Superman and Killing

[MikeP]

300 and Rise of an Empire are exaggerations of real events that happened in the Greco-Persian Wars. Snyder's film (300) is an adaptation of Miller's graphic novel. So it should be judged as an adaptation. Neither the book or the film state they are based on real events. The accusations of racism I recall came from Iran (which is where Persia was located. Since there is not a Persia anymore), and it's then President Ahmadinejad. Who naturally was not pleased with how one of their historical figures was portrayed (Xerxes) in an inaccurate light. Taking issue with his androgynous look, the mysticism he purported and the dramatization of his incursion in to Greece. Projecting a distorted look at another culture is not something unique to America, other artists, writers, film makers etc do the same thing. It all falls under satire (exaggeration) until is crosses a line in to offensive. E.g. Frank Miller's Holy Terror.

I've said this before, but the racism is in 300 is intentional and important to the plot. This is a framing device, being told by a surviving Spartan as means to rouse up patriotic support for war. He isn't going to portray the Persians in a fair, accurate way. He needs to demonize them.

[Superlad93]

The thing with the Silver Age is a matter of perception and context. During the 60's, 70's and 80's the primary readers of comics were children. Superman's expansive/bizarre power set was created to entertain that demographic. In that context it makes since to have Superman do all manner of impossible things. He's Superman, he can do anything and that is entertaining. Another character to look at during the Silver Age would be Thor. Where his magic hammer acted more like a magic wand and gave Thor nearly any power to handle any situation in front of him. Like Thor, Superman has seen a reduction in his power levels as writers (during the 80's) stripped away the more impossible things these megaton characters can do. I believe the reason was the characters were too OP and with their levels of strength they could nerf any challenge. How do you challenge an infinitely powerful character? With Superman's infinite strength, invlunerability to everything except magic and kryptonite, time traveling power (forward to the future and backwards to undo things he doesn't like), super intelligence + all of Krypton's tech (phantom zone projector), super hypnosis and his vision and breath powers. One could imagine it would be difficult to write challenges for a character this powerful. Using kryptonite every issue would grow stale, even if one does use different colors. When you're audience is young children to pre-teen, there isn't an issue. But how do you maintain them as they grow older and how does one appeal to teens, young adults and older fans?

And yet Grant Morrison's take on the character is among the most popular. His book All Star Superman where the character starts the book by going up in power is till this day arguing as the greatest Superman story of all time. Lines from that very book were even used in MOS. What either you're missing or I'm not articulating well is the fact that those Silver age stories were not about the power levels or anything like that. Superman would have always won then and he will always win now. You're not worried off the artificial suspense of wondering if he can lift that tree so Lois can get out. You know he can do it because he's Superman and more importantly he's the main character. If the writer wants him to fail then a situation will be made where he does. But my point is that you came for the humanist stories about life not his power. You came for the wonderful places and situation that his power could get you into.

But in the end power level doesn't matter. He could be 60's planet pushing, 80's mountain lifting, or 30's car lifting who really cares? If thinking up different things to punch him is the issue then it's an exercise in pointlessness because he will get that last punch that just wins the day. He will race just fast enough to hit the big red button. What the Silver age brought was exploration and wonder. It brought a look into the human condition using odd ball concepts like space aliens and moon people, and it was told in a format that was accessible to all.

The only thing one would have to do is add the necessary gravitas and importance to these concepts to suit a modern reader. This is where a writer like Grant Morrison comes in. This is where All Star Superman is born. By adding the weight and myth to concepts your "silly ideas" become world shattering and heart breaking ideas. Superman lifting a planet goes from inconsequential and cartoon-like to mythic herculean feat of strength that will have it's greatness sang for years to come. It's all in how you present it and the gravity you put on it.

But going back to his powers, again that doesn't really matter he's been all over the spectrum in power. What does matter is the amount of wonder you put into the character. In reality Superman isn't a sci fi tale but one of a myth or a folk tale with all of it's ridiculousness. The sci fi aspect of the character, while great and a nice tool, was nothing more than a means to an end. His creators couldn't even decide if the wanted him to be from the future or an alien. They just knew the point was to make an impossible shining example of what we could be what was to come for us if we only try.

There's so much more to challenge the character than just a punching or lifting match. Read anything Morrison has written on him.

The Doctor Who comparison is nice, but with Doctor Who the audience is already aware of the context and genre of the show. The original show (pre-2005 reboot) was kitch and campy but none the less enjoyable and charming because of it. There is an agreement with the audience over what kind of show this is. In the scifi genre however, what works for Doctor Who doesn't work for Star Trek (another long lived scifi show), BSG, Stargate, or Superman (see Superman III). The audience expects certain things from Superman in film, print, and animation. If you push the envelope (deify what is permissible) you could turn away your audience and be left with nothing. That's not to say a light hearted and fun Superman or rather Superboy (since it's more applicable to see a teenage Clark and his Legion pals have zany adventures) couldn't work, but you don't make or market a product to appeal to a niche of the market. You make a product that can appeal to the widest audience possible.

None of what I suggested was "pushing the envelop". It was simply using aspects of his world. My Doctor who example stands just fine because the point of me bringing it up was not the literal aspects of what is present in the show but what they represent. They represent an audience willing to go with the flow of the world they are looking into and treat each adventure as if it were happening to dear friends of theirs. If you'd rather I could bring up Harry Potter. That's FAR more well know and widely accepted and spits at our real world logic so often that our logic should bring an umbrella. Not just simply telling us to accept magic without a second thought of where, who, what, and why, but the fact that if looked at closely one could break down and destroy the very foundation of the Harry Potter worlds logic with some real world logic. But no one does that and if they do no one cares that they're doing it because Harry Potter and his world have made the author one of the wealthiest people on earth and it's become a would wide hit beyond imagination.

This idea of gibberish words and magic sticks being as dangerous as guns and bombs. Arbitrary rules and regulations that don't make a lick of sense if put under a microscope but govern this world. It's just as ridiculous as Doctor Who.

My point in this is that you simply have to strike and strike hard with your ideas. Present them with authority and meaning. Get the audience to care for the ridiculous because it's not ridiculous in that world. But make no mistake I'm not saying that the Silver age needs to see the sliver screen. I'm saying that all the ridiculousness doesn't have to be ridiculous from that 2 and a half hours, those 30 pages, and that half an hour if you don't want them to be. It's all in the presentation.

MOS and it's hyper grounded take was not a MUST in any sense of the word more so a couscous choice in one direction. But do not discredit the more ridiculous aspects of the character as if they do not or can not belong. That is false and is constantly proven false with Superman stories and other more outlandish ever successful works like Doctor Who and Harry Potter.


I didn't love MOS and I didn't love the reasoning behind the killing or the transition after. I'm fine with that. But don't tell me that they did it because of some BS about Superman having plot armor if he doesn't have to kill. He has plot armor regardless as I've already pointed out. Then like I stated before his more out there concepts were only not used for the simply fact that Snyder himself didn't want them and couldn't figure out how they could work for him. No harm done. Not everyone can write those concepts. But don't tell me that he couldn't use them if he wanted. Bringing up stuff about returns and it's nostalgia don't help either because simple nostalgia isn't the only reason one can bring back ideas from the past. A new way into them, new found relevance (Morrison and his tee shirt wearing Golden age Superman), the list goes on. The director of Returns was nostalgic for nostalgia alone. This does not have to be the case with everyone and everything else.

[planetman]

Excellent exposition of the truth of Superman. Agree 100%. I've said earlier that the SNG MOS concoction was not inevitable given the potential available in the character as you have pointed out, it could have been done differently with more respect and made a better movie.

[Powerboy]

And yet Grant Morrison's take on the character is among the most popular. His book All Star Superman where the character starts the book by going up in power is till this day arguing as the greatest Superman story of all time. Lines from that very book were even used in MOS. What either you're missing or I'm not articulating well is the fact that those Silver age stories were not about the power levels or anything like that. Superman would have always won then and he will always win now. You're not worried off the artificial suspense of wondering if he can lift that tree so Lois can get out. You know he can do it because he's Superman and more importantly he's the main character. If the writer wants him to fail then a situation will be made where he does. But my point is that you came for the humanist stories about life not his power. You came for the wonderful places and situation that his power could get you into.

But in the end power level doesn't matter. He could be 60's planet pushing, 80's mountain lifting, or 30's car lifting who really cares? If thinking up different things to punch him is the issue then it's an exercise in pointlessness because he will get that last punch that just wins the day. He will race just fast enough to hit the big red button. What the Silver age brought was exploration and wonder. It brought a look into the human condition using odd ball concepts like space aliens and moon people, and it was told in a format that was accessible to all.

The only thing one would have to do is add the necessary gravitas and importance to these concepts to suit a modern reader. This is where a writer like Grant Morrison comes in. This is where All Star Superman is born. By adding the weight and myth to concepts your "silly ideas" become world shattering and heart breaking ideas. Superman lifting a planet goes from inconsequential and cartoon-like to mythic herculean feat of strength that will have it's greatness sang for years to come. It's all in how you present it and the gravity you put on it.

But going back to his powers, again that doesn't really matter he's been all over the spectrum in power. What does matter is the amount of wonder you put into the character. In reality Superman isn't a sci fi tale but one of a myth or a folk tale with all of it's ridiculousness. The sci fi aspect of the character, while great and a nice tool, was nothing more than a means to an end. His creators couldn't even decide if the wanted him to be from the future or an alien. They just knew the point was to make an impossible shining example of what we could be what was to come for us if we only try.

There's so much more to challenge the character than just a punching or lifting match. Read anything Morrison has written on him.




None of what I suggested was "pushing the envelop". It was simply using aspects of his world. My Doctor who example stands just fine because the point of me bringing it up was not the literal aspects of what is present in the show but what they represent. They represent an audience willing to go with the flow of the world they are looking into and treat each adventure as if it were happening to dear friends of theirs. If you'd rather I could bring up Harry Potter. That's FAR more well know and widely accepted and spits at our real world logic so often that our logic should bring an umbrella. Not just simply telling us to accept magic without a second thought of where, who, what, and why, but the fact that if looked at closely one could break down and destroy the very foundation of the Harry Potter worlds logic with some real world logic. But no one does that and if they do no one cares that they're doing it because Harry Potter and his world have made the author one of the wealthiest people on earth and it's become a would wide hit beyond imagination.

This idea of gibberish words and magic sticks being as dangerous as guns and bombs. Arbitrary rules and regulations that don't make a lick of sense if put under a microscope but govern this world. It's just as ridiculous as Doctor Who.

My point in this is that you simply have to strike and strike hard with your ideas. Present them with authority and meaning. Get the audience to care for the ridiculous because it's not ridiculous in that world. But make no mistake I'm not saying that the Silver age needs to see the sliver screen. I'm saying that all the ridiculousness doesn't have to be ridiculous from that 2 and a half hours, those 30 pages, and that half an hour if you don't want them to be. It's all in the presentation.

MOS and it's hyper grounded take was not a MUST in any sense of the word more so a couscous choice in one direction. But do not discredit the more ridiculous aspects of the character as if they do not or can not belong. That is false and is constantly proven false with Superman stories and other more outlandish ever successful works like Doctor Who and Harry Potter.


I didn't love MOS and I didn't love the reasoning behind the killing or the transition after. I'm fine with that. But don't tell me that they did it because of some BS about Superman having plot armor if he doesn't have to kill. He has plot armor regardless as I've already pointed out. Then like I stated before his more out there concepts were only not used for the simply fact that Snyder himself didn't want them and couldn't figure out how they could work for him. No harm done. Not everyone can write those concepts. But don't tell me that he couldn't use them if he wanted. Bringing up stuff about returns and it's nostalgia don't help either because simple nostalgia isn't the only reason one can bring back ideas from the past. A new way into them, new found relevance (Morrison and his tee shirt wearing Golden age Superman), the list goes on. The director of Returns was nostalgic for nostalgia alone. This does not have to be the case with everyone and everything else.

Yes how MoS presented the killing was too forced ala its namesake. The *ahem* execution was horribly done.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with also having a Superman geared for children, even very young kids. I was thinking the other day about a time when I was a small child, probably early grade school and was reading a comic about all the super animals including Krypto as part of some council of intelligent dogs from the intelligent dog planet. As ridiculous as that seems, my child self was absolutely fascinated by it to the point I remember where I was when I read it and who I told about it first.

Some of that Silver Age stuff is a great start for kids and they can then discover other stuff to keep them interested when they are older. For another instance, I remember my early fascination with Batman and the Bat plane and the Batmobile and a story about various kinds of batarangs he had used.

Yeah, in those early days, it was the sense of wonder. The dog story, for example. Other stuff seems infinitely more sophisticated now with a greater illusion of being realistic and you've got to throw in the character depth. But there was such an incredible sense of wonder in those silly super dog stories of an allegiance in outer space. In a way, it is unfortunate that "realistic" has become a synonym for "good".

MoS is Superman as modern myth at the start though it comes down to "reality". But I would like to see a more mythical take as well.

[Superlad93]

Yes how MoS presented the killing was too forced ala its namesake. The *ahem* execution was horribly done.

Thank you!!

But I don't think there's anything wrong with also having a Superman geared for children, even very young kids. I was thinking the other day about a time when I was a small child, probably early grade school and was reading a comic about all the super animals including Krypto as part of some council of intelligent dogs from the intelligent dog planet. As ridiculous as that seems, my child self was absolutely fascinated by it to the point I remember where I was when I read it and who I told about it first.

Some of that Silver Age stuff is a great start for kids and they can then discover other stuff to keep them interested when they are older. For another instance, I remember my early fascination with Batman and the Bat plane and the Batmobile and a story about various kinds of batarangs he had used.

Yeah it's a great all ages take for sure but it can also be given more weight and then it becomes more appealing past just children. Just like Harry Potter and Doctor Who. Silly concepts taken seriously in their own context and not our own gain the emotional weight needed to be taken seriously yet still keep themselves as wondrous as they started. Just now you really feel it.

Yeah, in those early days, it was the sense of wonder. The dog story, for example. Other stuff seems infinitely more sophisticated now with a greater illusion of being realistic and you've got to throw in the character depth. But there was such an incredible sense of wonder in those silly super dog stories of an allegiance in outer space. In a way, it is unfortunate that "realistic" has become a synonym for "good".

Yeah that's an unfortunate and frankly wrong idea that "realistic" is always "good" because so much stuff proves that so long as you take your concepts, no matter how outlandish, seriously and infused with emotional weight that you get people to fear the wand as much if not more than the bullet. You get people to think the most dangerous being in the universe are trash cans with plungers attached to them.

MoS is Superman as modern myth at the start though it comes down to "reality". But I would like to see a more mythical take as well.

I agree and that's why I enjoy it at the start but then it shoots itself in the foot with a lot of the things it does and it's little development of the world around it and the characters in it. Then we're just left with hard sci fi mouth peaces spouting themes in the story as dialog, then 9-11 happens....and keeps happening, and lastly we get that last taped on act/fight. Oh and then it's a mega tone shift like I've never seen before. This all wrapped in the idea that I flat just should take this as my world with these things in it.

Bad structure and writing aside I would have just liked more owning up to one of the greatest modern day myths we've come up with, Superman. Truly embracing the story with some more of it's ridiculousness and presenting it as mythical. As it should be. You can look at something like All Star Superman with Quitely's cinematic and grounded art style used to bring to life some of the silliest concepts in the silver age and other ones made by Morrison. I mean for goodness sake Morrison took the ridiculous Silver age concept of Superman shooting little Superman out of his hands to help people and made it into an amazing and clever idea in the book. It was by taking it seriously and being clever in how you presented it. If you can do it with that idea then the sky is the limit. People don't say that was silly they say it was mythical.

For goodness sake Marvel is now validating the power to shrink and talking animals!

[planetman]

What superlad says is correct. The more "reality", that is, our mundane world, is inserted into the stories the more the imaginary and the mythological is reduced and the basic function of this kind of literature is undermined. It's function is the same as folklore and oral histories which all civilisations have.

This basic fact seems unkown to many of the current writers and there lies the problem with the books and movies of recent years. It's unlikely to be resolved soon unless some new talent comes along with a broad understanding of fantasy literature gained by study of it and knowing not to use current fads or prejudices for the plots of their stories. Imagination is the prime requirement. That's where Superman came from in the first place.

[Superlad93]

What superlad says is correct. The more "reality", that is, our mundane world, is inserted into the stories the more the imaginary and the mythological is reduced and the basic function of this kind of literature is undermined. It's function is the same as folklore and oral histories which all civilisations have.

This basic fact seems unkown to many of the current writers and there lies the problem with the books and movies of recent years. It's unlikely to be resolved soon unless some new talent comes along with a broad understanding of fantasy literature gained by study of it and knowing not to use current fads or prejudices for the plots of their stories. Imagination is the prime requirement. That's where Superman came from in the first place.

This right here.

In a lot of ways these character are just flat out not built to be put into our world beat by beat. Not even Marvel heroes are built to be inserted in our world completely. I mean have you seen Marvel comics lately? Future foundations, armors running around the place, spider islands, etc. The "realistic" company in the one where one of it's greatest and most respected threats is a giant white man in a purple suit and funny hat. Yet because they have taken the silly and now mythologized it we fear the giant purple suited man's coming. The marvel characters where in fact just more focused expressions of the human condition than DC's more primal big idea heroes.

Logically one would think that DC would be going more mythic and sense of wonder with their stuff than Marvel. But be it comics or movies it's the other way around because of insecurity I think.

The DC guys where almost built to tell larger than life imagination expanding new myths. The shouldn't be looking to the latest thriller movie for inspiration but the myths and folk tales and translating first into the language of the superhero and then fitted with modern sensibilities. The stories of sun gods with capes and wi-fi accessed twitter.

[Doctor Know]

The thread has deviated very far from the OP; Superman and lethal force. The thread has basically become a "MOS is wrong because it didn't/doesn't have the traits I wanted to see from a Superman film; what everyone else wanted and what sells to audiences be dammned" thread.


Harry Potter and Doctor Who aren't just fanciful stories children can enjoy. They do deal with mature subjects and have mature subtext in them. People enjoy them because they are entertaining. Superman is an alien who can fly, as well as several other other worldly powers. I don't see why Superman can't take it self seriously (realism) and come up with themes that both entertain and challenge the audience.

Going back to the lethal force issue, outside of fans and writers who are fans; what is the big problem with Superman killing when the need arises? Other heroes (Thor, WW, Wolverine, Daredevil, Batman, GL's) do it. Characters in other franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, Sherlock, Harry Potter, Doctor Who) all use lethal force. The aforementioned Doctor Who would be the most blatant in the use of lethal force and civilians dying; in both the revived series (2005) and classic series. How many times has the Doctor committed Dalek genocide, blown up thousands of Cybermen (human brains in cyborg bodies), sontarans, silence and aliens of the week? All this is done in the revived series. For the classic series see the video below.


You know, FOR KIDS! And no one bats an eyelash at this.

Superman breaks one guys neck in defense of humanity (immediately that family in danger of heat vision) and people SCREAM bloody murder. Where is the disconnect? Why is lethal force ok for others but not for Superman?

[Qwathings]

Superman breaks one guys neck in defense of humanity (immediately that family in danger of heat vision) and people SCREAM bloody murder. Where is the disconnect? Why is lethal force ok for others but not for Superman?

It comes down to execution of the idea. MOS played out in such a way that some people disliked it. While other works of fiction are able to work in destruction and killing without frustrating these same people.

The killing in MOS brought everything to a halt. There was a big fight building up to it and a seemingly dramatic scream to end it. All of this focus was put on it in the movie, as if Snyder were saying: "Look at this! Look at this!"

Maybe if the killing in MOS had come from the natural progression of our main character, rather than being a situation forced onto him in the very last minute, and if it didn't bring the story to a complete halt, it would have been easier to accept by some of the detractors.

Personally, I do not like it when many of the Marvel heroes kill in the comics. When I see them kill in the movies I don't mind it at all. In the Marvel movies the killing is treated as a natural method of overcoming an obstacle or resolving a conflict. It doesn't slow the story down, in fact it keeps the story and action moving.

In order to fit a killing into MOS, it seemed like Snyder and Goyer elbowed their way through the third act and shoved it into the first quiet spot they could find.

[victorsage]

I've said this before, but the racism is in 300 is intentional and important to the plot. This is a framing device, being told by a surviving Spartan as means to rouse up patriotic support for war. He isn't going to portray the Persians in a fair, accurate way. He needs to demonize them.

Very true. That and the puns and one liners they use throughout the story is all historically accurate in spirit if not in fact. The "we will then fight in the shade" remark specifically has been passed down to us.

the Spartan Dienekes is said to have proved himself the best man of all, the same who, as they report, uttered this saying before they engaged battle with the Medes:--being informed by one of the men of Trachis that when the Barbarians discharged their arrows they obscured the light of the sun by the multitude of the arrows, so great was the number of their host, he was not dismayed by this, but making small account of the number of the Medes, he said that their guest from Trachis brought them very good news, for if the Medes obscured the light of the sun, the battle against them would be in the shade and not in the sun." - Histories, 7.226

[victorsage]

You know, FOR KIDS! And no one bats an eyelash at this.

Superman breaks one guys neck in defense of humanity (immediately that family in danger of heat vision) and people SCREAM bloody murder. Where is the disconnect? Why is lethal force ok for others but not for Superman?

The "for the children" argument is usually crap whenever it's used no matter the subject. Hell most traditional fairy tales and nursery rhymes didn't only have murders and violence involved... often the protagonist themselves died horribly! lol. God help the poor "Girl with the Ribbon".

Look at the child book The Hobbit. Violence and a classic "adventure" is some of the main themes of the story, even if the titled character didn't originally want anything to do with it. lol

My father and people of his era grew up watching TV Westerns like Gunsmoke, where every episode started with Marshall Matt Dillon gunning down a gunslinger well the title card came up. Yet somehow he and many of his time period didn't turn into murders or become traumatized.

Since it has been established from the beginning that the Man of Steel will kill, I think the only honest argument comes down to the question "Under what circumstances will Superman Kill?" The situation shown in MOS is one such case. If we are going to appeal to tradition though I think we should remember that Golden Age Superman wouldn't have waited for Zod to threaten a family before putting the "kill the genocidal militarist" option on the table.

[Vanguard-01]

The "for the children" argument is usually crap whenever it's used no matter the subject. Hell most traditional fairy tales and nursery rhymes didn't only have murders and violence involved... often the protagonist themselves died horribly! lol. God help the poor "Girl with the Ribbon".

Look at the child book The Hobbit. Violence and a classic "adventure" is some of the main themes of the story, even if the titled character didn't originally want anything to do with it. lol

My father and people of his era grew up watching TV Westerns like Gunsmoke, where every episode started with Marshall Matt Dillon gunning down a gunslinger well the title card came up. Yet somehow he and many of his time period didn't turn into murders or become traumatized.

Since it has been established from the beginning that the Man of Steel will kill, I think the only honest argument comes down to the question "Under what circumstances will Superman Kill?" The situation shown in MOS is one such case. If we are going to appeal to tradition though I think we should remember that Golden Age Superman wouldn't have waited for Zod to threaten a family before putting the "kill the genocidal militarist" option on the table.

I agree with most of what you say here.

However, Golden Age Superman may have gone to lethal force right out of the box, but that just isn't a good idea with today's audience. I think it makes much more sense to have Superman kill only after he really has exhausted all other possibilities. Golden Age Superman was MUCH to cavalier with his use of lethal force. Killing should be a difficult decision, and it should never be a default setting.

So, no, I think having him attempt to subdue Zod non-lethally, only to go lethal once the situation demanded it, is a better way to show Superman for what he is: a man who will do what it takes to protect people.

I think you're spot-on as far as your analysis of what the real question about Superman killing is. It really should be more about "Under what circumstances," instead of absolutes like "Superman should never kill," or "Superman should always kill." A discussion of circumstances can be interesting and insightful. A bunch of people (and I'm including myself in this) screaming "Yes he should/No he shouldn't" a million times over is hardly constructive, and only leads to the nastiness for which these threads have become infamous.

So, my answer to the question of "Under what circumstances will Superman kill?" I say the answer is "He will kill when he is certain that there is no other option. He will kill ONLY in the defense of others. He will kill only when he is the only person capable of doing what must be done. And he should never kill casually or without remorse. The decision to kill should always weigh heavily upon him. It should NEVER be an easy choice for him"

[victorsage]

So, my answer to the question of "Under what circumstances will Superman kill?" I say the answer is "He will kill when he is certain that there is no other option. He will kill ONLY in the defense of others. He will kill only when he is the only person capable of doing what must be done. And he should never kill casually or without remorse. The decision to kill should always weigh heavily upon him. It should NEVER be an easy choice for him"

That's fine. My point was though that if we are going to simply "look at tradition" as a guide, the "Superman doesn't kill no matter what" people are going to come face to face with the fact that the true "traditional" Superman, as in the first Superman, not only didn't have a "no kill rule" he had no problem killing people at all. Hell he didn't even have to be in his Superman suit. Heaven help the gangster who tried to screw with Clark Kent when no one else was around in the Golden Age.



Mild mannered report my aching left foot.

[Superlad93]

The thread has deviated very far from the OP; Superman and lethal force. The thread has basically become a "MOS is wrong because it didn't/doesn't have the traits I wanted to see from a Superman film; what everyone else wanted and what sells to audiences be dammned" thread.

At the very least I have yet to say that. What I've been saying is that it was not the only thing that could have work. Other more mythical and wonder filled way could have been done. And so long as they treated the subject of these ridiculous seriously in their own context it would have worked as we've seen.

This is also all going back to the topic of Superman killing and how it didn't need to be in order to be serous or successful.

Harry Potter and Doctor Who aren't just fanciful stories children can enjoy. They do deal with mature subjects and have mature subtext in them. People enjoy them because they are entertaining. Superman is an alien who can fly, as well as several other other worldly powers. I don't see why Superman can't take it self seriously (realism) and come up with themes that both entertain and challenge the audience.

You seem to be missing my point. They do deal with very real and mature subject matter but filter it in the fantastic world where the impossible happens. When done correctly a story about Superman and having Krypto get sick off some rare virus becomes the story of that one time all of our dogs were sick. It's taking every day events or issues that feel super to us in the moment and filtering them through Superman and his wonder filled world.

This is the same formula that Doctor Who does and Harry Potter does. I NEVER said they were just "fanciful stories for kids" I said that they were fantastic and wondrous tales with silly ideas that were given the weight and meaning to allow them to reach past just "silly tales" even if their ideas are silly by nature.

Superman could very well do the same on screen is my point. This links back to the inherently impractical idea of him not killing and always finding away. It's silly by our standards but in no way has to be in his world. Just like sonic screwdrivers, poly juice potions, and wands. This is my point and it still stands.

Going back to the lethal force issue, outside of fans and writers who are fans; what is the big problem with Superman killing when the need arises? Other heroes (Thor, WW, Wolverine, Daredevil, Batman, GL's) do it. Characters in other franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, Sherlock, Harry Potter, Doctor Who) all use lethal force. The aforementioned Doctor Who would be the most blatant in the use of lethal force and civilians dying; in both the revived series (2005) and classic series. How many times has the Doctor committed Dalek genocide, blown up thousands of Cybermen (human brains in cyborg bodies), sontarans, silence and aliens of the week? All this is done in the revived series. For the classic series see the video below.

Nothing is actually too wrong with it, but it was the way it was presented, the tone it was presented in, and the world it was presented in that was the issue. Cap Thor and Iron man can kill in Marvel movies and get cheers for being cool, but Superman kills just one guy and fights in a populated city and people have issues. This is due to the tone and the striping away from the unspoken agreement seen in comics and Marvel movies. Once MOS decided to put this movie in as close to "real" as the could with the tone and color they shouldn't wonder why people find it a bit upsetting.

I imagine if he'd have killed Zod in a less gruesome way and the tone was that of something like a Marvel movie (just an example) then you'd just have a character moment on your hands and not a controversy. Or if, again, the tone was switched and the director didn't put too much focus on the idea of him killing. Iron man kills in every movie yet your hard pressed to get mad. The golden age Superman killed or let people die quite a bit but it was secondary.

You know, FOR KIDS! And no one bats an eyelash at this.

The tone, the way it was presented and the back drop of a world that is not too close to our own. I don't see why one would bat an eyelash at it.

Superman breaks one guys neck in defense of humanity (immediately that family in danger of heat vision) and people SCREAM bloody murder. Where is the disconnect? Why is lethal force ok for others but not for Superman?

The tone, the way it was presented and the back drop of a world this is very much LIKE our own. You show us a deserter movie with a superhero in it and will think of it like that. We'll cringe at the focused on deaths. We'll awe and cringe and apocalyptic end of days imagery is wrapped along with 9-11 imagery. They wanted us to feel the realistic hopelessness of those moments. The lose of control and safety as these forces rain down on us.

Avengers logically would have had the same ideas in it. But the viewers were smiling and cheering most of the time. Singing the praises of the heroes who are here to save the people in the movie. They didn't want you depressed and remembering realistic end of the world movies. They wanted you to what the triumphant birth of heroes who were here to stop it.

MOS put this in such a realistic context that what else would you expect other than a realistic cringe and aversion to the ideas?

[Superlad93]

It comes down to execution of the idea. MOS played out in such a way that some people disliked it. While other works of fiction are able to work in destruction and killing without frustrating these same people.

The killing in MOS brought everything to a halt. There was a big fight building up to it and a seemingly dramatic scream to end it. All of this focus was put on it in the movie, as if Snyder were saying: "Look at this! Look at this!"

Maybe if the killing in MOS had come from the natural progression of our main character, rather than being a situation forced onto him in the very last minute, and if it didn't bring the story to a complete halt, it would have been easier to accept by some of the detractors.

Personally, I do not like it when many of the Marvel heroes kill in the comics. When I see them kill in the movies I don't mind it at all. In the Marvel movies the killing is treated as a natural method of overcoming an obstacle or resolving a conflict. It doesn't slow the story down, in fact it keeps the story and action moving.

In order to fit a killing into MOS, it seemed like Snyder and Goyer elbowed their way through the third act and shoved it into the first quiet spot they could find.

Yup right there