Superman and Killing

[Francisco]

Superman is a good guy of course killing will never be his first option. That's how it should be always written. Superman is not Wolverine/Punisher/ but he isn't Gandhi either.
The idea that somehow if Superman kills "captain unstoppable mass murderer" people will start to fear him is beyond ludicrous. I've been giving thought to that notion and find out it doesn't hold water. First off all the mere fact that a man with the power to toss mount everest into orbit is already frightening. I don't need to see him killing a known (and just as powerful) homicidal maniac to begin to be afraid of him. I mean using lethal force against mass murderers is not the only thing Superman would be doing all these years. He has been also saving people from burning buildings and all sort of natural disasters. Why would everyone start to fear him after he just saved the day one more time by slaying the dragon?
I think it should never get to the point in which Superman starts to casualy kill his oponents (no matter how powerful they are) it should always be a big deal for him to take a life.

[Lexrules]

Superman is a good guy of course killing will never be his first option. That's how it should be always written. Superman is not Wolverine/Punisher/ but he isn't Gandhi either.
The idea that somehow if Superman kills "captain unstoppable mass murderer" people will start to fear him is beyond ludicrous. I've been giving thought to that notion and find out it doesn't hold water. First off all the mere fact that a man with the power to toss mount everest into orbit is already frightening. I don't need to see him killing a known (and just as powerful) homicidal maniac to begin to be afraid of him. I mean using lethal force against mass murderers is not the only thing Superman would be doing all these years. He has been also saving people from burning buildings and all sort of natural disasters. Why would everyone start to fear him after he just saved the day one more time by slaying the dragon?
I think it should never get to the point in which Superman starts to casualy kill his oponents (no matter how powerful they are) it should always be a big deal for him to take a life.

But where also talking about a fictional character. They simply do not need to follow the laws of reality nor should they especially Superman. In Superman's world he can find a way to not kill and get the job done in reality it is not that simple. That really is the bottom line with Superman or any fictional character. They kill because it is written for them to kill, they can also be written for them not to kill just as easily. The idea that a fictional character like Superman needs to follow real world laws or ideas is the worst thing you could do to the character as it takes away the larger then life idea of what Superman is and the adventures his story supplies.

[Doctor Know]

I don't mind Superman killing, as long as he uses lethal force with discretion. In the comics Superman has killed Mxyzspltk, Zod, Zaora, Quex-Ul, Doomsday, Brainiac 13, Imperix and Parademons. He has attempted to kill Darkseid, Hank Henshaw (Cyborg Supes), Mongul, Brainiac 1 and Lex Luthor All of them are major threats and have/had used their powers to kill innocent people and make attempts on Superman's life. The notion that lethal force is never going to come up when Superman is clashing with beings just as strong and stronger than he is is ludicrous. Especially when you bring in cosmic threats like Darkseid, the Brainaics, Mxyzspltk, Cyborg Supes (with his control of the ManHunters), Imerpeix, Mongul, Zod and his followers. If Supes can end the threat without lethal force, I'm all for it. But i won't condemn him from using lethal force if it means saving lives by ending the threat sooner.

Since Man of Steel, people blow the Superman killing thing WAY out of proportion. They make Superman's act of killing sound like the character is the same as the Punisher, Wolverine, or Spawn. The aforementioned characters who kill willie nilly with wide discretion and or just don't care about the lives they take.

[normanosborn]

Whatever works for the particular story. I am pretty much totally against killing - even in war - but my personal morals should not have anything to do with what a version of a character can be written like.

I liked MOS more than Superman I or II, and the ending was one of the best things about it. It was totally unexpected and you could see Clark's pain when he was forced to do it.

[Jphu8414]

I liked the Superman killing Zod to be honest. It was a real warrior way to go out for Zod and was pretty much what he wanted with the "either I die, or you do" line. It also makes Clark realize the value of life more and I'm sure it will be a plot point in the next movie where we will maybe see more of the "boy scout" Superman. I mean it's not like he snapped his neck and was like "gee that was fun", no he sank to his knees, cried out in anguish, and had to be comforted by Lois.
It was definitely a tough decision, but ultimately one he had to take to save the life of that family, and to spare Metropolis from even further damage because the fight could have gone on forever and the only way to stop it was to kill Zod. There's really no other option is there? I mean you can't put the guy in jail or lock him away or anything.

[The Overlord]

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.

I think I had more problem with Superman's rather reckless attitude then I did with him killing Zod. I am rather neutral on Superman killing Zod, I didn't love it, but it didn't really bother me either.

Anyway, exactly how far should Superman code against killing go? For example was it wrong for Superman to kill Doomsday in Death of Superman, if Doomsday was a mindless killing machine that was threatening other people? Is it okay, for Superman to kill non sentient beings? Isn't killing Doomsday akin to killing a wild animal that is a threat to other people?

Also an interesting question would be, what are the best and worst stories about Superman's code against killing?

[Kurosawa]

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.

This is an absolutely brilliant post and should be required reading. You have stated every reason why MOS fails in just a great manner. There is no good in MOS, but there is plenty of evil.

Another thing I would like to add is MOS is a movie that loves to talk, talk, talk. We are told over and over that Superman is supposed to bring light and hope, but he never does. We are told over and over that Zod is a monster, but he's just another loud movie villain. Had Zod been despicable and had really earned the audiences hate, then they would have loved to see him go. But he wasn't-he was just boring.

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

Another thing all those stories you quote have in common? They're all shallow and they all suck, apart from Birthright, and the alien invasion part of Birthright sucks too, it's the earlier chapters that are good. The rest of those stories all stink. MOS and Superman II both suck too, with only Christopher Reeve making Superman II anywhere near watchable. And MOS is not based on 75 years of Superman stories, it is based completely on Post-Crisis Superman. It's basically 3 hours of WB/DC proclaiming that Siegel and Shuster and Superman all suck and need to be completely reinvented to work for modern audiences. Meanwhile, Marvel makes movies with Captain America 1 & 2 that proves them completely wrong and Cap2 is better than any DC movie ever made or ever will be made.

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.

Also, it sends the wrong message because Superman is supposed to be so great and so smart that if you put him in an impossible situation, a situation where only one solution seems possible, he and only he can come up with something else.

[Jcogginsa]

I feel it's okay for Superman to Kill if there isn't another option. For characters like Superman, that's a rather high standard, but I do feel the film Man of Steel met it, considering the alternatives and the fact that it was his first day

[Jphu8414]

I feel it's okay for Superman to Kill if there isn't another option. For characters like Superman, that's a rather high standard, but I do feel the film Man of Steel met it, considering the alternatives and the fact that it was his first day

I agree, there really was no other option in that situation. It honestly would have irked me if he was defeated and put in a prison or if Superman found a way to thrown back into the phantom zone or something along those lines.
In real life people have to make tough choices and people do die, this isn't really an exception. They just have to deal with the consequences of their actions, which will probably be seen in the sequel.

[Kurosawa]

For lesser characters, no other option. For Superman, there should always be a better way because he's Superman and he makes the impossible possible.

[Jphu8414]

True but I don't really see any other option at that moment that wouldn't have gotten that family possibly killed

[Robotman]

I think I had more problem with Superman's rather reckless attitude then I did with him killing Zod. I am rather neutral on Superman killing Zod, I didn't love it, but it didn't really bother me either.

Anyway, exactly how far should Superman code against killing go? For example was it wrong for Superman to kill Doomsday in Death of Superman, if Doomsday was a mindless killing machine that was threatening other people? Is it okay, for Superman to kill non sentient beings? Isn't killing Doomsday akin to killing a wild animal that is a threat to other people?

Also an interesting question would be, what are the best and worst stories about Superman's code against killing?

Yeah I had more of a problem with his lack of concern for the humans in Metropolis. That scene could have been salvaged if they just had Supes attempt to stop one of the buildings from falling and Zod punches him while he's distracted. It would show Kal attempting to lessen the destruction of Metropolis and save as many lives as possible. A very selfless Superman thing to do.


Pretty sure this guy died or at least spent the rest of his life eating from a tube.



Was sent hurling over "a grove of distant trees" and it looks like he landed head first.

[Kurosawa]

True but I don't really see any other option at that moment that wouldn't have gotten that family possibly killed

A good writer could have put Superman in that situation and got him out. Maggin definitely could have done it.

[Eyeswithoutaface]

This is an absolutely brilliant post and should be required reading. You have stated every reason why MOS fails in just a great manner. There is no good in MOS, but there is plenty of evil.

Another thing I would like to add is MOS is a movie that loves to talk, talk, talk. We are told over and over that Superman is supposed to bring light and hope, but he never does.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who can't stand what they're doing to Superman.

On that last point you made, that's what I mean by clunky exposition. The conspicuously leaden rationalizing of unethical behavior felt to me like I was watching a movie with characters who have aspergers. The words combined with some of the wooden delivery is what does it. I really can't be sure about the writer or writers when it comes to ASD obviously. However, there's just something about the lines and how unconvincing they come across. I'm not sure the writers are necessarily trying to pull a fast one on the audience like a snake oil salesman, but the signs point to how they don't understand humor. I think they might actually believe some of this stuff that they write very literally, and that they truly mean well. Whatever the case may be, I'm not sure that any kind of dialogue would be smooth or nuanced enough to get Superman out of this no-win scenario if they insisted that it play out as it did. Unfortunately for Clark in this predicament, there's a word for characters who advertise one thing but promote the opposite by their actions. By contrast, Zod and Faora are honest about who they are and what they plan on doing.

As for what MOS might be trying to say about good and evil, oh boy. To me, not only do the principal film makers of MOS demonstrate their contempt for Superman, but contempt for morality itself. I mean, in the end, Faora's line was the message of the movie. "You are weak, Son of El, unsure of yourself. The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage. And if history has proven anything...It is that evolution always wins." Morality is considered weak. Might is right. Philosophically speaking, those kinds of ideals should be antithetical to Superman's values, but they aren't in this film's finale.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

As for what MOS might be trying to say about good and evil, oh boy. To me, not only do the principal film makers of MOS demonstrate their contempt for Superman, but contempt for morality itself. I mean, in the end, Faora's line was the message of the movie. "You are weak, Son of El, unsure of yourself. The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage. And if history has proven anything...It is that evolution always wins." Morality is considered weak. Might is right. Philosophically speaking, those kinds of ideals should be antithetical to Superman's values, but they aren't in this film's finale.

"For me, the worst thing about Superman killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel isn’t the neck-snapping itself, but that a few minutes before it happens, during an interminable fight scene through the damn near post-apocalyptic landscape of a ruined Metropolis, Zod tells him something along the lines of “this doesn’t end until one of us dies.” And he’s right. That’s what kills me about it. The bad guy tells Superman that he’ll only stop if Superman kills him, and Superman proves him right. Superman proves that the bad guy is right. There’s no other way. It’s just violence and death as the only solution.

"Superman proves that the bad guy is right.

"There is nothing you can tell me that will make me think that’s not a completely insane, monumentally wrongheaded way to end a Superman movie. From a character standpoint, it is the worst possible thing they could do, undermining every bit of rancid dialogue about how Superman’s going to Show Us The Way and how It Stands For Hope. It doesn’t. It’s just dudes punching each other until one of them punches harder, the end.

"What makes it even crazier is that Snyder spends the preceding two hours hammering the idea that Superman is Space Jesus. Seriously, if you liked the Christ imagery of Superman Returns but thought it was a little too subtle, I have some good news for you...I don’t think Superman as a Christ figure works even in the best of times, but when you’re making a movie where you build to your Christ figure snapping a bad guy’s neck? It’s been a while since I’ve gone through the New Testament, but I’m at least 70% sure that’s not how that works."--Chris Sims, "‘Man Of Steel’: On My Planet, The ‘S’ Is For Sucks"