Superman

Well, according to All Star Superman, any guy "in a Superman suit" would end up behaving like Superman, including Luthor.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Well, too bad that didn't happen then.

Seconded. The point I saw in the movie was exaclty that being Superman was not about having more options than ordinary people, or being able to take the easy way out of hard choices. If anything, it was the other way around - that when facing other superpowered threats, Superman's choice is exactly as limited as that of any man, yet he still must act on it. That is what makes the distinction between the guy in a red cape adorning a few too many comicbook covers, and Superman - the former will always be a morally-void power fantasy blessed with options no real person can have. The latter however is the hero carrying the responsibilities only a few real people will take.

And that is demonstrably FALSE given the power set he has. Superman will never be limited to the same options ordinary people have.

Yes, I get it. Killing is your definition of 'hero'. But that doesn't apply here.

edited 19th Dec '13 11:36:31 AM by KingZeal

Touched a nerve there, didn't I?

Thing is, this means he can also never be allowed to judge others for the choices they make, including killing, exactly because they don't have his options. Face it - the guy in the comics literally lives in an invincible ivory tower. It's one thing to refuse to kill on personal grounds, that's fine. But when he encroaches on other, less restricted operators, be it The Elite or the new JLA, he's basically revoking other people's right of self-defense. And that's not even going into the utterly moronic "over here, over there" speech in Grounded. When bullets bounce off of your oversized chest, you don't get to tell people how to stand up for themselves, nor do you infringe on their own choices, should they not match your own invincibility-supported stance.

I half agree. I don't like the moral posturing either, but advocating a no-kill policy makes him literally the only authority that can scrutinize his other heroes.

Since you continue to bring up real life as justification for why killing is sometimes necessary, just keep in mind that the bureaucracy is always on your ass when you fire even one shot. The reason we let cops carry and fire guns is because there is a ton of oversight and scrutiny for it. Thus, if your argument is that superheroes should be allowed to kill when necessary, keep in mind that there is literally no one except Superman who can truly judge whether or not it was necessary. In the DC Universe, not even the government, who sometimes employs lethal heroes, can really do anything about it.

edited 19th Dec '13 12:11:53 PM by KingZeal

Really? Who died and made him king? While he's certainly powerful, that's not really a justification to treat him as an uncontested authority. Portraying him as an unmatched force for even governments to always reckon with is exactly the "power fantasy" mentality I was talking about. To contrast, look how the Marvel capes (and even some of the villains) revere Captain America and his advice, not because he can beat them into submission otherwise, but because he's Captain America and his moral compass is impeccable; and set long before he had any power to start with.

Really, considering there's boys in green out there who's day job is to protect entire galaxies, and who still answer to external authority, Superman is strictly middleweight in terms of power. He's neither morally flawless, nor physically unstoppable. He's super, but far from perfect.

edited 19th Dec '13 12:30:49 PM by indiana404

The Green Lanterns have no authority on Earthly judicial matters. And even then, the Guardians as of late have been dubious moral authorities.

As for Superman, well, are you arguing that he should take the law into his own hands or are you not? You can't sit here and argue that Superman needs to kill when it suits his needs but at the same time not scrutinize the actions of his peers. He's either a moral authority or he isn't. If he is, then yeah, he's literally the only person that can act as a reasonable scrutiny of lethal force. If he isn't, then he shouldn't be using it himself.

Superman VS Mondo. Superman VS The Guardians of the Galaxy.

Heck, when Superman fought freaking Lobo, did he actually win against 'the main man'?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

That isn't my point, though. If Superman isn't strong enough to pass judgment, that's a different problem entirely.

Either one works, really. It's the flip-flopping that does him in for me. Either take the shot, and take responsibility; or at least not bother those who do. That's the difference between good samaritan and self-righteous busybody. After all, Manchester Black was MI-5 - some interdepartmental red-tape filled in, and he can easily be licensed to kill, with Superman basically interfering in his line of duty.

As for being a moral authority - again, nobody voted him the cape and tights to begin with. He has no authority but sheer force. But because killing in self-defense or defense of others is a perfectly justifiable personal choice, he is both free to use it should he find it necessary, and forbidden to revoke it to anyone else when they do.

edited 19th Dec '13 1:22:41 PM by indiana404

Except that "self defense" doesn't work the way you're implying. I can't claim "self defense" if I involve myself as a vigilante and murder a criminal, even if that criminal was about to kill me. I shouldn't have been there involving myself in the first place.

That's why you can't have it both ways. Either you're a moral authority who decides whose lives are more valuable than whose, or you aren't. If Superman met the Punisher, he'd have every right to call him out for killing. He also has every right to criticize a governmental authority for killing. He might not have a legal ground to stand on, but since we're already taking the law into our own hands, why should that matter?

So, what makes Superman's killing of General Zod in the comic different from his killing of Zod in the movie? Also, do you think Superman would have killed or let Vegeta get killed if he was in Goku's position(s)?

That's why he wants you to have the money. Not so you can buy 14 Cadillacs but so you can help build up the wastes

Superman could've blown up Vegeta's ship and tossed him in the Phantom Zone. Of course, the Dragon Ball heroes could've hypothetically used the Evil Containment Wave if they didn't want to kill anyone.

The very best, like no one ever was. Check out my Spider-Man fanfic here! [1]

Most complaints I've seen about the neck-snapping in Man of Steel aren't that Superman chose to kill Zod when put in that situation; they're complaining that the filmmakers put Superman in that situation in the first place. It's like if Warner Bros. made a Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd shoots Bugs in the leg, and Bugs spends the rest of the cartoon trying desperately to evade Elmer while limping and bleeding through the forest. That would be a more realistic depiction of the battle between rabbit and hunter, it would get rid of Bugs's Invincible Hero status, and it would allow for a lot more suspense and drama than simply having Bugs outwit Elmer yet again. But that's not really what people watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon want to see.

Now, I have nothing against a story or character having many wildly different interpretations. I've enjoyed plenty of Darker and Edgier Wizard Of Oz stories, and plenty of Lighter and Softer Greek Mythology stories. But with Superman, which version you use is a little more contentious because he's not a Public Domain Character. When Snow White & the Huntsman (a re-imagining of the Snow White fairy tale as a dark, gritty war story) came out, that didn't stop a different movie studio from releasing Mirror, Mirror (a much more lighthearted version of the story) the same year. But Superman is owned exclusively by Warner Bros. If they decide to release a series of gritty, violent Superman movies, then those will be the only Superman movies for the forseeable future, and fans of the fanciful, child-friendly Superman are plum out of luck.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

Re-watched Man of Steel the other day, and I realized that Zod essentially made the choice to terraform (krypto-form?) the Earth, and thus wipe out all of humanity, so that his people wouldn't be uncomfortable for a little while...

Seriously...you can be a bit uncomfortable for awhile and take the time to adapt to an alien environment that, get this, gives you super-powers, or you can kill every living thing on it in an effort to make it like your old home planet...where you WON'T have super-powers. And you opt for genocide.

Hostility is inherent to Earth's biosphere. Heterotrophs reign supreme, parasites greatly outnumber free living species, the very light, air and water vital to life are also constant threats to its continued existence. If I came from an idyllic paradise I would want to destroy it too (since I do not I would probably just take the superpowers and learn to cope)

Given Zod's supposed warrior stance you would think his approach would be more like Napa's "Great place, the only thing that's wrong with it are these pesky human beings!" though.

That's why he wants you to have the money. Not so you can buy 14 Cadillacs but so you can help build up the wastes

Hey Vegeta, are we there yet?

Seriously, why would you want to live on a planet that's kind of like your home, as opposed to a planet where you have god-like powers? This confuses me.

what do you mean I didn't win, I ate more wet t-shirts than anyone else

Here.◊

Superman made the choice to kill them because they had literally destroyed every living being in their home dimension and he was the only living being there to pass judgment. So he exposed them to their world's green kryptonite (which he's immune to) and in their last moments, they turned on each other and died.

The main difference between the two was that Superman wasn't desperate when he made this decision. It was a calculated choice. Even worse than the movie, this Zod was an Omnicidal Maniac whose goal was just to travel to as many Earths as possible and commit genocide over and over. Superman, after deliberating for some time, decides executing them is the best option to protect Earth.

As I said, I personally think his state of mind at the moment of the act is what makes the reaction different. Man Of Steel Superman did it because he was desperate while Byrne-Superman did it after careful thought. That probably accounts for why fans flipped the hell out with the movie and not with Superman II or the comic.

edited 19th Dec '13 11:30:32 PM by KingZeal

I noted that as well. The difference with Bugs Bunny however, is that the wascally wabbit has never been styled and advertised as anything more than a cute comedy character, much like Asterix the Gaul. He was never presented as an icon, much less an example for people to follow, because the world he lives in was nothing like ours.

To contrast, at some point or another Superman writers decided to have him taken seriously, while still being propped up by cartoonish plot-devices. His moral posturing relied on utterly unrealistic conveniences that other people simply don't have. In Man of Steel, however, these were removed - people died when buildings got smashed, and superpowered single-minded villains simply had to be killed. Because this is what happens in our world, and having him really be an example for our world is that much more difficult. Yet, in my opinion, he still managed.

You don't say? That's the problem - of all things superheroes routinely get away with - vigilantism, interference in police investigations, keeping an unregulated WMD in international space - actually killing someone in the course of a fight is the least illegal bit. Once they don the capes and masks, they actually have no moral ground to stand to begin with, because vigilantism and paramilitary force are decidedly not part of any moral social structure. Once this line is crossed, actual killing is all but a cherry on top.

Holy shit, I would pay to see that! That sounds frickin awesome!

They already have plenty of material to work with, come on.

Yeah, that was pretty freaking dumb. Why not turn the Sun red while they're at it?

Frankly, I find "desperate and reluctant" much more satisfactory than "careful and deliberate", when it comes to killing. The Comics version's arrogance in particular practically verges on A God Am I.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Again, Slippery Slope Fallacy. It's one thing to be a vigilante. It's another thing to be a vigilante that kills people.

I really think you have a disturbing idea of how logic, let alone morality, works.

Not really, no. At least none with the same realization as Man Of Steel or any of the other recent superhero films. Superman's more idealistic character being treated being explored with anything but flat-out contempt is a rarity in anything except the most campy of camp films. As I said in another thread, you can't really call a "Deconstruction" of Superman a "Deconstruction" anymore. It's become the new reality.

edited 20th Dec '13 12:22:29 AM by KingZeal

When people start dying along with your involvement, it's pretty much the same. It's just that the guys in the comics get unrealistically lucky in that regard.

Ditto. Though I think this boils down to one simple element that comics are often accused of, sometimes rightfully - that of the power-fantasy. A guy in costume who claims moral authority because his power is both unlimited by human restraints, and unmatched by human opposition, is nothing more than a juvenile dictator with no conscience or understanding of other people's concerns. A guy who can claim never killing, even in accident, only because of writer fiat is all but a prop for a shortsighted Author Tract. But the man who dons the cape explicitly ready to sacrifice himself for the sake of others, having less choice and facing more dangers than them - that is a Superman.

edited 20th Dec '13 12:23:51 AM by indiana404

No. It. Isn't!

Dear God, you keep repeating this stuff. If someone dies despite you making a very plausible and earnest attempt to save them, that is not your "fault". It's nobody's fault. Again, arguing otherwise is doing a disservice to every cop, soldier, peace officer, and good samaritan that tried to do good but failed. It happens.

And the same, and worse, is true of the murderous anti-heroes! How many shots has The Punisher fired that magically managed to miss innocent civilians or cause any collateral damage?

I mean, for God's sake, in the last movie, he killed an undercover cop because he shot first and asked questions later. If that doesn't defeat this entire argument, then I don't know what you want.

Actually, it only strengthens it, at least in regard to the Punisher over any other vigilante - because he never claims to be anything more. He's a killer through and through and has never pretended otherwise.

To contrast, what happens when a batarang accidentally ricochets and kills a bystander? When a superpunch sends the villain smashing into a building full of people, and it promptly collapses on top of them? The exact same thing. Try claiming to stand for truth and justice after a disaster like that, or preach a non-lethal stance surrounded by the fallout. Yet this is why any such occasion in the comics has turned out to be a massive Writer Cop Out - because it's not the Punisher, but the colorful capes that can't live with it otherwise. Realistically, all such vigilanties would be murderous anti-heroes - and they started as such before the Moral Guardians set in and put kiddie gloves on everyone. Man of Steel simply removed them, and showed the logical result.