Controversial Superman Opinions

[Steel Inquisitor]

In my experience, the people in favor of the no killing code don't quite grasp the difference between "murder" and "killing in self defense or defense of others".

There's more to the no killing code then simply killing = bad. That's a straw man.

This

"killing in self defense or defense of others"

has numerous variables to account for which Superman can do and remain faithful to the concept.

This Superman did it humanely, and has a body of work in numerous situations backing him up so it's not his go-to for everything. This is an execution.



This is murder.



Superman's reactions to both are different, as well. He felt massive guilt over the former, over the latter he screamed once and never thought of it again then kept on killing.

This isn't just about killing, it's that killing is the only solution Superman should use to defeat the bad guys. A big problem with Snyder's Superman is that we only know his history by killing people, and being ambivalence about death around him (Lex's goons fighting Batman, being Godzilla in Metropolis) and none of this gets fully explored in any movie by Snyder. Superman's actions are never actually explored as they should, and all he does is pout in response.

[Agent Z]

There's more to the no killing code then simply killing = bad. That's a straw man.

Oh? Is that why we have numerous stories either portraying a Superman who kills as a villain or contrasting him against morally questionable characters whose sole flaw is that they kill?

This



has numerous variables to account for which Superman can do and remain faithful to the concept.

This Superman did it humanely, and has a body of work in numerous situations backing him up so it's not his go-to for everything. This is an execution.

Thanks for proving my point about Superman fans not knowing what murder actually means.

In the comic image you posted Clark killed the Kryptonians by exposing them to Kryptonite which killed them slowly and painfully. There was nothing humane about it. And this was after he'd stripped them of their powers so it wasn't even necessary. By contrast, Snyder's Superman killed a fully-powered Zod who was in the midst of trying to kill people and actually did try other means first by trying to negotiate on the ship, then sending him to the Phantom Zone, trying to subdue him in a fight and then pleading with him to stop his rampage.

Superman's reactions to both are different, as well. He felt massive guilt over the former, over the latter he screamed once and never thought of it again then kept on killing.

Yeah, I suppose Synder's Superman should have developed a split personality and then gone on to continue killing villains with the justification that they didn't count if they didn't look human.

This isn't just about killing, it's that killing is the only solution Superman should use to defeat the bad guys.

Which no one has ever argued. You're complaining about something that no one has ever said. No one is saying Superman should use lethal force as the only means.

A big problem with Snyder's Superman is that we only know his history by killing people,

No, it's what you as someone who hates these movies has chosen to hone in on to paint him as a monster.

(Lex's goons fighting Batman, being Godzilla in Metropolis)

He was against Batman for killing people and stopped him from chasing Lex's goons and he was occupied with having his face pounded in by Zod. You even linked a clip of him punching Darkseid through several buildings and having no concern for the people inside them. What happened in MoS was very typical of superhero fights including Superman ones.

[Robanker]

Yeah, my problem with Clark killing in Man of Steel isn't that it's murder, it's that he really did just kind of give in and say "well, I've got him suppressed but he's gonna kill them so I guess I have to kill him." I wanted him to at least try another thing (trying to fly and move the problem, move one hand over his eyes to contain the problem) and then fail, showing he absolutely has zero other options. I'm aware of the big fight that happens before that scene establishing Zod's threat, but in that moment he is contained and unable to move. It's immovable object v. unstoppable force unless Clark agrees to change the rules, but in that isolated moment he just resigns that he can't stop Zod any other way. I suppose that I never want a problem presented to Superman where he doesn't at least try a better way first, even if it seems like a forgone conclusion. He asked nicely, didn't get the answer he wanted, and directly went to breaking his neck without passing Go or collecting $200 and I find that appalling.

Nevertheless, murder? Zod was going to commit murder. He was going to kill innocent people for spite. Clark put down a murderer. He killed him, yes, but there's no premeditation. He didn't go into it thinking "I'm going to kill Zod." He clearly finds it distasteful so he gets no satisfaction from it. Clark asked Zod not to do it, and seemed like he went into that fight thinking Zod would be rational and not just force his own execution rather than face defeat, but he underestimated Zod's hatred and pride. The whole point of that movie was to build a new Superman who was flawed and, apparently find his way over the course of like five movies. Your mileage may vary with the execution of Snyder's goals (and I'm a vocal critic of his work at DC), but I don't think you can reasonably argue that Man of Steel gave us a murderous Superman without coming across as facetious. Snyder's Batman, however, is absolutely murderous, but he feels bad about it later so everyone gives him a pass because... Well because.

If we had to call either example murder, his killing the Kryptonians in Byrne's story is closer. He used it as punishment for their crimes as they'd been depowered, but he couldn't suffer they live after what they'd done. Their death is not humane, either, as Kryptonite works as a debilitating neurotoxin that shuts down their vital functions painfully. Ultimately, there's no real governing body in that world to rule if Superman's killing of them was unjust (thus murder) or simply capital punishment (which it was, frankly), but the entire point of Exile was that he comes down on it wasn't necessarily the best call.

I don't think either are murder, though. He's faced with a hard choice and makes it. The real problem is that while in the case of the three Kryptonians we had Exile to really explore Clark's stance on killing and how it defines him, Zack Snyder's Man of Steel is followed by an overly indulgent corporate wet fart that consists of slamming each character's best selling graphic novel into a pretty expensive shitshow. But the killing of the villains? Neither are murders, and Man of Steel's is a lot more humane than the comic example posted where he essentially gave them slow-acting cyanide that he knows hurts like all hell. Killing them was premeditated, to be certain, but arguably justified given their actions.

[llozymandias]

In my experience, the people in favor of the no killing code don't quite grasp the difference between "murder" and "killing in self defense or defense of others".

Three different circumstances;


1.) killing in self defense, someone is about to kill me. i stop them from killing me. in the process of doing that i kill them. Not that i would intend to kill them. it just works out that way.


2.) killing in defense of others, the bad guy is about to kill someone. the only way i can stop that is to kill the bad guy. and i would be wishing i could have found another way to do it.


3.) murder, the bad guy is in custody. they surrendered. they are in cuffs or tied up. i decide to play judge/jury/executioner & simply blow their brains out.






The thing about the code against killing is that Superman believes he should always find another way. He also believes that if he can't find another way, & can't avoid taking a life, then he doesn't deserve his powers.

[manwhohaseverything]

Yeah, my problem with Clark killing in Man of Steel isn't that it's murder, it's that he really did just kind of give in and say "well, I've got him suppressed but he's gonna kill them so I guess I have to kill him." I wanted him to at least try another thing (trying to fly and move the problem, move one hand over his eyes to contain the problem) and then fail, showing he absolutely has zero other options. I'm aware of the big fight that happens before that scene establishing Zod's threat, but in that moment he is contained and unable to move. It's immovable object v. unstoppable force unless Clark agrees to change the rules, but in that isolated moment he just resigns that he can't stop Zod any other way. I suppose that I never want a problem presented to Superman where he doesn't at least try a better way first, even if it seems like a forgone conclusion. He asked nicely, didn't get the answer he wanted, and directly went to breaking his neck without passing Go or collecting $200 and I find that appalling.

Actually, he asks multiple times for zod to stop. Heck! He even begs to the space hitler.

He wouldn't listen and clark realised he isn't gonna. Ever. It was miracle he evn got an upperhand. He got a chance. It was either he takes it or lets more people die. He took it. There is no alternative solution. Superman had no idea kryptonite is a thing. The chances of him knocking out zod is nill. There are no "chains" on earth that can be used to restrain zod.

[marhawkman]

With the vigilante heroes, like Batman and Green Arrow, we're supposed to feel it's an injustice that the police consider them outlaws, as really they're good guys. But I think when they start killing people indiscriminately then that attitude becomes less tenable. The police are probably right to be hunting them down and bringing them in.

This is a thing that's a big deal in Savage Dragon since some of Dragon's allies ARE vigilantes. In one ep of the cartoon Barbaric gets framed for murder and Dragon has to start the investigation by arresting him. Barbaric plays along with the arrest because he knows that legally it's the right thing to do.

Which is a regular thing with Dragon. Sure he has on occasion killed enemies, but it's only if he needs to. One recurring bad guy is an 8-foot tall and 6 armed spider-freak who calls himself "Arachnid".(meta humans are called "freaks" in that series) Dragon never tried to kill Arachnid because he never needed to.
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/images/1300-803773

[The World]

About the most American thing I can think of is the fact that a self absorbed billionaire heiress going on a killing spree received significantly less push back than an alien killing someone to save innocent lives. It's funny because Morrison tried to imply that Superman having an aversion to killing might come from his alien nature which people pushed back against because the wanted the Kent's (i.e the human race) to have credit for Superman being Jesus wannabe even though ultimately everyone and their momma knows no one wants to be like Jesus. We just want Superman to act like one so characters people like more have something to try and surpass or rebel against. It's probably why people keep whining about the power levels all the time, you even noticed how much people whine about how powerful he is but desperately want some other character to whip him in a fight? Imo it's clear that the no killing code isn't there because of some sanctity of life. Not while people are looking the other way when Batman does it, or the Marvel character laugh while they kill everthing that steps in front of them.

But I think it ultimately comes back down to Superman writers for putting the notion out there that Superman is some kind of perfect Messiah who's the next of kin to Jesus. Allowing the Donner movies to cross contaminate back into other media with Jesus angles was a bad idea that Superman continues to pay for to this day.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Actually, he asks multiple times for zod to stop. Heck! He even begs to the space hitler.

He wouldn't listen and clark realised he isn't gonna. Ever. It was miracle he evn got an upperhand. He got a chance. It was either he takes it or lets more people die. He took it. There is no alternative solution. Superman had no idea kryptonite is a thing. The chances of him knocking out zod is nill. There are no "chains" on earth that can be used to restrain zod.

When people talk about Superman coming up with other creative solutions to stop villains it's not simply telling the villain to stop. They can try, of course, but most villains aren't going to be talked down. It's a false choice presented by Snyder as if he "tried" when it was between this and killing someone. There was no third option - that's a big problem.

All that is true, and all of that is a choice by the writer and director to get a certain outcome, for Superman to kill Zod.

In other DCU's Superman has access to technology which can restrain villains he fights, and he has access to people in science (STAR Labs), militaries and corporations to help him do this. Superman's Kryptonian technology is useless compared to Zod's own tech, as well. Snyder strips Superman and his allies of agency to contain problems for "realism," which also makes humanity impotent against Superman's super-powered enemies, so the only choice is killing. Parasite, Livewire, Manchester Black, Metallo would all have to be killed since they can't be contained by humanity or Superman, safety.

The Military in the DCEU occasionally helped Superman in Man of Steel but he has no real relationship with them. He has no relationship with anyone except Lois and his mother. He only gets Batman and Wonder Woman after Batman nearly kills him with a ridiculous ending and Wonder Woman only meets him when Doomsday is unleashed, and he dies in that battle so he never becomes a true friend to Wonder Woman when he's alive.

You're right in Snyder's universe Superman's only choice is to kill.

[Lapsus]

For me, the idea of Superman (or similar heroes) not being allowed to kill implies that his morals should never be challenged in the story, the plot will always give him a way out to avoid confronting complicated situations. I am absolutely against this.

The Zod case is a moral challenge for him, is very clear that he doesnt want to do it, but he has no choice. Sometimes he would face enemies equally stronger than him, that he can not easily dispatch like the rest, enemies that require not holding back.

Most of the time, he would be able to knock them down. Superman should never kill if the enemy is disabled.

But if the enemys is too strong, Superman and other people lives are on the line, the enemy doesnt back down I don't see why he can't consider the option to kill the adversary, is not easy, it wont happen often but the option should always be there.

This does not have to imply that he is going in a killing spree in Metropolis or create the Regime and murder other heroes.

[Robanker]

Actually, he asks multiple times for zod to stop. Heck! He even begs to the space hitler.

He wouldn't listen and clark realised he isn't gonna. Ever. It was miracle he evn got an upperhand. He got a chance. It was either he takes it or lets more people die. He took it. There is no alternative solution. Superman had no idea kryptonite is a thing. The chances of him knocking out zod is nill. There are no "chains" on earth that can be used to restrain zod.

Thank you, yes. I agreed he had to kill him in my post. I get that he asks him to, but Superman is a man of action. I guess I wanted to see his actions speak louder than words. I remember when watching the movie thinking "this is his crucible, where he's going to be given a no-win scenario and find some impossible way to get out of it because he's--" and then he spins Zod's neck like a record and I was so shocked. Really? He just asked him? It wasn't that I'd forgotten the Metropolis battle, but really he finally got Zod into check and Zod didn't concede so he flipped the board. It felt really off for Clark. My friend watching it with me was fine because he was sure it would be expanded on later, but the very next scene has him swat down a satellite and crack a joke. What?

I agree that he needed to kill Zod. They didn't know about kryptonite, red sun radiation or anything else that could harm him. That's not where I draw ire, which I thought I made very clear in my post. I don't like how after he essentially won the fight, he didn't try any thing else other than asking him to not be a dick. He should have at least tried to relocate or absorb the blast now that he clearly had Zod at his mercy. He can't move Zod, but perhaps he can try lifting them off only for Zod to slam them back down. Have him shift a hand over Zod's eyes and then his heat vision burn through it. Something! Have Clark take action to get in the way. He doesn't. The conflict becomes ideological and Clark concedes to Zod, giving the latter the death he was demanding. I get it. It works for most characters but Superman is someone who makes the impossible a reality because his entire thematic in the face of adversity is that there's a better way if you are willing to really fight for it. During the Metropolis fight, he absolutely can just finish Zod and it'd make sense, much like with Doomsday.

The problem is they crash down into what is essentially a bottle and are given an isolated morality play. Superman now holds Zod in submission and Zod can barely move. Zod then presents the no-win scenario: grant me a warrior's death or I kill these people you hold dear. No mistakes, he has to die, but that shouldn't register yet to Superman because he's still begging to find a reason not to do it. If all he can think of is just asking, his resolve is already gone and the scene would be stronger if he just tearfully does it in silence. Him trying to reason with Zod shows he wasn't yet sold he couldn't help the guy see another way. That all it takes is "never" to sway Clark when he'd already contained the dude was really goddamn weird. He didn't try and get in the way. He just accepted "it's not going to change, he has to go."

It wasn't my dad's Superman, but I was enjoying it until the Metropolis battle. It was a new take. That scene just felt like a half-cooked way to do something shocking, which frankly is Snyder's MO. It's why he thought Martha was so damned profound. He doesn't really execute his ideas exceptionally well.

Perhaps I can't let go of the character I've been reading for decades, but that scene broke the entire movie for me because until that point I was enjoying it under the caveat that he was becoming Superman. Normally the Kents are far more supportive of Clark being benevolent but here they were far less altruistic, so perhaps it makes more sense that Clark just couldn't think of anything more than "could you not, though?" If you love the movie and that scene? Fine. It just didn't work for me. It's not because I don't get it. I just don't agree with it.

[JackDaw]

Superman should be as fast as the Flash.

[Ascended]

Because that's how the writer and director only wanted that outcome, they had no interest in him finding other solutions. Kill or die, those are Clark's options.

And? That was the direction they wanted to go in, it's supported by the source material and multiple times Clark has killed in-continuity.

They made a viable creative choice. You don't have to like it but what you're saying here doesn't show that it was a "wrong" choice. Just a choice you don't like.

They're incredibly dismissive about Superman finding any other solution to fixing problems, and once done it's not examined afterward.

They knew what kind of story they wanted to tell, they're allowed to dismiss narrative options they don't want to use. So what's your point?

And I've talked about how the lack of follow through on this is a flaw in BvS, and ignoring it in the last epilogue scene of MoS is arguably a mistake too, though I can understand why they'd want to end on a more positive note.

....and did you use the execution of the pocket dimension Kryptonians as an example of Clark killing the "right" way? Because I really, really disagree with that. Those people were powerless, having been robbed of every ability forever by gold kryptonite. They were inside a collapsing dimension, soon to die anyway as their reality imploded. They had no discernible way to get back to earth, or get their powers back, or anything. They no longer posed any kind of threat to anyone. Clark killed them out of unsubstantiated fear, and used kryptonite poisoning to do it, and kryptonite radiation is supposed to be about the most painful thing a Kryptonian can experience.

If you think that's more justifiable than what MoS did then we are not going to see eye to eye on this at all. The pocket dimension Kryptonians are about the worst example of Clark killing you can find; it wasn't done to save lives, it wasn't done in the heat of the moment when all other options had failed. Clark murdered people for no reason beyond a baseless fear that, somehow, they'd escape and get their powers back, despite the fact that they had no way to accomplish either and would've needed an "act of god" level deus ex machina to save them from their collapsing reality.

[Agent Z]

Thank you, yes. I agreed he had to kill him in my post. I get that he asks him to, but Superman is a man of action. I guess I wanted to see his actions speak louder than words. I remember when watching the movie thinking "this is his crucible, where he's going to be given a no-win scenario and find some impossible way to get out of it because he's--" and then he spins Zod's neck like a record and I was so shocked. Really? He just asked him? It wasn't that I'd forgotten the Metropolis battle, but really he finally got Zod into check and Zod didn't concede so he flipped the board. It felt really off for Clark. My friend watching it with me was fine because he was sure it would be expanded on later, but the very next scene has him swat down a satellite and crack a joke. What?

I agree that he needed to kill Zod. They didn't know about kryptonite, red sun radiation or anything else that could harm him. That's not where I draw ire, which I thought I made very clear in my post. I don't like how after he essentially won the fight, he didn't try any thing else other than asking him to not be a dick. He should have at least tried to relocate or absorb the blast now that he clearly had Zod at his mercy. He can't move Zod, but perhaps he can try lifting them off only for Zod to slam them back down. Have him shift a hand over Zod's eyes and then his heat vision burn through it. Something! Have Clark take action to get in the way. He doesn't. The conflict becomes ideological and Clark concedes to Zod, giving the latter the death he was demanding. I get it. It works for most characters but Superman is someone who makes the impossible a reality because his entire thematic in the face of adversity is that there's a better way if you are willing to really fight for it. During the Metropolis fight, he absolutely can just finish Zod and it'd make sense, much like with Doomsday.

The problem is they crash down into what is essentially a bottle and are given an isolated morality play. Superman now holds Zod in submission and Zod can barely move. Zod then presents the no-win scenario: grant me a warrior's death or I kill these people you hold dear. No mistakes, he has to die, but that shouldn't register yet to Superman because he's still begging to find a reason not to do it. If all he can think of is just asking, his resolve is already gone and the scene would be stronger if he just tearfully does it in silence. Him trying to reason with Zod shows he wasn't yet sold he couldn't help the guy see another way. That all it takes is "never" to sway Clark when he'd already contained the dude was really goddamn weird. He didn't try and get in the way. He just accepted "it's not going to change, he has to go."

It wasn't my dad's Superman, but I was enjoying it until the Metropolis battle. It was a new take. That scene just felt like a half-cooked way to do something shocking, which frankly is Snyder's MO. It's why he thought Martha was so damned profound. He doesn't really execute his ideas exceptionally well.

Perhaps I can't let go of the character I've been reading for decades, but that scene broke the entire movie for me because until that point I was enjoying it under the caveat that he was becoming Superman. Normally the Kents are far more supportive of Clark being benevolent but here they were far less altruistic, so perhaps it makes more sense that Clark just couldn't think of anything more than "could you not, though?" If you love the movie and that scene? Fine. It just didn't work for me. It's not because I don't get it. I just don't agree with it.

So he moves Zod somewhere else or absorbs the blast. And then what? Is he supposed to grapple Zod forever? Hope the guy gets tired? if he had done it without trying to reason with Zod people would be even more on his case for being a sociopath.

And the Kents only told Clark to think before he leaps which any parent would tell their kids. If you want a parent who isn't altruistic, look to Hippolyta in Wonder Woman.

[Steel Inquisitor]

[QUOTE=Ascended;5074171]And? That was the direction they wanted to go in, it's supported by the source material and multiple times Clark has killed in-continuity.

They made a viable creative choice. You don't have to like it but what you're saying here doesn't show that it was a "wrong" choice. Just a choice you don't like. [/qute]

They did it because that was what they wanted to do it isn't a valid defense. Snyder could have turned Superman into Bugs Bunny half way into the movie, it still wouldn't be right simply because he made it so. No, its not supported by the source material. People are jumping on the fact that Superman killed in the past so every Superman did it in Snyder's movies should be ok because he's Superman, ignoring the context of why those weren't as controversial.

What would be the wrong choice for a director to make with Superman?

They knew what kind of story they wanted to tell, they're allowed to dismiss narrative options they don't want to use. So what's your point?

And I've talked about how the lack of follow through on this is a flaw in BvS, and ignoring it in the last epilogue scene of MoS is arguably a mistake too, though I can understand why they'd want to end on a more positive note.

The point was that the story they wanted to tell was only about Superman killing someone, and its been continued with B vs S. They can't not make a Superman movie where he isn't threatening people with death or killing someone. That they can do something doesn't mean they should so something. WB can do anything they want with Superman, and there have been many, many bad decisions they've avoided like Jon Peters ideas. Watch Kevin Smith's pitch on Superman Lives on You Tube. That Snyder got this far isn't proof that he can do no wrong, numerous directors before him have failed this character.

[Ascended]

They did it because that was what they wanted to do it isn't a valid defense. Snyder could have turned Superman into Bugs Bunny half way into the movie, it still wouldn't be right simply because he made it so. No, its not supported by the source material. People are jumping on the fact that Superman killed in the past so every Superman did it in Snyder's movies should be ok because he's Superman, ignoring the context of why those weren't as controversial.

What would be the wrong choice for a director to make with Superman?

Doing something that wasn't supported by a detail oriented analysis of the character and his history and mythology could be a "wrong" choice.

Clark killing Zod is not a "wrong" choice, as it's supported by several instances of the same thing happening in the source material.