Originally Posted by Smallville13
Grant Morrison on Man of steel
Quote: I kinda liked it and kinda didn't, to be honest. I feel bad because I like (director) Zack Snyder and (writer) David Goyer, and (star) Henry Cavill was really good. But it felt like one of those ones where it's like, "Bring on the second movie now that you've done this," and I don't need to see that as someone who knows all I know about Superman. For me, it was a bit "seen it before," no matter how they tried to make it a little bit different. I'm more looking forward to the Dark Knight version of Superman, the next one, where hopefully it will have Lex Luthor and be some fantastic second act.It's a credible Superman for now. But I'm not sure about the killing thing. I don't want to sound like some fuddy-duddy Silver Age apologist but I've noticed a lot recently of people saying Batman should kill the Joker and, yeah, Superman should kill, he should make the tough moral decisions we all have to make every day. I don't know about you, but the last moral decision I made didn't have anything to do with killing people. And I don't think many of us ever have to make the decision whether or not to kill. In fact, the more you think about it, unless you're in one of the Armed Forces, killing is illegal and immoral. Why would we want our superheroes to do that?
There is a certain demand for it, but I just keep wondering why people insist that this is the sort of thing we'd all do if we were in Superman's place and had to make the tough decision and we'd kill Zod. Would we? Very few of us have ever killed anything. What is this weird bloodlust in watching our superheroes kill the villains?
Source - http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2...woman/2586739/
Well, sorry Mr. Morrison, but you do sound like a fuddy-duddy. How many times must this be gone over: Superman has killed before. This is not a new thing. I'm kind of over the whole, "OMG, SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL" hysteria people have been wringing their hands over.
Yes. He. Does.
I don't care if you don't like it. That is not the point. The point is that Superman has been forced to kill, when there are no other options.
And Morrison is wrong on other counts as well. It is not blood-lust that people have. It's that they want to see that the hero is able to make the tough choices. They want to know what the hero is willing to sacrifice. They want to see that it's not easy to be the hero.
Truthfully, I am irritated by the reaction people have had. Anyone who has ever had to kill in self-defense has to struggle with that choice. For people who weren't in that situation, who weren't involved in that moment to sit back and say, "Self-defense is just murder. There's always another way" is as obnoxious as it is painful.
A no-killing policy does not make someone superior or better than everyone else. In fact, if you think about it, how many of the bad guys keep showing up in the comics? The heroes let them live, despite the death and destruction caused by them, and then the baddie shows up later, causing more death, more destruction.
Isn't putting society/the world/the universe at risk over and over again reckless and harmful? At what point does the balance shift in favor of the innocent?
Finally, Morrison lost me when he said that killing is immoral unless you're in the armed forces. He has no concept at all how much combat affects the soldiers, clearly. Also, he has forgotten about police officers. And people who have had to fight for survival -- ordinary people who have defended themselves against those who would do them harm. He's dismissed them and their suffering as if it's nothing. And for what? A freakin' comic book character.
So really, Morrison can go f-himself. His view of the world is based on fantasy, and the happy fiction that only super heroes and the military have to make life or death decisions. No, sorry. Not true.