Controversial Superman Opinions

[Ascended]

I'm not seeing how letting the kids characters go on adventures that are not obligated to be 100% realistic and not kill anybody is any less dumb than this.

We can definitely debate the value of movies that were clearly aimed at an older audience rather than kids. I myself tend to think that the DC films are generally too narrow in focus. In fact, I'd say that the majority of DC's products aren't designed for kids and that's going to hurt them in the long run. What kid focused content do they make now? Super Hero Girls, and.....huh. I can't think of anything else. Justice League Action has been gone for years, all the DCU shows are aimed at adults, the CW is aimed at that young adult CW crowd, Young Justice went in with the excessive gore in season 3 so that's not kid appropriate anymore either, the comics are typically aimed at adults and aren't designed to entertain kids even if the content itself isn't stepping over a line. Their OGN's are designed for the young adult crowd. DC feels like they're just giving up on the demographic they should, arguably, be most invested in. I know they still make children's books but those seem few and far between and lack any kind of serious marketing.

I suppose part of it with the movies was WB wanting their films to feel differently than Marvel's, and offer an alternative to the MCU, which is generally family friendly and favors big set pieces and quips over any deeper discussions. And I think conceptually, exploring characters like Clark and Diana and Arthur in a grounded, real-world setting offers some fun dynamics. But it definitely hasn't worked out terribly well for them and the execution has been all over the place.

And I think it goes without saying that WB and Snyder were trying to divorce themselves from the Donner vision. And all I have to say on that is "Good, it should've been done long ago."

As for dropping Zod's death at the end of MoS....I think that's valid. That's how most action movies end, except the hero never feels bad about it and we did get at least that one anguished scream from Clark. Had this thread been explored in future movies we'd probably consider it a triumph of film making and the most in-depth exploration of Clark's morality ever put to cinema. But no, instead we get a crazy Batman story where nobody even realizes Bruce is the bad guy, and then a mess of a movie that tried to wrap up the whole tale while changing tone and becoming the Avengers.

[SiegePerilous02]

We can definitely debate the value of movies that were clearly aimed at an older audience rather than kids. I myself tend to think that the DC films are generally too narrow in focus. In fact, I'd say that the majority of DC's products aren't designed for kids and that's going to hurt them in the long run. What kid focused content do they make now? Super Hero Girls, and.....huh. I can't think of anything else. Justice League Action has been gone for years, all the DCU shows are aimed at adults, the CW is aimed at that young adult CW crowd, Young Justice went in with the excessive gore in season 3 so that's not kid appropriate anymore either, the comics are typically aimed at adults and aren't designed to entertain kids even if the content itself isn't stepping over a line. Their OGN's are designed for the young adult crowd. DC feels like they're just giving up on the demographic they should, arguably, be most invested in. I know they still make children's books but those seem few and far between and lack any kind of serious marketing.

I suppose part of it with the movies was WB wanting their films to feel differently than Marvel's, and offer an alternative to the MCU, which is generally family friendly and favors big set pieces and quips over any deeper discussions. And I think conceptually, exploring characters like Clark and Diana and Arthur in a grounded, real-world setting offers some fun dynamics. But it definitely hasn't worked out terribly well for them and the execution has been all over the place.

And I think it goes without saying that WB and Snyder were trying to divorce themselves from the Donner vision. And all I have to say on that is "Good, it should've been done long ago."

As for dropping Zod's death at the end of MoS....I think that's valid. That's how most action movies end, except the hero never feels bad about it and we did get at least that one anguished scream from Clark. Had this thread been explored in future movies we'd probably consider it a triumph of film making and the most in-depth exploration of Clark's morality ever put to cinema. But no, instead we get a crazy Batman story where nobody even realizes Bruce is the bad guy, and then a mess of a movie that tried to wrap up the whole tale while changing tone and becoming the Avengers.

I think it's the dour tone and Clark's anguished scream is what makes it a difficult thing to dump on the audience right before the movie is about to end. I agree that if the hero is forced to kill the villain in such a manner, well he should be feel bad about it. But it needs space to breath. It's hard to imagine since we didn't end up getting it, but it may have worked if we'd gotten more of a follow up. Or preferably, it being placed at the end of a darker second film after we've gotten the audience invested in a more straight forward first film. I agree that seeking alternatives to the Donner vision and how the MCU does things isn't bad and I was an ardent defender of what DCEU was trying to do before we got the end results (and learned what the full arc entailed) but the execution fell flat.

In terms of the perfect tone of content, I just re-watched the Spectacular Spider-Man again as I was showing it to my roommates, and it really is perfect in capturing the essence of a kid-appeal character while telling stories adults can appreciate. The villains are also treated seriously and as nuanced characters without having them cross the line on-screen into violent acts. The Goblin and Venom have murderous intentions, but that's a bit different in tone than stories that have them succeed in bumping people off on-screen (over and over again). BTAS did this too, and it actually benefited the Joker. I'm sure Super Hero Girls is fun, but something for kids that balanced between seriousness and light is needed for a lot of characters, including Superman and Batman.

[Adekis]

Here's a hot take: I think Batman v Superman: Ultimate Edition is good. In fact, statistically speaking, I spend more time thinking about and writing about that one movie than I do on any other individual movie. It might not have done the best job getting its point across, it's not like there's nothing that could have been done differently - in fact there's a lot that could have been done differently, but its heart is beautiful. BvS is still worth spending time thinking about it all these years later. I get where most people didn't like it, but it's a cult movie now, with a relatively small but devoted set of fans, and I'm here for that. I think it's awesome that it still has devotees after all this time.

On the lighter side, I think Aquaman and Shazam were both pretty kid friendly, and Shazam in particular was, I think, aimed at kids about Billy and Freddy's age, and hit that sweet spot, balancing lightness and seriousness - well, as long as you like the jokes. Which... I don't, particularly, not in that movie, but I'm sure a lot of kids loved 'em. It was a moment for me of "Hey, DC media where I'm not the target audience, and which I don't 100% 'get', but which is still enjoyable. Neat!"

Because yeah, as much as I enjoy and have benefited from DC content which targets adults, it definitely shouldn't be their only or even their primary output. I think most of DC's stuff should be on that kid-accessible, kid-targeted, but still serious, level of say, "Superman Smashes the Klan".

[phantom1592]

If you want to get all technical, in Man of Steel the movie's narrative is that if Superman didn't kill Zod then those people would've 100% died, and breaking Zod's neck was literally the only thing that could save them. Is that really the case? I'm not so inclined to believe so.

Also, in Superman II, in the deleted scene the villains get arrested by "Arctic Patrol." Should that be considered canon? Probably not, but it's enough for me to assume at least the villains weren't meant to die.

I Think so. Honestly, as a kid and even as an adult, i never remember Superman 'killing' Zod at the end. I remember him neutralizing his powers and rendering him helpless. That essentially ends the fight. Everything else is just cleanup, but the hand crushing and standing up was the end of the fight. I guess i always assumed there was a big pile of snow or something at the bottom of the 'ice slide' but nothing in the characters behavior ever indicated to me that they just murdered the now helpless villains. Seeing the deleted scenes years later only confirm that to me.

[Steel Inquisitor]

You're using an arbitrary rule about what counts as a true Superman to judge the killing of Zod. Every action committed by Superman is chosen by the writers. If you're going to use the fact that Superman is a fictional character to prop up his heroism then you're going to also have to contend with the fact that every person he's saved is equally fictional. "The writer didn't give him the option I want" is always an invalid argument because no decision is going to satisfy everyone.

It's how Superman is written that counts, and most writers do't have him kill people as the only solution. No, not every fictional Superman is faithful, some are more faithfully written than others - another difference is what Supermen DC counts as canon. It's really easy to know which Superman DC Comics officially support as a canon: the Superman in Death of Superman - canon, the Superman in Red Son: not. Every Superman is written by someone, DC editors don't wake up one day with their stories in tact from the story stork, and writers can have multiple versions but only some are official canon. Grant Morrison wrote All-Star Superman and JLA - the one in JLA officially is canon. How a writer writers characters dictates how a character is received, Superman is character with certain expectations it's not a free for all. We're not in the Golden Age where continuity means nothing, continuity being a thing was established even in the Silver Age - read Stan Lee's X-men.

How writers write characters mean something, that's been true in comics and other media like tv shows and novels since forever.

The Kryptonians weren't killed, they were sent to the Phantom Zone.

In this continuity Kryptonians need to be in ships to survive it, they all die.

Superman didn't kill them so I don't see why they're being brought up.

Zach Snyder did, it was to show the theme of death as a solution to every problem.

Supergirl's Superman also killed General Zod and that didn't prompt any backlash. He also threatened to incinerate Metallo.

But did they say how? Which is a massive exception for him, for Snyder's Superman that's just whenever a criminal makes him angry, including humans.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Killing Zod in MoS is entirely, completely justified and appropriate for the character. He's a rookie without years of experience or tons of resources in the Fortress, innocent lives were in immediate danger and the entire human race was in slightly less immediate danger and Zod made his intentions clear. The killing was entirely justified for that version of Superman. People have the right to dislike it of course, and to wish the narrative had gone another way, but saying its out of character is straight up false. Now, what's not acceptable is the lack of follow-through in BvS. This is a plot thread that should have been developed and explored; even used as a reason for Clark developing his no-kill rule. But that's just one of many flaws with BvS, and does not reflect on MoS as its own movie.

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.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/david-goyer-...ges-1844506482

“If you the track the story all the way through, in terms of [Clark] emerging, his maturity, fully kind of understanding the power he has—and when they fight, the kind of devastation that is caused by it...we were trying to come up with a stalemate where he couldn’t just, we couldn’t just do a wink,” Goyer said of Zod’s ultimatum. But for the writer, giving Clark the decision to go so far was also about the character reckoning with his immaturity: the Superman who doesn’t kill is the one who’s been Superman for decades of comic book stories, while Man of Steel’s Clark is still very much closer to that young, unsure teenager who couldn’t save his dad.

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

[marhawkman]

And yet fans and writers ignore the numerous other legal lines superheroes cross.

You can't use this argument to defend a lack of lethal force and ignore it in every other scenario where superhero give the middle finger to the law.

*points at Savage Dragon*
Loved that TV show as a kid, and I feel that if superheroes were real a lot of them probably would choose to become agents of "The Man". Like Spidey says "with great power comes great responsibility" how responsible can a crimefighter be if they're a vigilante?

If you want to get all technical, in Man of Steel the movie's narrative is that if Superman didn't kill Zod then those people would've 100% died, and breaking Zod's neck was literally the only thing that could save them. Is that really the case? I'm not so inclined to believe so.

Also, in Superman II, in the deleted scene the villains get arrested by "Arctic Patrol." Should that be considered canon? Probably not, but it's enough for me to assume at least the villains weren't meant to die.

Given that at no point in the movie does Kal-El explain what happens to people who fall into the hole... I don't see much reason to believe they died at all. I think the scene got cut because it felt off rather than being a story conflict.

Nuclear Man is another case where the original plan was better than the theatrical cut. The golden demi-god we saw in the movie was supposed to be experiment #2. A more Bizzarro-like being would have been #1. That probably got cut for length. Much like the Gus Gorman movie was originally supposed to have made references to Brainiac and Eradicator... that were merely alluded to in the final version.

[Jim Kelly]

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.

I was watching a Hopalong Cassidy movie on Sunday and there were a few scenes where it all kicks off and Hoppy, California and Johnny are firing their six shooters at all the desperados, who drop like flies. It's not a Peckinpah massacre, with blood spurts--but the body count becomes ridiculous. There's no consequence if it's just a point and shoot game.

It's a good thing Starfleet has phasers set to stun, to avoid such scenes. If Starfleet can do it, then surely Superman can find a way to target his vision powers to neutralize criminals. And there should be some kind of sentinels or guardians, if you will, in the cosmos, of the universe, to take them in custody and contain them in a stasis field or neutral zone.

[manwhohaseverything]

A question for the people who hate Superman's code against killing, are you aware of the massive protests that have been going on around the US? The protesters say it's because of police brutality & cases where police have killed without proper justification. If Superman were real & killing his enemies, most people would be terrified of him.

And they have a right to be terrified. That's where the complexity and debate come from. He is a vigilante at the end of the day. Does that mean a person doesn't have right to justice or self defence? Accountability is a topic that should come up. Its one thing to actually address something,another to brush it under the carpet. What do people want? Superman's stories to be absolutely meaningless?

Zod really could have been sent to the Phantom Zone with the others and the film doesn't really change much. It would have less ending fatigue and remove the most controversial element.

On the contrary, i believe it would have created a bland ending with heroes standing triumphantly while the world is lost much. And, the speech with pa kent and clark was about choices having unseen consequences

[Robanker]

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.

I was watching a Hopalong Cassidy movie on Sunday and there were a few scenes where it all kicks off and Hoppy, California and Johnny are firing their six shooters at all the desperados, who drop like flies. It's not a Peckinpah massacre, with blood spurts--but the body count becomes ridiculous. There's no consequence if it's just a point and shoot game.

It's a good thing Starfleet has phasers set to stun, to avoid such scenes. If Starfleet can do it, then surely Superman can find a way to target his vision powers to neutralize criminals. And there should be some kind of sentinels or guardians, if you will, in the cosmos, of the universe, to take them in custody and contain them in a stasis field or neutral zone.

He definitely can if he can lower his heat vision enough to reflect off of a mirror surface to shave his beard. We've seen his heat vision melt bank vaults, so he wouldn't be able to shave that way unless he can control the intensity. Much like just clapping and knocking every armed goon down during bank heists, it resolves the plot too concisely if he can just apply a little heat vision to the enemy's mind and make them feverishly woozy and drop their weapons.

[manwhohaseverything]

That's the another thing, superman has problems killing. But, he doesn't mind condemning people to eternal "damnation" where the people would neither be living or dead. Is that really his justice or him trying to not get his hands dirty?what's the difference between his and the counsel of dead world? There are going to be people who can't be reasoned with, who resolute in whatever they want. If that's gonna cause massive destruction. What's Clark's answer(if superman absolutely doesn't kill) ? He has none.And that can be ok. If we are honest about it.

Fullmetal alchemist has protagonists that absolutely doesn't kill. The reasoning is solid(not that it needs too). The characters doesn't at all feel like moral posturing. They would disagree and try to stop their own parties from killing as much as they cn and they themselves won't. But, at the end of the day characters aren't treated like they are special. On the contrary, they are given a handicap.

As said, i can understand clark having a code to limit himself. But, he is no better than anyone for it. That has always been my stance. He shouldn't be written as he is better than the likes of hitman or jason todd or wonder woman. Cause he has a code. Everybody has lines they won't cross or can't cross, unless you are a psychopath.

[Steel Inquisitor]

It is about getting stronger.People generally hate out of the blue powerups that are unearned. Superman sundipping more than not feels like that. He just feels like a guy who doesn't need to struggle. I like to see superman break his limit by failing and falling. I generally don't care what level he is at. Wether he is leaping 1\8th a mile or out flying infinity. It robs tension from the story. There is also no draw back to this kind of sun dipping. Its not like superman lessens his life expectancy by taking the steroids . I just want a superman who has more tattered clothes and sweating bloody, you know. At the very least it feels like supes is doing something that's not good.Superman feels like he is cruising through life.

Mate, it's hard to live by some "commandment" written on some stone thousands of years ago. Especially, when you are faced with contradictions of life, insurmountable odds... Etc. Dude, there is difference between murder or excution(if its done in public) and the kind of "killing" that i am talking about. As said, morality is something to limit yourself. If you can find a better solution. Good for you. But, you don't get to lecture others on how to live their life based on your morality. You will be nothing but a high and mighty jackass. He isn't going to inspire anyone with platitudes of naivete from his ivory tower. Superman farely feels like that many times. What's he gonna do? Start lecturing soldiers on how war is bad? Guy with everything looking down on people with limited options isn't appealing. It automatically makes people want to root for the underdog. Btw, his world of cardboard nonsense or "i hold back" thing sucks if he isn't taking a legitimate opponent who is look for fair competition. Its entirely disrespectful and condescending.Many a times, i automatically root for the other guy than Superman himself.Also, when people are doing their utmost to help people, by getting beaten bloody and broken backs. Even in that world, superman holds back. He isn't much of a hero for me. It's his choice. He Can choose that.But, i wouldn't call him a hero. Sure enough, wanting a personal life is one thing. Being complacent guy in the professional life you chose is another.

Nobody says it wasn't, it being hard is why it's something to strive for its easy to kill to get out of stories, but not everyone needs to be a killer. It's also limiting with stories if everything just leads to: just kill them. Murder becomes execution in stories like this, it's not only a weapon it's a judgement. "You're too dangerous to live so you must die." In this instance that's Snyder's used Superman so I think that covers the subject. Morality varies, in some moralities cannibalism is accepted as the right thing - like with Hannibal Lecter. Luthor's morality dictates Superman must die for being an alien. Were not solely discussing general philosophy here, we're discussing how writers use Superman's, and his morality nearly is mostly "killing is off-limits" and when he has to kill it's more like an execution than snapping someone's neck in the middle of a fight. People, and characters in fiction, speak about their morality every day, Snyder's Superman doesn't do this talking he does it by action then nobody asks how he came to that conclusion in-universe. Everyone's morality gets questioned, which is why DCEU Superman's should rather than getting a pass or reduced to straw man by Batman because the two can't sit down and spent five minutes talking to each other. Superman, and characters like him, inspire generations of people with their morality in stories.

Superman did this in Superman 2:



You're not supposed to be envious of Superman, you're supposed to want to be like him. He's meant to be a role model. Who is the underdog who fights Superman? He's holding back because he doesn't want to unintentionally ruin peoples lives, including villains he's fighting. He'll put them in prison, he won't put them in the hospital or the morgue. Except the peoples he's fighting are ruthless criminals, Luthor is a man with more money than god, able to get away with anything, will throw his underlings under the bus to avoid getting hurt himself, and ruins people lives like we breath air. Superman's gotten beaten and broken, he's not invincible. The movies don't do this as well because they're far less creative and reduce Superman to only having physical troubles with Kryptonite. Snyder was supposed to improve on this, except he didn't. This isn't about being "complacent" it's about not killing everyone alike he's the Punisher. Now that's a guy who loves to be judge, our and executioner and we're supposed to believe he never makes mistakes killing or harming innocent people. There are versions of Judge Dredd more forgiving than he is, like in Dredd.

The best part i liked about superman and hitman was that he admits of his own nonsense.

I didn't read Hitman, but I know of the series and Ennis, but how does that prove anything? How were they "neutralised?" Sure what Tommy did took courage, but how is that any different from them and that they're able to get the job done without dropping bodies? Tommy relies on what he has, and he has to kill - something most heroes don't, because they're able to do it, it's not that they aren't courageous themselves. And to do this Ennis had to take the other JLA out of the picture, otherwise Tommy becomes useless and he'll be perving on Wonder Woman with his x-ray vision again.

[Agent Z]

I am aware of that. Many of the people who post demands that the code against killing to be gone, also want stories where Superman murders his enemies. That is why i mentioned the protests.

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".

[Agent Z]

It's how Superman is written that counts, and most writers do't have him kill people as the only solution. No, not every fictional Superman is faithful, some are more faithfully written than others - another difference is what Supermen DC counts as canon. It's really easy to know which Superman DC Comics officially support as a canon: the Superman in Death of Superman - canon, the Superman in Red Son: not. Every Superman is written by someone, DC editors don't wake up one day with their stories in tact from the story stork, and writers can have multiple versions but only some are official canon. Grant Morrison wrote All-Star Superman and JLA - the one in JLA officially is canon. How a writer writers characters dictates how a character is received, Superman is character with certain expectations it's not a free for all. We're not in the Golden Age where continuity means nothing, continuity being a thing was established even in the Silver Age - read Stan Lee's X-men.

DCEU Superman was saving people as early as his childhood, stood up for a woman who was sexually harassed, rescued people from an oil fire when a rescue chopper missed them, attended a senate hearing when asked and sacrificing himself to stop Doomsday.
Killing Zod, something he’s done twice in the comics and twice in other media, isn’t being that unfaithful.

How writers write characters mean something, that's been true in comics and other media like tv shows and novels since forever.

Yeah and despite how much you insist, Snyder didn’t write him as a villain.

In this continuity Kryptonians need to be in ships to survive it, they all die.

Where do they die in that clip?

Zach Snyder did, it was to show the theme of death as a solution to every problem.

This is easily the most absurd statement you’ve made in regards to these movies.

But did they say how? Which is a massive exception for him, for Snyder's Superman that's just whenever a criminal makes him angry, including humans.

Snyder’s Superman didn’t kill Luthor, in fact he saved his life. He didn’t kill the war lord and he didn’t kill Batman. Hell, Snyder's Superman barely fought criminals instead sticking to mostly rescue work. And you’re moving the goal posts, you can’t bleat on about “Superman never kills” and then make an exception when he does because it’s a version you like.

[Agent Z]

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.

All superheroes are vigilantes. Nothing they do is actually legal. I know this because writers and fans seem to hate when any superhero becomes an established law enforcer. Do you think killing is the only thing that is illegal?