Superman and Killing

[The Beast]

Fans can influence owners, though, which is why (again, to some extent) I am all for fans to voice their opinions on stuff like this.

Personally, I didn't care for the killing in MoS, but I understand why some people think it's justifiable.

I can understand why people have different preferences on what super hero should be as well. But a year has gone by, Snyder and Goyer have been given the keys to the movie kingdom, so to speak. I'm not certain what some fans expect to achieve at this point.

[DochaDocha]

I can understand why people have different preferences on what super hero should be as well. But a year has gone by, Snyder and Goyer have been given the keys to the movie kingdom, so to speak. I'm not certain what some fans expect to achieve at this point.

Since another movie is coming out, if you keep harping about it enough, maybe someone will pay attention and make the next movie accordingly?

Fans never had more influential power on movie serials than they do now. Again, within reason, use that power.

[The Beast]

This one I stand pat on. Goyer did nothing new or innovative to improve Superman in any way. He used other people's ideas and made a movie. Nothing redefining or new there what so ever.

Other than making Superman fallible and allowing Lois to figure out the obvious on her own. MoS is the least pretentious depiction of the character since '86.

[Lexrules]

Other than making Superman fallible and allowing Lois to figure out the obvious on her own. MoS is the least pretentious depiction of the character since '86.

Is that what you want from the character to be Fallible? Is that what you need Superman to be able to connect with you?

And it is nothing new for Lois to figure out Clark and Superman are one and the same. 75 years of history proves me right there.

[The Beast]

Since another movie is coming out, if you keep harping about it enough, maybe someone will pay attention and make the next movie accordingly?

Fans never had more influential power on movie serials than they do now. Again, within reason, use that power.

"And I think it's a shocking ending. I've seen the film four times with an audience, and everyone gasps at the ending. They don't see it coming, and I think it makes some people feel uncomfortable, other people say 'right on,' but that was the point, and hopefully we've done at the end of this film, we've gotten people to - the mainstream audience not the geek audience - to question."

Transcribed from an Empire Online podcast.

I don't think Goyer cares about certain members of the fan base. In fact I don't think DC does either, based on the kind of comics they publish these days.

[Lexrules]

"And I think it's a shocking ending. I've seen the film four times with an audience, and everyone gasps at the ending. They don't see it coming, and I think it makes some people feel uncomfortable, other people say 'right on,' but that was the point, and hopefully we've done at the end of this film, we've gotten people to - the mainstream audience not the geek audience - to question."

Transcribed from an Empire Online podcast.

I don't think Goyer cares about certain members of the fan base. In fact I don't think DC does either, based on the kind of comics they publish these days.

So what Goyer is saying and what you approve with is that the only way Superman would be able to be sold in a movie is through shock value.

[The Beast]

Is that what you want from the character to be Fallible? Is that what you need Superman to be able to connect with you?

If a heroic character isn't fallible, they have no arc. Then it's pretentious and boring.

And it is nothing new for Lois to figure out Clark and Superman are one and the same. 75 years of history proves me right there.

Not from day one, it hasn't.

So you argue that MoS gets it wrong and yet they've done nothing new? So which is it?

[The Beast]

So what Goyer is saying and what you approve with is that the only way Superman would be able to be sold in a movie is through shock value.

The shock value comes from fallibility and a lack of clichéd behavior. An imperfect solution to an imperfect situation.

[Lexrules]

Fair enough.

You see the character MUCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH differently then I do.

[Lexrules]

If a heroic character isn't fallible, they have no arc. Then it's pretentious and boring.



Not from day one, it hasn't.

So you argue that MoS gets it wrong and yet they've done nothing new? So which is it?

I disagree. It is what makes the character special and above all the rest. It's part of the reason why heroes, civilians, and even the criminals all look up to him and believe in him. If he fails then he is just like every other Superhero and Superman is not that nor should he ever be.

He is Superman

[Doctor Know]

Why do people who have an aversion to Superman using lethal force, all repeat the same statement? That Superman should "never have been put/written in to that situation". Another recurring statement is "Superman always finds a 3rd way out of any dilemma he's in. Mark Waid stated the same thing in his review last year.

IMO that is advocating plot immunity for Superman. What's the point of putting Superman (a god tier character) in to a high stakes situation or battle and then giving Superman 100% plot armor to making a tough decisions? I think you do the character a disservice by not allowing him to face tough choices that will have an effect on his character moving forward. Superman can't be the king of all Superheroes if he's never faced a no win situation. Kobayoshi Maru anyone? It's a test of character, not in the actions but how one conducts themselves under extreme circumstances.

The flip side of that is to do what Mickey did to Rocky Balboa in Rocky III. Mickey lied to Rocky and cherry picked all of his opponents; opponents he knew Rocky could beat. While simultaneously avoiding pairing Rocky with fighters like Clubber Lang (Mr T) who he knew Rocky would lose to. When Rocky learned that Mickey had lied to him, Rocky was plagued with self doubt over his false sense of success (he had 10 title defenses since beating Apollo Creed). Mickey had created a situation where Rocky believed he was better than he really was. It was all done out of a sense of love and protection, but cause Rocky to fail when Rocky did meet Clubber in the ring.

It's the same with some writers and fan approaches to Superman. They don't want to see the character face a no win scenario or a scenario where Superman could fail in. They want the character to be that knight in shining armor absent scratches and dings from his countless battles with evil. Other characters (such as Batman, Thor, Iron Man, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Captain America, Spider-Man) have all used lethal force multiple times in their various depictions in different media, and yet no one get's up in arms over that. Why is Superman held to such a vastly different standard?

[DochaDocha]

"And I think it's a shocking ending. I've seen the film four times with an audience, and everyone gasps at the ending. They don't see it coming, and I think it makes some people feel uncomfortable, other people say 'right on,' but that was the point, and hopefully we've done at the end of this film, we've gotten people to - the mainstream audience not the geek audience - to question."

Transcribed from an Empire Online podcast.

I don't think Goyer cares about certain members of the fan base. In fact I don't think DC does either, based on the kind of comics they publish these days.

True. Well, your options are either chime in, or stay quiet. Only one of those is guaranteed to have zero effect on getting the change you want.

[Lexrules]

Why do people who have an aversion to Superman using lethal force, all repeat the same statement? That Superman should "never have been put/written in to that situation". Another recurring statement is "Superman always finds a 3rd way out of any dilemma he's in. Mark Waid stated the same thing in his review last year.

IMO that is advocating plot immunity for Superman. What's the point of putting Superman (a god tier character) in to a high stakes situation or battle and then giving Superman 100% plot armor to making a tough decisions? I think you do the character a disservice by not allowing him to face tough choices that will have an effect on his character moving forward. Superman can't be the king of all Superheroes if he's never faced a no win situation. Kobayoshi Maru anyone? It's a test of character, not in the actions but how one conducts themselves under extreme circumstances.

The flip side of that is to do what Mickey did to Rocky Balboa in Rocky III. Mickey lied to Rocky and cherry picked all of his opponents; opponents he knew Rocky could beat. While simultaneously avoiding pairing Rocky with fighters like Clubber Lang (Mr T) who he knew Rocky would lose to. When Rocky learned that Mickey had lied to him, Rocky was plagued with self doubt over his false sense of success (he had 10 title defenses since beating Apollo Creed). Mickey had created a situation where Rocky believed he was better than he really was. It was all done out of a sense of love and protection, but cause Rocky to fail when Rocky did meet Clubber in the ring.

It's the same with some writers and fan approaches to Superman. They don't want to see the character face a no win scenario or a scenario where Superman could fail in. They want the character to be that knight in shining armor absent scratches and dings from his countless battles with evil. Other characters (such as Batman, Thor, Iron Man, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Captain America, Spider-Man) have all used lethal force multiple times in their various depictions in different media, and yet no one get's up in arms over that. Why is Superman held to such a vastly different standard?

To Superman, there should never be a no win scenario. Superman is meant to come out of every impossible situation and do it because he is the only one who can.

Once again It is why he is Superman and all the rest are just Superheroes. Also why Mark Waid is respected in the Superman community, he understands exactly what the character is and how the character should be seen as.

[jaybay]

Here's my two cents. I understand sympathize with those who didn't like how Superman was portrayed in Man of Steel. I myself wasn't all that impressed with it. But here is what I think many people are missing; Superman is a rookie.

Superman doesn't need to know how to use his powers in order to have the "Superman" code of ethics. His ethical disposition doesn't come from knowing how to be Superman. It comes from being raised by good people. Or at least it usually does...in this movie his parents are very useless and damaging.

I could go with this if he were just flat out making tactical mistakes. If he were failing to think of things while Lois Lane was shouting "THROW HIM INTO SPACE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!" But the mistakes he's making aren't rooted in tactical error, they're rooted in ethical lapse. His first priority should be to minimize the death of innocent people. He should be trying to manipulate this fight so that it can't hurt people. I don't see him even trying to do that. That shot where he just casually floats over the gas tanker while it explodes and destroys a building behind him, and he doesn't even look behind him to see what kind of destruction that caused. The Superman I know would've caught the tanker and put it down safely. If at 33 years old you don't realize that your actions have consequences, ESPECIALLY with the power he obviously knows he has, then you really are a menace and not worthy of trust. He flies at Zod next to the building at top speed, knowing what that kind of impact does to the space around them. He knows it'll just destroy that building, and once it does he just flies away like WHO GIVES A DAMN IM SUPERMAN. Clark is the one who tackled Zod for miles though empty farm land crashing into silos and an 7-11 into an populated area. He punches Kryptonians into potentially populated trains. He crashed Krypton's baby pod ship into buildings and an street. Also, Superman left that girl being harassed by the Trucker to continue to be harassed as he left to passive aggressively take revenge on him by fucking over his job - which doesn't hurt the trucker. He'll be on the road in a few days tops because insurance.

By the way, at no point in the film do they say: Well he's a new hero so he's gonna have some hiccups. That never happens. Everyone is pretty much okay with what Superman did. The whole idea that "well he needs to learn how to become Superman" is ridiculous because they don't portray him as having to learn from any mistakes.

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.

Isn't this from before Superheroes were role models to begin with?

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.

Superman shouldn't accept war as a fact of life, he can see beyond that (that's what hope is). Basically, I like my Superman like I like my Batman: anti-establishment.

http://i.imgur.com/AxJGuBn.jpg (JLA 79)

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

Agreed.

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

Sometimes (uh, okay, pretty much constantly) stupid things happen in the comics.
The Superman I want to see isn't the one from all the comics, but the one from the best comics. And TV shows, and movies, and video g- okay not those.

What you're doing is cherry picking 76 years of history that's most defined by his aversion from taking a like. Even his creators wrote him like that. Y'know how Batman has been shown to sometimes be okay with killing the Joker? That's not typical, he's typically defined as being very much against that. And it's funny you put Red Glass up there, I recently read that and nothing that happened in it was real. It was a nightmare an stranded wounded alien was making Superman have so Superman could help it out. There's also comics of Superman doing other awful things like making out with 14 year olds. Would you defend that being in a major block buster movie because it happened in an comic?

The shock value comes from fallibility and a lack of clichéd behavior. An imperfect solution to an imperfect situation.

So he's perfect and boring. The movie was realistic? I don't get this and I’m convinced people will label any strong and positive traits Superman is suppose to have or will ever display as perfection because they either don’t know this character or are disillusioned with the news and crappy people in their lives.

I think it’s more that it’s easier, especially these days, to overlook the complexity in characters that don’t have an apparent conflict with themselves. That’s just really become, since the 70’s especially, more and more of what we’re conditioned as a culture to immediately recognize and identify with. So characters like Wolverine or Batman are much more accessible to mainstream values, like simply on casual approach. They instantly fit within this outsider or tragic hero or self conflicted hero kind of role that is one of the primary narratives that we’re sold on every day. I mean it’s beaten into our heads with everything we see in ads and movies and song.

At one time, maybe this was flip flopped, and there’s gonna be a resulting counter action to it. The character Superman is not in any danger as long as they hold true to who he is essentially.

The only danger is to accept this association of self conflict with meaning, and to then look at Superman and try to draw out possible self conflicted kind of issues in order to make him more ‘interesting’.

And that is just the wrong way to go. I think the movie tried to do this and it felt forced and for many including myself the whole thing resulted in an fundamental misunderstanding of the entire character.

There’s a lot of depth to him, they don’t need to introduce false drama and trauma into how he works. You gotta watch out with characters like that not to project false issues on them in a desire for complexity. You got to trust that the character is great and will stand up to time if simply treated honestly and allowed to do what they naturally would from the inside to out. And on the inside Superman isn’t perfect or outdated and his life isn’t easy. It’s filled with challenges and hardships that any regular person would experience if they chose to live an deeply virtuous life style. Superman fits perfectly with the world as it is now. For as long as the world needs an example of a completely selfless person who is willing to dedicate himself to the people around him the world will venerate Jesus…and Superman. And he isn't cliched, he's the 1st. The thing that made the globe run out to make their heroes.

[Lexrules]

Superman doesn't need to know how to use his powers in order to have the "Superman" code of ethics. His ethical disposition doesn't come from knowing how to be Superman. It comes from being raised by good people. Or at least it usually does...in this movie his parents are very useless and damaging.

I could go with this if he were just flat out making tactical mistakes. If he were failing to think of things while Lois Lane was shouting "THROW HIM INTO SPACE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!" But the mistakes he's making aren't rooted in tactical error, they're rooted in ethical lapse. His first priority should be to minimize the death of innocent people. He should be trying to manipulate this fight so that it can't hurt people. I don't see him even trying to do that. That shot where he just casually floats over the gas tanker while it explodes and destroys a building behind him, and he doesn't even look behind him to see what kind of destruction that caused. The Superman I know would've caught the tanker and put it down safely. If at 33 years old you don't realize that your actions have consequences, ESPECIALLY with the power he obviously knows he has, then you really are a menace and not worthy of trust. He flies at Zod next to the building at top speed, knowing what that kind of impact does to the space around them. He knows it'll just destroy that building, and once it does he just flies away like WHO GIVES A DAMN IM SUPERMAN. Clark is the one who tackled Zod for miles though empty farm land crashing into silos and an 7-11 into an populated area. He punches Kryptonians into potentially populated trains. He crashed Krypton's baby pod ship into buildings and an street. Also, Superman left that girl being harassed by the Trucker to continue to be harassed as he left to passive aggressively take revenge on him by fucking over his job - which doesn't hurt the trucker. He'll be on the road in a few days tops because insurance.

By the way, at no point in the film do they say: Well he's a new hero so he's gonna have some hiccups. That never happens. Everyone is pretty much okay with what Superman did. The whole idea that "well he needs to learn how to become Superman" is ridiculous because they don't portray him as having to learn from any mistakes.



Isn't this from before Superheroes were role models to begin with?




Superman shouldn't accept war as a fact of life, he can see beyond that (that's what hope is). Basically, I like my Superman like I like my Batman: anti-establishment.

http://i.imgur.com/AxJGuBn.jpg (JLA 79)



Agreed.



Sometimes (uh, okay, pretty much constantly) stupid things happen in the comics.
The Superman I want to see isn't the one from all the comics, but the one from the best comics. And TV shows, and movies, and video g- okay not those.

What you're doing is cherry picking 76 years of history that's most defined by his aversion from taking a like. Even his creators wrote him like that. Y'know how Batman has been shown to sometimes be okay with killing the Joker? That's not typical, he's typically defined as being very much against that. And it's funny you put Red Glass up there, I recently read that and nothing that happened in it was real. It was a nightmare an stranded wounded alien was making Superman have so Superman could help it out. There's also comics of Superman doing other awful things like making out with 14 year olds. Would you defend that being in a major block buster movie because it happened in an comic?



So he's perfect and boring. The movie was realistic? I don't get this and I’m convinced people will label any strong and positive traits Superman is suppose to have or will ever display as perfection because they either don’t know this character or are disillusioned with the news and crappy people in their lives.

I think it’s more that it’s easier, especially these days, to overlook the complexity in characters that don’t have an apparent conflict with themselves. That’s just really become, since the 70’s especially, more and more of what we’re conditioned as a culture to immediately recognize and identify with. So characters like Wolverine or Batman are much more accessible to mainstream values, like simply on casual approach. They instantly fit within this outsider or tragic hero or self conflicted hero kind of role that is one of the primary narratives that we’re sold on every day. I mean it’s beaten into our heads with everything we see in ads and movies and song.

At one time, maybe this was flip flopped, and there’s gonna be a resulting counter action to it. The character Superman is not in any danger as long as they hold true to who he is essentially.

The only danger is to accept this association of self conflict with meaning, and to then look at Superman and try to draw out possible self conflicted kind of issues in order to make him more ‘interesting’.

And that is just the wrong way to go. I think the movie tried to do this and it felt forced and for many including myself the whole thing resulted in an fundamental misunderstanding of the entire character.

There’s a lot of depth to him, they don’t need to introduce false drama and trauma into how he works. You gotta watch out with characters like that not to project false issues on them in a desire for complexity. You got to trust that the character is great and will stand up to time if simply treated honestly and allowed to do what they naturally would from the inside to out. And on the inside Superman isn’t perfect or outdated and his life isn’t easy. It’s filled with challenges and hardships that any regular person would experience if they chose to live an deeply virtuous life style. Superman fits perfectly with the world as it is now. For as long as the world needs an example of a completely selfless person who is willing to dedicate himself to the people around him the world will venerate Jesus…and Superman. And he isn't cliched, he's the 1st. The thing that made the globe run out to make their heroes.

Excellent post.