Controversial Superman Opinions

[Ra-El]

For most of his history Superman didn't have a no kill code, yes, he usually wouldn't do it because it was kids books, but he wasn't completely against it. At some point the writers decided that Superman should the the moral authority of DC and that screw up the character more than anything else, imo.

Wonder Woman and Captain America are morals and they are used as examples pf what we should aspire to be, and the fans accept when the story involve them killing, as long as it is show as justified and necessary. Superman kills a guy who is going to murder the whole planet and the only way to stop him is killing and half of the fanbase and the marjority of the critics go nuts, and will say that Superman should always find another way and that stories that force him to kill is not a good Superman story.

And the worse part is that half the people complaining only see Superman on the JL, the same people who say the character is OP bu their favorite can kick his ass.

[witchboy]

For most of his history Superman didn't have a no kill code, yes, he usually wouldn't do it because it was kids books, but he wasn't completely against it. At some point the writers decided that Superman should the the moral authority of DC and that screw up the character more than anything else, imo.

Wonder Woman and Captain America are morals and they are used as examples pf what we should aspire to be, and the fans accept when the story involve them killing, as long as it is show as justified and necessary. Superman kills a guy who is going to murder the whole planet and the only way to stop him is killing and half of the fanbase and the marjority of the critics go nuts, and will say that Superman should always find another way and that stories that force him to kill is not a good Superman story.

And the worse part is that half the people complaining only see Superman on the JL, the same people who say the character is OP bu their favorite can kick his ass.

The outrage against Superman killing Zod is unreasonable. Superman was boxed into a corner, the alternative was to let Zod kill innocent people.
But somehow people don't realize or care that Superman killed Zod and Non, and Lois killed Ursa in Superman II after they were de-powered.

[DochaDocha]

The outrage against Superman killing Zod is unreasonable. Superman was boxed into a corner, the alternative was to let Zod kill innocent people.
But somehow people don't realize or care that Superman killed Zod and Non, and Lois killed Ursa in Superman II after they were de-powered.

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.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The outrage against Superman killing Zod is unreasonable. [B]Superman was boxed into a corner, the alternative was to let Zod kill innocent people.[/B}

Superman didn't choose to be in that situation himself, the writer and director chose it for him. That's the problem, the only solution they wanted Superman to have was killing someone. It's also why there was no solution to getting rid of the other Khryptonians, they all had to die, too. And Professor Hamilton, long time Superman friend and ally. Dead. Jimmy? Dead.

They could have found other solutions like other writers do, which are more faithful to Superman they just chose not to. That's why people don't like this Superman. Regular Superman chooses X, Cavill goes Y.

But somehow people don't realize or care that Superman killed Zod and Non, and Lois killed Ursa in Superman II after they were de-powered.

It's a 40 year old movie two Supermen ago, if that was made today it'd be under more scrutiny.

[Agent Z]

Superman didn't choose to be in that situation himself, the writer and director chose it for him.

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.

That's the problem, the only solution they wanted Superman to have was killing someone. It's also why there was no solution to getting rid of the other Khryptonians, they all had to die, too.

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

And Professor Hamilton, long time Superman friend and ally. Dead. Jimmy? Dead.

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

It's a 40 year old movie two Supermen ago, if that was made today it'd be under more scrutiny.

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

[SiegePerilous02]

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.

In the context of the film, Clark's action isn't morally wrong and is more defensible than some other examples of Zod's death. But the film also doesn't dwell on it and it doesn't play much of a role going forward. He ends up essentially killing Zod again in the next film. It was pointless, and Zod pretty much got what he wanted (Suicide By Cop trope in full effect), which isn't really the triumphant victory needed to sell Superman to a modern audience. It just made most people uncomfortable.

Jimmy's death is also an incredibly stupid decision (I've always been "whatever" about Hamilton, but his death isn't that bad), but that has less to do with Superman himself.

[Jim Kelly]

It's always provoking to me when the question is put as "Why doesn't Superman kill?" "Why doesn't Batman kill?" Which puts anyone against killing on the back foot--they have to defend the not killing. When it should be the other way around. In what society is killing the norm? I shouldn't have to defend not killing--I don't need to answer the question.

Especially now, when there are clear examples of people in authority making themselves judge, jury and executioner--and others rightly protesting such actions. If Superman or Batman put themselves in that position, they wouldn't have a union and regulations and lawyers to defend them. They would be run out of town. No one would ever trust them again. People working outside the law haven't a legal leg to stand on.

[Ascended]

If Superman were real & killing his enemies, most people would be terrified of him.

If Superman were real people would be terrified of him whether he killed people or not.

Regarding the no kill rule....we all know why that's a thing; because Clark's villains are too good to get rid and DC needed an excuse in-story for them to keep coming back. But that's been mixed with Superman's position as a moral authority and become a whole, weird thing that doesn't stand up to any degree of scrutiny. But at the same time it's ended up adding a really interesting twist to Clark's personality; he's against using lethal force, but will still employ it when push comes to shove and then struggle with letting himself down. It's a fun bit of hypocrisy in his character and works well with other his other flaws.

I think this is an instance where Superman's legend gets in the way of the character. In people's heads, Superman always finds another way and would never kill. But look at the page; Clark has killed many times. You don't even have to dive hard into the history to find examples of it. Hell, killing Zod in MoS is actually one of the more justified examples of lethal force in Superman's history. It's not like Zod was permanently de-powered and trapped in a collapsing pocket universe with no hope of escape and Clark killed him in cold blood out of fear.

I expect the general audience to be shocked by Superman killing, and expect something different from the character because they're not familiar with *who* Superman is, only his legend and reputation.....but comic fans should know better. It's not a common occurrence, but we've seen him take lives in almost every continuity, almost every format and medium. We often take the "idea" of Superman and his position in pop culture for his actual character, and that's a fallacy; Clark has never lived up to his own image, nor really tried to.

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.

[Ra-El]

If Superman were real people would be terrified of him whether he killed people or not.

Regarding the no kill rule....we all know why that's a thing; because Clark's villains are too good to get rid and DC needed an excuse in-story for them to keep coming back. But that's been mixed with Superman's position as a moral authority and become a whole, weird thing that doesn't stand up to any degree of scrutiny. But at the same time it's ended up adding a really interesting twist to Clark's personality; he's against using lethal force, but will still employ it when push comes to shove and then struggle with letting himself down. It's a fun bit of hypocrisy in his character and works well with other his other flaws.

I think this is an instance where Superman's legend gets in the way of the character. In people's heads, Superman always finds another way and would never kill. But look at the page; Clark has killed many times. You don't even have to dive hard into the history to find examples of it. Hell, killing Zod in MoS is actually one of the more justified examples of lethal force in Superman's history. It's not like Zod was permanently de-powered and trapped in a collapsing pocket universe with no hope of escape and Clark killed him in cold blood out of fear.

I expect the general audience to be shocked by Superman killing, and expect something different from the character because they're not familiar with *who* Superman is, only his legend and reputation.....but comic fans should know better. It's not a common occurrence, but we've seen him take lives in almost every continuity, almost every format and medium. We often take the "idea" of Superman and his position in pop culture for his actual character, and that's a fallacy; Clark has never lived up to his own image, nor really tried to.

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.

I believe the only true problem with MoS is BvS.

[Ascended]

I believe the only true problem with MoS is BvS.

lol I can nitpick some other problems with MoS but generally yeah, I agree.

It's always provoking to me when the question is put as "Why doesn't Superman kill?" "Why doesn't Batman kill?" Which puts anyone against killing on the back foot--they have to defend the not killing. When it should be the other way around. In what society is killing the norm? I shouldn't have to defend not killing--I don't need to answer the question.

Especially now, when there are clear examples of people in authority making themselves judge, jury and executioner--and others rightly protesting such actions. If Superman or Batman put themselves in that position, they wouldn't have a union and regulations and lawyers to defend them. They would be run out of town. No one would ever trust them again. People working outside the law haven't a legal leg to stand on.

Great point. I think the debate is framed the way it is because of the responsibility the characters take up. If Brainiac attacks earth, or Joker gets his hands on a nuke, then millions of lives are on the line, and the superhero narrative presents these things in a way that makes the hero the only person capable of stopping the threat. Which leads naturally to the question of accountability. It's just the "death penalty" debate, with heroes taking the place of state government and the added complication of "the villain will always escape prison to kill again with no real chance of redemption or reintegration into society."

You shouldn't have to justify not killing. Nobody *wants* to kill people. But if you put yourself in a position of authority where lives depend on your actions, you open yourself up to this.

I think the debate has been colored these last twenty years by the rise of American radicalization too. We've been in endless conflict in the middle east so long that kids who weren't even alive on 9/11 are now soldiers. Our police force has militarized, partially because of escalation among the criminal community (not the main reason, but it's part of the discussion). We look at our superheroes as akin to first responders and soldiers. If soldiers and cops kill in the line of duty (and this is putting aside the excess brutality debate for the moment) and we accept that because it saves innocents, then why are superheroes held to a different standard? Most people don't think or care about the fact that heroes don't have the legal authority, they just see that the hero has the moral authority. And those people aren't entirely wrong either.

[Agent Z]

People working outside the law haven't a legal leg to stand on.

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.

[Gaius]

I guess my view on Superman killing is that he generally won't since his powers means he's in a position where could take care of a threat without doing so but he will if it's in a situation like with, idk, Doomsday or something, same with characters like Wonder Woman honestly. Though I guess it comes down to how some writers/fans treat "kill or don't kill" as absolutes and either you always do or always don't.

Problem with on the Zod neck snap in MoS was it felt the film wasn't really building up to that kind of climatic moment for me.

[llozymandias]

Are you aware that it is not the simple act of killing that has caused these protests but that the killings themselves were unjustified?

Seriously, invoking the BLM movement as a counter to this argument is just insulting to what the movement is trying to accomplish and why it exists.

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.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think this is an instance where Superman's legend gets in the way of the character. In people's heads, Superman always finds another way and would never kill. But look at the page; Clark has killed many times. You don't even have to dive hard into the history to find examples of it. Hell, killing Zod in MoS is actually one of the more justified examples of lethal force in Superman's history. It's not like Zod was permanently de-powered and trapped in a collapsing pocket universe with no hope of escape and Clark killed him in cold blood out of fear.

I expect the general audience to be shocked by Superman killing, and expect something different from the character because they're not familiar with *who* Superman is, only his legend and reputation.....but comic fans should know better. It's not a common occurrence, but we've seen him take lives in almost every continuity, almost every format and medium. We often take the "idea" of Superman and his position in pop culture for his actual character, and that's a fallacy; Clark has never lived up to his own image, nor really tried to.

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.

I agree that the Zod killing was justified at that point, and that the arc could have been explored well in a sequel. MoS is sort of weak on its own for dumping that on us at the end and then changing scenes to him smiling with his mother, but a film series could have gone in an interesting direction with it. Or, they could have just had a straight up triumphant victory for Superman in his first film (that we need to get audiences to like him), challenge him by forcing him to end a villains life in a sequel (the Empire Strikes Back of a trilogy) and deal with the fallout and rebuilding in a third. Give it space to breath, and it could be great.

If it even needs to be broached at all though. I don't think we should bar it from existing, but some thought needs to be put into these things before execution. Superman is a character has mass appeal but is primarily aimed at kids. Ditto Batman. So having one kill a villain in such a visceral manner (no matter how justified) and the other mow villains down with his big ****-off guns on his murder car and engage in torturing villains for info, and then sell back to children, always seems a bit try hard-y and tasteless even in defter hands. They were marketing toys to kids and then expected them to go see BvS and watch their heroes beat the **** out of each other in an abandoned men's room.

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.

[Adekis]

I'm of two minds about the "Super-Heroes Killing" issue.

The first mind is this: Even though super-heroes aren't and shouldn't be real, we do like to see some realism in them sometimes. And if you're going to treat them even remotely realistically, then obviously morally complex situations are going to come up. Sometimes that situation is that a super-hero is placed in a situation where they have to use the most expedient application of force to neutralize a threat, or else pay a price. In Man of Steel, that immediate price is a family, and the more distant price (but only by a few weeks at the most probably) is the lives of every human being on Earth. Even if it was only one person though, killing an active threat to save them would be justified, right?

Well... maybe. But part of the appeal of super-heroes is also to see them do remarkable things, including finding ways out of apparent no-win scenarios. And if we tell that same story - hero makes a hard choice between killing an active threat and letting someone die - enough times, we take the impact out of it. Worse, we might risk making "hard choices about killing an active threat," the one thing super-heroes do. And that's... that's really not what super-heroes are for. And maybe that does have some unfortunate implications on real life morality or worse, politics.

I want the next Superman movie to put Superman in a position where he has to choose between whether to kill an active threat or let someone die. And I want him to find a better way out. And dammit, I want it to be Cavill, so the scene can't just be read as a dismissal of Man of Steel. I think super-heroes should be willing to kill, in extremis. And I think it really should be in very few stories where that comes up. Because they're super-heroes. I think that's distinct from thinking they should never kill at all. But they really shouldn't be placed into those hard choices all the time.

The norm should still be that Superman doesn't kill, usually, because he doesn't have to kill to make his point.


But look, I said I'm of two minds, and here's the other one: We worry too much about this. We make moral mountains out of entertainment molehills, and all too often, these are the hills we die on. Superman gets a lot of crap for killing Zod specifically because it was framed as a hard choice. When Iron Man killed Obadiah Stane in his debut film, nobody cared. Only diehard mega-nerds thought that made him a worse hero than Batman, who said he never kills, in a movie that only came out two months later, or a worse hero than Thor letting Loki live! Under most circumstances, a hero killing a villain, is fine, and doesn't particularly have many real world implications either.

Hell, every time, in an actual comic book, that Atomic Robo kills giant monsters or evil scientists, or that Captain Marvel Jr, or even Superman himself, used to kill Nazis or criminals in the Golden Age, it wasn't a problem. It's normal.

And it isn't normal in the same way that Dirty Harry or Paul Kersey from Death Wish normalize violence, not like that at all. It's just normal because super-heroes aren't and can't be real, it can be normal as a genre concern. It's unreal, in the same way that whether or not Heracles or Perseus kill someone doesn't actually have any serious impact on how we think of their morals. There could be ways of framing it that lead to unfortunate real world implications, but in general, every time a super-hero kills a villain, it doesn't have those implications. If anything, making it about the hard choices and the big moments, those moments can be read to have more unpleasant implications than if Prince Phillip kills a dragon, Aragorn kills an orc or goblin, or Obi-Wan Kenobi kills Darth Maul, without worrying about the morality of it.