Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[gkokujin]

i had a thought. We are finally getting to see Superman actually HIT someone...

but how do you think he should deal with these new villains?

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite

From what I understand, the original Brainiac was more or less an archetypical evil green alien and there wasn't anything in particular to point to him being a machine, but considering they never went into the details of his biology or lack thereof, it was easy to retcon.

It was less a retcon than a reveal, IMO.

[Prime]

WOW, so I was browsing the topics and bit and was kind of surprised to see such a topic and it even had over 1.000 replies (in the previous part) !! I hope that was all against the idea (I won't read it because I'd just get mad). I for one can say with 100% guarantee that if this, or any other Superman they make in the future kills or leaves someone to die ON PURPOSE instead of saving them, I am walking out of the theater and I never want to hear about it again. Superman shouldn't kill, period. If he does that's not Superman. It may happen in some weird parallel world or alternate universe story for all I care but I don't care for those.

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.

I must say that this doesn't include non living/organic beings like Robots or such. Those things are destroyed not killed, imo. Of course there's a question of AI but that's just too complex and sci-fi of a subject for me to get into. And again, writers responsibility for keeping the character true to itself and avoiding such storylines.

And this is not about the issue of Superman not being to save everyone, of course he cannot. But if he can, he does. Im sure some would support the ´´I won't kill you but I don't have to save you`` route that became popular after Batman Begins, but that's Batman. If Superman does that, that's a deal breaker for me. I wouldn't even read such a comic much less watch a movie.

[Dr.]

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.

[Prime]

Originally Posted by Dr.

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.

Well I can see what you are trying to say and do I get your point, but that is just how I perceive the character and therefore I cannot accept him ending someone's life in any way or form. Though, not for a second would I consider myself a guardian of the ´´children image of Superman`` you speak of, I do think of Superman as an actual character but I believe he can be that and carry a narrative without that narrative resorting to him killing. I don't think Superman should have exclusively G-rated storylines at all but I also think he should never become an R-rated. I enjoy the more gritty, angst (but not overt angst, which can easily happen) driven stories in the Superman lore, but only to a point and never when the character himself is being filled with traits that I would give to someone like Batman. You can create death/life dilemmas, dramatic moments and ´´lose`` type situations for Superman without ´´going for the kill``. There are plenty of story's in books, movies outside of Superman, with different characters, that have those traits but nobody kills anyone in them. I could start citing examples on how I think should be done but I really have no intention of writing a novel instead of a post here. I'll say again, it's up to the writer to create interesting stories without resorting to something that IN MY VIEW of the character would go against everything he stands for. You know, that's just how I feel about the character and if someone feels Superman could kill that's their belief. I believe such a viewpoint represent a misunderstanding of the character. But this is one of the few things in life that I do see as black and white issue, for me, Superman ending a life on purpose or a life he could save is a NO NO.

[hopefuldreamer]

NOOOOOOOO!

It was done! It was finally over! I fought for so long, but it was finally finished!

Prime, do you understand what you've done?!

[Prime]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

NOOOOOOOO!

It was done! It was finally over! I fought for so long, but it was finally finished!

Prime, do you understand what you've done?!

Why do I get the feeling that I did a baaad, baaad thing...? But me being such a great guy im sure you'll forgive me, though I am willing to accept any punishment you see fit, within reason of course.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by Prime

Why do I get the feeling that I did a baaad, baaad thing...? But me being such a great guy im sure you'll forgive me, though I am willing to accept any punishment you see fit, within reason of course.

I need not doll out a punishment... Just trust me, you will get your commupence when your another 1000 posts into this debate and start literally banging your head against a brick wall

There's just only so long you can keep having the same back and forth arguement over and over, making the same points over and over, before it will drive you mad!

[Prime]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

I need not doll out a punishment... Just trust me, you will get your commupence when your another 1000 posts into this debate and start literally banging your head against a brick wall

There's just only so long you can keep having the same back and forth arguement over and over, making the same points over and over, before it will drive you mad!

Right. I'll be sure to keep this in mind and slowly back away and walk out of this topic if I somehow manage to squeeze more than 10 posts in it.

[Franklin Richards]

Everybody lives, Rose!

[Rodrigo90]

Yeeeeeeeeesssssss!!!!!!!! He shouldddddddd!!!!!!!!!!

[hopefuldreamer]

*cough* Shouldn't *cough*

[Prime]

edit: delete

[Rodrigo90]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

*cough* Shouldn't *cough*

Fine! if Supes won't kill this thread, then I will. I'll stoop to a low level for the sake of Superman's good nature...Ma. get me my gun

[Wesley Dodds]

Please, please, PLEASE no.

I can't even understand why this is up for discussion...

[Prime]

Originally Posted by Wesley Dodds

I can't even understand why this is up for discussion...

I blame the freedom of speech.

[Lead Cenobite]

Nobody batted an eyelash when Superman seemingly killed Doomsday.

[Franklin Richards]

Doomsday was a flesh robot grown in a jar.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Franklin Richards

Doomsday was a flesh robot grown in a jar.

Ah, yes. Robots and demons. All the vicarious thrills of the justifiable homicide… without the guilt.

[Llama_Shepherd]

He also seemed to lack sentience, and lacks any sort of feeling at all. Doomsday as an entity is entirely unstoppable. He wasn't really even killed by Superman, just slowed down.

[Rodrigo90]

So what do people actually expect to see? Superman shooting Zod? Stabbing him? Crushing him underneath a piano?

Just imagine the friendly Superman brutally killing someone, and tell me if its a good thing to see...

[Kal-El.9859]

no...Superman shouldn't kill

[Nevaratoiel]

I think I agree with the majority here. Superman should never ever purposely kill (I may have answered something alike in the previous topic about this). There are always things that are out of his control. But Superman would never kill or let someone die if he can save that someone. He probably has some enemies he would like to kill, but he would never do it. That's just not his character. He'll remain a fictional character and he wasn't created to kill. So they shouldn't make him kill.

Overkill, really...

[hopefuldreamer]

I'm just going to add, that the original question by the OP was whether Superman should kill IN THIS MOVIE.

Not whether him killing Doomsday is okay. Or robots. Or whether he should be a vegetarian.

Just whether or not it will be okay if he kills Zod/Faora/another kryptonian in this film.

And I very much vote no.

My personal stance:

I'm okay with a 'back to the phantom zone you go' scenario. I'm okay with the military somehow killing a villain (I.e. Taking out Faora with a kryptonite weapon or something).

I'm okay with a Green Goblin in Spidey 1 style 'He killed himself' scenario.

I'm not okay with a Ra's al Ghul style 'I don't have to save you', and I'm not okay with Superman knocking someone a few storeys and killing them ala Twoface either.

And I'm certainly not okay with Superman making the DECISION to kill in order to protect us.