Superman and Killing

[Doctor Know]

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.

Lawl using internet meme someone created as as facts ^. Snyder said 5,000 so his word is law.

How is Superman partially to blame for the deaths of those people in MOS? It wasn't his machine that leveled Metropolis. Nor were any of the buildings Superman and Zod crashed through occupied by people; not including the final building where Zod tried to murder that family.

I guess Batman is responsible for all the people who died during TDKRises with Bane's 3 month hostage takeover of Gotham City.

[Kurosawa]

Lawl using internet meme someone created as as facts ^. Snyder said 5,000 so his word is law.

How is Superman partially to blame for the deaths of those people in MOS? It wasn't his machine that leveled Metropolis. Nor were any of the buildings Superman and Zod crashed through occupied by people; not including the final building where Zod tried to murder that family.

I guess Batman is responsible for all the people who died during TDKRises with Bane's 3 month hostage takeover of Gotham City.

It wasn't an internet meme, it was a study by a disaster expert:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakari...death-analysis

And so, if Snyder's word is law concerning the deaths in MOS, then you should also agree that Christopher Reeves' word is law concerning the lack of deaths (none) in Superman II-IV.

[Doctor Know]

It wasn't an internet meme, it was a study by a disaster expert:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakari...death-analysis

And so, if Snyder's word is law concerning the deaths in MOS, then you should also agree that Christopher Reeves' word is law concerning the lack of deaths (none) in Superman II-IV.

Yeah... maybe Charles Watson should go back and rewatch the film. The world engine barely cascaded outward more than 5 city blocks. Most of the building we saw at ground zero and in the surrounding area were empty. Almost like people took the pre-warning of destruction (Zod's broadcast) and saw the descending space ship in Metropolis and got the hell outta dodge before the machine was activated.

I distinctly recall Superman throwing Nuclear Man in a nuclear silo which killed him. Also I doubt those villains from Superman 3 made it out alive.

[Kurosawa]

Yeah... maybe Charles Watson should go back and rewatch the film. The world engine barely cascaded outward more than 5 city blocks. Most of the building we saw at ground zero and in the surrounding area were empty. Almost like people took the pre-warning of destruction (Zod's broadcast) and saw the descending space ship in Metropolis and got the hell outta dodge before the machine was activated.

I distinctly recall Superman throwing Nuclear Man in a nuclear silo which killed him. Also I doubt those villains from Superman 3 made it out alive.

I'm pretty sure someone who analyzes disasters for a living knows what they are talking about. As does the actor who was actually the star of Superman II-IV.

[Doctor Know]

I'm pretty sure someone who analyzes disasters for a living knows what they are talking about. As does the actor who was actually the star of Superman II-IV.

So we go with the Charles Watson's estimates of loss of life over the director's stated casualties? If he wants to do something constructive he should tally the deaths of Avengers. Agents of Shield gave us a death total in place of one absently stated in the movie. I wonder what his results would be by comparison? Add Transformers 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, TDKRises where significant number of people are shown/presumed to have perished. Lol that would be worth a laugh.


When did Reeve say that nobody died in Superman II-IV? His statement contradicts what we see on screen. It's possible he forgot all the details of his films. The aforementioned evidence for 3 and 4 show people dying, I posted above . Superman 2 is debatable.

[Kurosawa]

So we go with the Charles Watson's estimates of loss of life over the director's stated casualties? If he wants to do something constructive he should tally the deaths of Avengers. Agents of Shield gave us a death total in place of one absently stated in the movie. I wonder what his results would be by comparison? Add Transformers 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, TDKRises where significant number of people are shown/presumed to have perished. Lol that would be worth a laugh.


When did Reeve say that nobody died in Superman II-IV? His statement contradicts what we see on screen. It's possible he forgot all the details of his films. The aforementioned evidence for 3 and 4 show people dying, I posted above . Superman 2 is debatable.

[Charlie]

Sigh, the intelligent discussion didn't even get past the first page. Now it's just **** flinging about MOS.

My personal opinion on Superman is that he should not kill unless under the most extreme circumstances. Violence should be a last resort and he should always try to deescalate things rather than be gun-ho about fighting.

I didn't have a moral problem with Kal killing Zod. However, I do think it was a mistake to do it in the first film which was meant as an introduction to the character. Killing shouldn't be something that is associated with Superman. It's just something that unfortunately is part of protecting Earth in some instances.

At the same time, I'm not a fan of the writers cop out of having the villain kill himself or some random thing to kill him. Every action has to be meaningful.

[JackDaw]

I prefer the non killing Superman of my distant youth. I'm sure for no deeper reason than it's the version I grew up with, and I have an aversion to the death penalty.

But I fully accept that ultimately that version doesn't work if you continually put him up against ruthless opponents who are as strong or stronger than he. That effectively makes him a soldier...and when war comes, there comes a time when even the good soldiers have to kill.

My Superman saw through all that long ago, and decided to do engineering on a large scale in the third world instead. And..of course..continues to expose corruption in his secret identity as a reporter.

The modern guy? Okay...but I'm not really a fan, there's nothing to differentiate from all the thousands of other flying bricks.

[Eyeswithoutaface]

I'm with the crowd who doesn't understand why Zack Snyder, David Goyer, etc. have to turn Superman into this kind of a killer. The lead up to the neck snap is what I have a problem with.

When things start to hit the fan, Superman is at least as bad or as good as Zod because his intent is genocide. Their ends are justified by clunky exposition while both parties show us exactly how low they will go. In the end though, Henry Cavill turned Superman into Ozymandias from the Watchmen when he coldly rationalizes his actions by delivering lines like, 'Krypton had its chance' and proceeds to zorch the last ship containing the Genesis Chamber. Perhaps this version is just much more calculating when it comes to life?

Regardless, from that moment forward, he's a traitor. Certainly not a hero. Moreover, the level of destruction that ensues is troubling considering where it leads to. It seems to me that the gross recklessness showing lack of care for human life that is demonstrated when the level of mayhem is like 9/11 X 10, is far greater than the requisite evidence one might need to build a case for criminal intent. In other words, how aggravated, to what degree, premeditation, deliberation, etc. All of that is on the heels of Superman performing the neck snap that basically turns General Zod into a self sacrificing martyr for his people. I don't buy the excuse that Superman cares about that family considering the 5000+ people that just died while carelessly smashing up Metropolis. That doesn't add up.

And yeah, I get that the alternative is that everyone on Earth would die, but that's the writers overthinking and painting themselves into a corner in the first movie. Yay. Good job writers. Thanks for showing us how much moral ambiguity there is in the world again. I had forgotten, so it's nice to be reminded about this in a Superman movie.

[Doctor Know]

I'm with the crowd who doesn't understand why Zack Snyder, David Goyer, etc. have to turn Superman into this kind of a killer. The lead up to the neck snap is what I have a problem with.

When things start to hit the fan, Superman is at least as bad or as good as Zod because his intent is genocide. Their ends are justified by clunky exposition while both parties show us exactly how low they will go. In the end though, Henry Cavill turned Superman into Ozymandias from the Watchmen when he coldly rationalizes his actions by delivering lines like, 'Krypton had its chance' and proceeds to zorch the last ship containing the Genesis Chamber. Perhaps this version is just much more calculating when it comes to life?

Regardless, from that moment forward, he's a traitor. Certainly not a hero. Moreover, the level of destruction that ensues is troubling considering where it leads to. It seems to me that the gross recklessness showing lack of care for human life that is demonstrated when the level of mayhem is like 9/11 X 10, is far greater than the requisite evidence one might need to build a case for criminal intent. In other words, how aggravated, to what degree, premeditation, deliberation, etc. All of that is on the heels of Superman performing the neck snap that basically turns General Zod into a self sacrificing martyr for his people. I don't buy the excuse that Superman cares about that family considering the 5000+ people that just died while carelessly smashing up Metropolis. That doesn't add up.

And yeah, I get that the alternative is that everyone on Earth would die, but that's the writers overthinking and painting themselves into a corner in the first movie. Yay. Good job writers. Thanks for showing us how much moral ambiguity there is in the world again. I had forgotten, so it's nice to be reminded about this in a Superman movie.

The kind of "killer" who commited homicide in the defense of the planet and it's 6 billion inhabitants from a man who had said and demonstrated several times through the movie what his intentions were? Convenient of you to brush Zod's decisions and actions under the rug and attack Superman for not saving everyone in a battle he was outnumbered and outmatched in. Zod was a sane individual capable of making independent choices. He CHOSE to colonize Earth and atop the rubble found New Krypton. Zod should be held responsible for his actions and decisions. No one twisted his arm to attack humanity or that family which finally pushed Superman in to the uncomfortable spot of having to use lethal force. Zod could've quit anytime and surrendered peacefully, but he didn't.

Krypton did have it's chance. The Council on Krypton doomed their world by mining the core for resources, making the planet unstable. To rub salt in the wound, the council didn't lift a finger to evacuate their planet despite it falling apart around them and provocations from Jor-El and Zod of the oncoming danger. The government of Krypton doomed it's inhabitants. It's wrong for Zod to wipe out humanity just to rebuild a dead world, with the same flawed ideas that saw Krypton destroyed the first time.

Watch the movie again. The lion share of destruction is cause by the world engine. Which cascaded out a few blocks in the city. Superman and Zod crash through 8 or so buildings during their final fight. All of which were empty; excluding the last one where Zod died. So the "gross recklessness" charge is false. The World Engine was wrecking the planet while Supes was on the other side of the world trying to stop the machine creating the gravity pulses so the military could execute the plan to trap the Kryptonians back in the phantom zone. This is all explained via exposition in the movie.

No the writers did not overthink or paint themselves in to a corner. When Zod and his followers attack Earth, there is little the inhabitants can do to resist.

Need proof?
Watch Superman II by Richard Donner and Richard Lester. See how Zod and 2 other Kryptonians conquered Earth in under a day.

Read The Supergirl Saga by John Byrne (Superman #21, Adventures of Superman #444, and Super #22). Where Zod and 2 other Kryptonians wreck Earth unopposed since that world's Superman had died 10 years earlier.
Here's a pic of their conquest.


Read Superman Last Son by Geoff Johns and Richard Donner (Superman 1978 and Superman II). In it Zod and his followers wreck Superman, the entire JLA and JSA IN ONE FRAKKING DAY. More photos of humans trying to resist after the JLA and JSA had been captured.


MOS did not set some precedent for mass destruction or killing in Superman comics. It's been there for years. See: Death and Return of Superman, Superman Red Class, Superman Birthright, War of the Supermen, New52 JLA vol 1, Superman Earth One vol 1, the aforementioned Supergirl Saga, and Last Son.

MOS being a film based on adaptation had 75 years worth of material to draw from. Since they did an alien invasion movie. There is nothing in the film that has not been in print and published in a Superman comic beforehand. That's the hard truth people don't want to hear.

^Superman Red Glass 1991

[Lexrules]

The kind of "killer" who commited homicide in the defense of the planet and it's 6 billion inhabitants from a man who had said and demonstrated several times through the movie what his intentions were? Convenient of you to brush Zod's decisions and actions under the rug and attack Superman for not saving everyone in a battle he was outnumbered and outmatched in. Zod was a sane individual capable of making independent choices. He CHOSE to colonize Earth and atop the rubble found New Krypton. Zod should be held responsible for his actions and decisions. No one twisted his arm to attack humanity or that family which finally pushed Superman in to the uncomfortable spot of having to use lethal force. Zod could've quit anytime and surrendered peacefully, but he didn't.

Krypton did have it's chance. The Council on Krypton doomed their world by mining the core for resources, making the planet unstable. To rub salt in the wound, the council didn't lift a finger to evacuate their planet despite it falling apart around them and provocations from Jor-El and Zod of the oncoming danger. The government of Krypton doomed it's inhabitants. It's wrong for Zod to wipe out humanity just to rebuild a dead world, with the same flawed ideas that saw Krypton destroyed the first time.

Watch the movie again. The lion share of destruction is cause by the world engine. Which cascaded out a few blocks in the city. Superman and Zod crash through 8 or so buildings during their final fight. All of which were empty; excluding the last one where Zod died. So the "gross recklessness" charge is false. The World Engine was wrecking the planet while Supes was on the other side of the world trying to stop the machine creating the gravity pulses so the military could execute the plan to trap the Kryptonians back in the phantom zone. This is all explained via exposition in the movie.

No the writers did not overthink or paint themselves in to a corner. When Zod and his followers attack Earth, there is little the inhabitants can do to resist.

Need proof?
Watch Superman II by Richard Donner and Richard Lester. See how Zod and 2 other Kryptonians conquered Earth in under a day.

Read The Supergirl Saga by John Byrne (Superman #21, Adventures of Superman #444, and Super #22). Where Zod and 2 other Kryptonians wreck Earth unopposed since that world's Superman had died 10 years earlier.
Here's a pic of their conquest.


Read Superman Last Son by Geoff Johns and Richard Donner (Superman 1978 and Superman II). In it Zod and his followers wreck Superman, the entire JLA and JSA IN ONE FRAKKING DAY. More photos of humans trying to resist after the JLA and JSA had been captured.


MOS did not set some precedent for mass destruction or killing in Superman comics. It's been there for years. See: Death and Return of Superman, Superman Red Class, Superman Birthright, War of the Supermen, New52 JLA vol 1, Superman Earth One vol 1, the aforementioned Supergirl Saga, and Last Son.

MOS being a film based on adaptation had 75 years worth of material to draw from. Since they did an alien invasion movie. There is nothing in the film that has not been in print and published in a Superman comic beforehand. That's the hard truth people don't want to hear.

^Superman Red Glass 1991

The problem here though is Superman himself killing. He is suppose to be above such things. It is what makes him Superman that he doesn't need to kill to get the job done. Superman should never be painted into a corner like that because if you find you need to do so then you have run out of ideas as a writer and it's time for you to go much like what happen to Byrne.

Having Superman kill is wrong because it sends the wrong message for what the character stands for. People need to understand that Superman is no longer just a comic book character, he is bigger then comics now and has grown beyond them. The character is the finest fictional American character ever created and will last long beyond we or comics in general are long gone.

[The Beast]

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.

I don't want to see Superman kill unless it's absolutely necessary against an unstoppable foe. I don't need him to reflect my personal ideologies that much but I can't abide by him blatantly contradicting them when it comes to the use of lethal force.

It wouldn't be sporting of Superman to kill lesser beings but I'm sick to death of watching him preach about finding another way. Without super powers and/or a writer behind the curtain willing to provide some lame cop out, sometimes there is no other way.

[The Beast]

The problem here though is Superman himself killing. He is suppose to be above such things. It is what makes him Superman that he doesn't need to kill to get the job done. Superman should never be painted into a corner like that because if you find you need to do so then you have run out of ideas as a writer and it's time for you to go much like what happen to Byrne.

Having Superman kill is wrong because it sends the wrong message for what the character stands for. People need to understand that Superman is no longer just a comic book character, he is bigger then comics now and has grown beyond them. The character is the finest fictional American character ever created and will last long beyond we or comics in general are long gone.

The real problem here is nobody wants to read that tripe. Oh sure, there's exceptions to the rule that post on internet message boards but other than that, there's no substantial audience for this kind of fairy tale.

This is why the latest digital 'Adventures of Superman' got cancelled faster than a speeding bullet.

[Lexrules]

The real problem here is nobody wants to read that tripe. Oh sure, there's exceptions to the rule that post on internet message boards but other than that, there's no substantial audience for this kind of fairy tale.

This is why the latest digital 'Adventures of Superman' got cancelled faster than a speeding bullet.

That had nothing to do with it really. It was canceled because it was always set for a limited run. AOS did quite well actually.

There is always a market for Superman in any form. If DC were smart they would please everyone like Marvel does over multiple books with their top characters but that is left for another conversation.

[Prime]

Adventures of Superman was a roller coaster. Some where good, some where bad. Anyway for me Superman should only kill when he has no choice.