superman has this whole no killing thing. Which I generally agree with. He's not a character who necessarily should be jumping to kill as the easiest out. He should want to neutralize threats with the least amount of collateral damage as possible. That said, he also is never really tested on it. He's either not put in the situation, or fakely put in the situation because a writer gave him a back door out. Which is fine. But it really doesn't test his conviction. So I don't really see much bravery or heroics in him doing something he has no real reason to do.

So the writers made a compelling situation for the character and elected for him to act one way. Now you have people adamantly supporting it, and adamantly opposing it. It's far and away the biggest talking point of any Superman film ever. So actually good for the creative team for writing something that got people so passionate about the character. Because it's something the character has sorely lacked for a long time.

[Guy1]

They put a character who is defined by his near perfection in a no win scenario where he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils. That's compelling. What does the ultimate good guy do when he has a gun to his head and can either save innocents or let the villain live?

Trigun had almost the exact same situation happen that you just described.