Originally Posted by Prime
Of course, if Superman did exist it is realistic that he might come across an obstacle which the only way he could get rid of was to kill. Or kill to save countless other lives. BUT, that's just it. Superman does not exist and is a fictional character. Which means someone always writes him and it is the writers responsibility never to write a story that puts Superman in such a position. Because Superman ALWAYS finds a way. So creating such story plots would be against the character and is unnecessary.
But that’s the underlying concern/issue that many folks (some fans and a lot of critics) have. Because of Supes’ great powers and the high stakes and threat level that the villain(s) need
to represent, there would seem to be obvious/logical potential for some very dramatic life-and-death dilemmas. So it produces frustration and questions (or, at least, boredom) when writers only ever fashion G-rated, “no-lose” scenarios for Supes to confront. It’s like there’s this conspicuous “elephant in the room” that audiences (quite naturally wonder about) but which is never (or, at best, awkwardly) addressed.
Clearly, there’s a conflict between those who think of Superman as an actual character
who can carry a narrative and those who guard his wholesome image as it exists on pajamas and kindergarten lunchboxes (“think of the children!”). Imo, it’s one or the other; the melding of both is the problem.
Now, no one is suggesting that Supes be reimagined as some kind of dark assassin. I’d say that Batman in the Nolanverse balanced the challenges quite nicely. In BB
, he declared that he’s “no executioner.” In TDK
, he had the Joker in his sights but resisted the impulse to cut him down in cold blood. So there’s the moral idealism of the hero preserved.
But under extreme, “no-win” circumstances, there was no dramatic hesitation (or contrived angst) about the inadvertent deaths of Ducard and Dent.