The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Superman > Man of Steel

View Poll Results: Should this Superman kill?
No. 133 70.00%
Yes, its about time 32 16.84%
He should Find a way to send them to the Phantom Zone 14 7.37%
Other (explain) 11 5.79%
Voters: 190. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-05-2012, 09:26 AM   #126
hopefuldreamer
Bangarang!
 
hopefuldreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South West, UK
Posts: 11,158
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins View Post
Of course he doesn't, but He behaves like a vigilante (without killing anybody) and he does not hesitate to break few bones or teeth.

BTW, look how low his "S" shield is placed.
I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest he shouldn't do that though...

So what's your point?

__________________
I think back to my father. As a farmer, he had a natural understanding for the Earth. I remember him telling me this world is capable of providing for all its creatures. Even now, with so many more people, there exists enough food for everyone.

"The problem," Pa used to say, "is people. As far back as we go, we've always had problems with sharing. Seems everyone's too busy holding on to what they've got to care how their neighbors are doing."


*\S/T*
hopefuldreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 10:19 AM   #127
Bruce_Begins
I am still Green Goblin
 
Bruce_Begins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,978
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide View Post
I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest he shouldn't do that though...

So what's your point?
In comics he acts more like a Boy Scout than a vigilante and, General audience think of him as more like a Fireman than a Cop, and -

We haven't seen him throw a punch in many movies, for example -Superman The Movie, Superman 3, Superman Returns.

__________________

*\S/T*
Bruce_Begins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 10:23 AM   #128
elgaz
Side-Kick
 
elgaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,747
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

The recent reimagining of the DC characters has introduced a Superman who isn't averse to roughing up criminals a little. I wouldn't mind if he was like that in MOS. He's not at the Batman level yet - dropping them off buildings to break their legs - but he's definitely not as concerned about minor injuries as he was in earlier comics. He'll happily push them around, throw them a bit, inflict a few bruises. And rightly so. Superman may not have to frighten criminals in the same way that Batman does by lurking in shadows and wearing that mask, but he should certainly intimidate them with his sheer physical size, power and presence.

I've never liked this idea of a softly, softly approach from Superman. Criminals simply go "Oh here's Superman again, he'll carefully tie us up and drop us at the cop shop .... and we'll be out in 2 weeks. Nothing to fear".

We have to remember also that Superman's idea of roughing someone up is entirely different to Batman's. Even using a fraction of 0.1% of his power could kill a human.

elgaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 10:39 AM   #129
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by LibidoLoca View Post
Oh snarkilicious Supes.

I want him to kill just to see the inevitable conversations it would generate on this board.
Ah I've thought that so many times...

That's why I bought and enjoyed the hell of All Star Batman & Robin, just by imagining fans flipping out.

El Payaso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 10:45 AM   #130
Bruce_Begins
I am still Green Goblin
 
Bruce_Begins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,978
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

I have seen some posters on Bat - boards complain that Batman was not averse to killing Joker in Batman '89. I mean really ? Batman was like that in his early incarnations, that is where Burton based his Bat movies.

__________________

*\S/T*
Bruce_Begins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 01:07 PM   #131
Rodrigo90
RIP Robin
 
Rodrigo90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 19,129
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Batman killing NEVER made sense.

Why the hell would a guy train in martial arts if he was just going to shoot people? As there was a scene in a comic where he shot someone and didn't think twice and tried justifying it.

Any hero who kills in any way for whatever reason, shouldn't be a hero at all. Just go The Punisher route.

To make sense of it, Batman shouldn't have trained in martial arts, cause that is intended to incapacitate. By right, he should have trained in firearms. Cause what is the point of being a figure like Batman, designed to scare criminals and beat them silly, if he just kills them? It doesn't make sense.

It made sense that he listened to his dad's philosophy, a doctor's outlook of sorts, since Thomas Wayne was one, that "life is sacred and we must do what we can to preserve it, no matter who it belongs to".

If Superman had intentions to kill, he would be a far different character. His characterization and the background prevents him from seeing murder as an option. Would it make sense if Johnathan Kent told his potentiality dangerous son that's OK to kill, when he teaches him the morals of life that he wants his son to follow, because that's how decent people behave?

"Remember, Clark. Always put others before yourself. Say nice things. Help people. Make me proud...Oh, it's OK you kill criminals though"

__________________
"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles "
Christopher Reeve

I believe in Batfleck

Things I have been right about before they were confirmed -
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
1. Superman having no trunks
2. Bruce Wayne retiring and Batman being made a martyr
3. Bryan Cranston NOT being Lex Luthor
4. Joker being the big bad in Batman: Arkham Origins
5. Green Goblin not wearing a mask and being mutated
Rodrigo90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 02:57 PM   #132
hopefuldreamer
Bangarang!
 
hopefuldreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South West, UK
Posts: 11,158
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins View Post
In comics he acts more like a Boy Scout than a vigilante and, General audience think of him as more like a Fireman than a Cop, and -

We haven't seen him throw a punch in many movies, for example -Superman The Movie, Superman 3, Superman Returns.
True.

Which is why we're all quite excited to seehim throw a punch and not act like a boyscout in this film...

I still don't see what that has to do with whether or not he should kill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo90 View Post

If Superman had intentions to kill, he would be a far different character. His characterization and the background prevents him from seeing murder as an option. Would it make sense if Johnathan Kent told his potentiality dangerous son that's OK to kill, when he teaches him the morals of life that he wants his son to follow, because that's how decent people behave?

"Remember, Clark. Always put others before yourself. Say nice things. Help people. Make me proud...Oh, it's OK you kill criminals though"
No one in the real world grows up being told that. Killing criminals is still killing. If you're a vigilante you still have to answer to the law like a murderer.

__________________
I think back to my father. As a farmer, he had a natural understanding for the Earth. I remember him telling me this world is capable of providing for all its creatures. Even now, with so many more people, there exists enough food for everyone.

"The problem," Pa used to say, "is people. As far back as we go, we've always had problems with sharing. Seems everyone's too busy holding on to what they've got to care how their neighbors are doing."


*\S/T*
hopefuldreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 03:14 PM   #133
Rodrigo90
RIP Robin
 
Rodrigo90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 19,129
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide View Post
No one in the real world grows up being told that. Killing criminals is still killing. If you're a vigilante you still have to answer to the law like a murderer.
Exactly. It's OK for a vigilantie to BEND the rules, but to break them? Especially Superman?

People are suggesting to eliminate Superman's morals, his very characterisation that he has had for over 70 years, and for what? Honestly, this thread has lost the plot

__________________
"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles "
Christopher Reeve

I believe in Batfleck

Things I have been right about before they were confirmed -
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
1. Superman having no trunks
2. Bruce Wayne retiring and Batman being made a martyr
3. Bryan Cranston NOT being Lex Luthor
4. Joker being the big bad in Batman: Arkham Origins
5. Green Goblin not wearing a mask and being mutated
Rodrigo90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 09:52 PM   #134
Fudgie
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,197
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo90 View Post
Batman killing NEVER made sense.

Why the hell would a guy train in martial arts if he was just going to shoot people? As there was a scene in a comic where he shot someone and didn't think twice and tried justifying it.

Any hero who kills in any way for whatever reason, shouldn't be a hero at all. Just go The Punisher route.

To make sense of it, Batman shouldn't have trained in martial arts, cause that is intended to incapacitate. By right, he should have trained in firearms. Cause what is the point of being a figure like Batman, designed to scare criminals and beat them silly, if he just kills them? It doesn't make sense.

It made sense that he listened to his dad's philosophy, a doctor's outlook of sorts, since Thomas Wayne was one, that "life is sacred and we must do what we can to preserve it, no matter who it belongs to".

If Superman had intentions to kill, he would be a far different character. His characterization and the background prevents him from seeing murder as an option. Would it make sense if Johnathan Kent told his potentiality dangerous son that's OK to kill, when he teaches him the morals of life that he wants his son to follow, because that's how decent people behave?

"Remember, Clark. Always put others before yourself. Say nice things. Help people. Make me proud...Oh, it's OK you kill criminals though"
Hear hear.

Fudgie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 10:57 PM   #135
KRIM
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,661
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo90 View Post
Batman killing NEVER made sense.

Why the hell would a guy train in martial arts if he was just going to shoot people? As there was a scene in a comic where he shot someone and didn't think twice and tried justifying it.
Because Bruce Wayne wanted to a rounded vigilante? Because guns won't always be ideal in certain situations? Because you won't always have access to a gun? Because knowing how to use just your body is an all-encompassing skillset?

Quote:
Any hero who kills in any way for whatever reason, shouldn't be a hero at all. Just go The Punisher route.
That's a narrow definition of what a hero is. In the broadest sense they are admired and supported for performing feats that take courage, strength, and will. Most of the time it is something that people aren't likely to engage in, making them unique. This makes their actions more revered, for it's something that is needed/desired, but takes a special type to get it done.

Let's also not forget that Batman did predate the likes of Punisher by decades. Regardless of what they're known for now, Batman was one of the original superhero killers.

Quote:
To make sense of it, Batman shouldn't have trained in martial arts, cause that is intended to incapacitate. By right, he should have trained in firearms. Cause what is the point of being a figure like Batman, designed to scare criminals and beat them silly, if he just kills them? It doesn't make sense.
I don't really think you've thought this through very well. That is an absurd use of logic. Would you like to challenge the armed forces in why they "bothered" training their soldiers in hand-to-hand combat when they could have made a full push in exclusive weapons training? Or hell, ask the billions of people who have trained in martial arts, who will never actually use their talents in a real world scenario? Is this all wasted?

Quote:
It made sense that he listened to his dad's philosophy, a doctor's outlook of sorts, since Thomas Wayne was one, that "life is sacred and we must do what we can to preserve it, no matter who it belongs to".
Thomas was tailored to suit that post-CCA influenced Batman. This is fiction after all. Of course the supporting characters are there to inform and shape the titular character's behavior and mindset. You don't think they could have just as easily written it so Bruce did support guns or murder because of something imparted by his parents?

Quote:
If Superman had intentions to kill, he would be a far different character. His characterization and the background prevents him from seeing murder as an option. Would it make sense if Johnathan Kent told his potentiality dangerous son that's OK to kill, when he teaches him the morals of life that he wants his son to follow, because that's how decent people behave?

"Remember, Clark. Always put others before yourself. Say nice things. Help people. Make me proud...Oh, it's OK you kill criminals though"
You're arguing against a false dilemma. Those words would never come from Jonathan's mouth because it is blatantly contradictory. If Jonathan was used as the catalyst to shape Clark's values, his words would directly reflect the spectrum of morality he believes in. IF Jonathan supported murder (of any kind), it would likely be justified as getting rid of "bad people" who would do more harm living than they are dead.

KRIM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2012, 08:16 AM   #136
Rodrigo90
RIP Robin
 
Rodrigo90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 19,129
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRIM View Post
Because Bruce Wayne wanted to a rounded vigilante? Because guns won't always be ideal in certain situations? Because you won't always have access to a gun? Because knowing how to use just your body is an all-encompassing skillset?
The point is though, why bother training that way, if he was just going to kill? The focus should have been him training to be a stone cold killer. But Batman killing in the early days was never out of rage or malice, it was mostly convenience for him. He trained to stop criminals, not kill them. His methods were designed specifically to stop, not kill. If he was a real killer, he would have trained in others ways. So it never made sense that he would train in this way, just to arrest some, and kill a few? But as I said, he killed out of convenience. The writer thinking of an easy way to explain the problem away, killing them off.


Quote:
That's a narrow definition of what a hero is. In the broadest sense they are admired and supported for performing feats that take courage, strength, and will. Most of the time it is something that people aren't likely to engage in, making them unique. This makes their actions more revered, for it's something that is needed/desired, but takes a special type to get it done.

Let's also not forget that Batman did predate the likes of Punisher by decades. Regardless of what they're known for now, Batman was one of the original superhero killers.
Batman was therefore, an Anti-hero, like The Punisher. Soldiers who kill to save their country, can be considered heroes. Ordinary men who become vigilanties and kill out of personal reasons, I wouldn't consider them heroes. Bruce became Batman to stop what happened to him, happening to anyone else, noble, yes. But killing criminals isn't noble, especially when it's uncalled for when they're are alternatives. I admire The Punisher and the old Batman as Anti-heroes though.


Quote:
I don't really think you've thought this through very well. That is an absurd use of logic. Would you like to challenge the armed forces in why they "bothered" training their soldiers in hand-to-hand combat when they could have made a full push in exclusive weapons training? Or hell, ask the billions of people who have trained in martial arts, who will never actually use their talents in a real world scenario? Is this all wasted?
But wouldn't Batman have focused on killing methods instead of martial arts, which were designed to beat down and incapacitate the enemy? Wouldn't have trained to kill after even in his martial arts?[/QUOTE]


Quote:
Thomas was tailored to suit that post-CCA influenced Batman. This is fiction after all. Of course the supporting characters are there to inform and shape the titular character's behavior and mindset. You don't think they could have just as easily written it so Bruce did support guns or murder because of something imparted by his parents?
Very true. But I would have expected Bruce to shun the act of killing, especially when he was a victim of it. But those were the early days of the character, the original ways. They were just starting out with this initial idea, but when you look at it after years of added work and other characterisations from other writers, you see that non-killing Batman made more sense. It's more though out, and preferable.


Quote:
You're arguing against a false dilemma. Those words would never come from Jonathan's mouth because it is blatantly contradictory. If Jonathan was used as the catalyst to shape Clark's values, his words would directly reflect the spectrum of morality he believes in. IF Jonathan supported murder (of any kind), it would likely be justified as getting rid of "bad people" who would do more harm living than they are dead.
True, but Clark was taught to always do the right thing. Killing is not right. Others may dirty their hands in blood, which will taint them forever, being on a very bleak path which will never end, but not Superman. It's not even a choice for him, he doesn't have the nature to kill.

__________________
"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles "
Christopher Reeve

I believe in Batfleck

Things I have been right about before they were confirmed -
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
1. Superman having no trunks
2. Bruce Wayne retiring and Batman being made a martyr
3. Bryan Cranston NOT being Lex Luthor
4. Joker being the big bad in Batman: Arkham Origins
5. Green Goblin not wearing a mask and being mutated
Rodrigo90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2012, 05:26 PM   #137
KRIM
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,661
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo90 View Post
The point is though, why bother training that way, if he was just going to kill? The focus should have been him training to be a stone cold killer. But Batman killing in the early days was never out of rage or malice, it was mostly convenience for him. He trained to stop criminals, not kill them. His methods were designed specifically to stop, not kill. If he was a real killer, he would have trained in others ways. So it never made sense that he would train in this way, just to arrest some, and kill a few? But as I said, he killed out of convenience. The writer thinking of an easy way to explain the problem away, killing them off.
Batman killed when he absolutely had to or if it was a consequence of him plunging through enemies to meet an end goal. He didn't go out every night with the intention to kill. But he also didn't have any apprehensions if you were in his way. What happens, he'll let happen. Giving finality to his enemies had purpose; to showcase Batman wasn't the law and that this is a force of nature that could genuinely threaten criminals.

Quote:
Batman was therefore, an Anti-hero, like The Punisher. Soldiers who kill to save their country, can be considered heroes. Ordinary men who become vigilanties and kill out of personal reasons, I wouldn't consider them heroes. Bruce became Batman to stop what happened to him, happening to anyone else, noble, yes. But killing criminals isn't noble, especially when it's uncalled for when they're are alternatives. I admire The Punisher and the old Batman as Anti-heroes though.
It could absolutely be considered noble when they're doing the dirty work that no one is willing to do. Why do you think Punisher was successful? In recent time, Dexter Morgan has become a prominent pop figure precisely his idealogy challenges the accepted norm and is a representation of primal urges that is no doubt present in societal justice.

Quote:
But wouldn't Batman have focused on killing methods instead of martial arts, which were designed to beat down and incapacitate the enemy? Wouldn't have trained to kill after even in his martial arts?
Most martial arts emphasize and incorporate defense, but not all of them. There are a rare few that do cross the line of mortality. This wasn't the era of the comics that explored origins too much however. It was more concerned with the here and now, with a sprinkle of backstory (usually a page or two at most). In any case, the ability to kill in combat is the endpoint in physical engagement. You don't just get to that level without perfecting the basics. I will bring up soldiers again, who have been given permission to kill with firearms as well as their own bodies. They are trained in every possible way to account for every scenario. Guns are not only loud, but it usually requires timing and precision. It is not ideal in every case. As such, Batman would be an absolute moron to gloss over the necessity in proper battle maneuvers when he's actively putting himself in the sight of danger.

Quote:
Very true. But I would have expected Bruce to shun the act of killing, especially when he was a victim of it. But those were the early days of the character, the original ways. They were just starting out with this initial idea, but when you look at it after years of added work and other characterisations from other writers, you see that non-killing Batman made more sense. It's more though out, and preferable.
It's only made him more conventionally heroic, which ironically isn't what Batman typically is portrayed as. There's nothing inherently senseless about using fire with fire or being fueled by vengeance. Look up any statistics of our worst kinds of people (rapists, murderers, etc.) and you will undoubtedly find history of violence or wrongdoings that led them on that path. There's no right or wrong way to approach dealing with tragedy and loss. There are enough cases to substantiate all forms of coping.

Quote:
True, but Clark was taught to always do the right thing. Killing is not right. Others may dirty their hands in blood, which will taint them forever, being on a very bleak path which will never end, but not Superman. It's not even a choice for him, he doesn't have the nature to kill.
You're not exactly looking at it objectively. It's no use arguing a fictional character's perspective when it was designed that way on purpose. What's "right" to Superman is what it is because that's what the writers have designated. But never mistake that as being written in stone, as the nature of fiction is always boundless and malleable at any given point.

KRIM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2012, 05:49 PM   #138
dnno1
Side-Kick
 
dnno1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,592
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

If they allowed Superman to kill in a movie it would be akin to him having a bastard child and not staying around to take care of him. It was irresponsible for Superman as well as irresponsible for the writers to ever draft that idea.

__________________
Dno
dnno1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2012, 07:46 PM   #139
Rodrigo90
RIP Robin
 
Rodrigo90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 19,129
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRIM View Post
Batman killed when he absolutely had to or if it was a consequence of him plunging through enemies to meet an end goal. He didn't go out every night with the intention to kill. But he also didn't have any apprehensions if you were in his way. What happens, he'll let happen. Giving finality to his enemies had purpose; to showcase Batman wasn't the law and that this is a force of nature that could genuinely threaten criminals.
He justified murdering people though. Like that monster created by Hugo Strange. He broke it's neck and justified by saying
"Probably better of this way". We know the laws of mercy killing, it's frowned upon. I understand Batman thought himself above the law, and I really can't argue with Bob Kane's idea, it's done. But I think as a responsibility to the reader, it would have sent out a better message. Bob probably didn't think of that when creating Batman, he had no idea how deep his creation would go and the kind of influence it would generate, along with the more moral induced stories later on. But what we all saw was anti-hero, trying justify the wrongs into rights. Not a good lesson.

Batman was created as a force for vengeance, not justice. But the characterization was out of whack. You're right, he killed when he had to, not because he wanted to, unlike The Punisher. But the way everything was handled was kind of wrong. You have a man, who kills when he has to, has no remorse, and goes home and as a glass of wine with Commissioner Gordon. That behaviour is strictly psychotic. Therefore, the characterisation didn't make sense. Why does a psychotic vigilante bother tying up criminals when all he can do is just as easily kill them and has no quims about doing so? He was plainly psychotic, and really isn't a heroic trait, no matter how it's dressed up.


Quote:
It could absolutely be considered noble when they're doing the dirty work that no one is willing to do. Why do you think Punisher was successful? In recent time, Dexter Morgan has become a prominent pop figure precisely his idealogy challenges the accepted norm and is a representation of primal urges that is no doubt present in societal justice.
I don't look at The Punisher and Dexter as heroes, I look at them as anti-heroes. I can understand though, we see a murderer on TV and we know he's going to jail, but we want to kill him. But does that mean we should? He had no right to take life, but does that give US the right to take his? What are we left with afterwards? Like Batman Forever, Bruce stopped the killing because he found it brung him nothing but more pain. Then it contradicts the message by having him kill Two-face...


Quote:
Most martial arts emphasize and incorporate defense, but not all of them. There are a rare few that do cross the line of mortality. This wasn't the era of the comics that explored origins too much however. It was more concerned with the here and now, with a sprinkle of backstory (usually a page or two at most). In any case, the ability to kill in combat is the endpoint in physical engagement. You don't just get to that level without perfecting the basics. I will bring up soldiers again, who have been given permission to kill with firearms as well as their own bodies. They are trained in every possible way to account for every scenario. Guns are not only loud, but it usually requires timing and precision. It is not ideal in every case. As such, Batman would be an absolute moron to gloss over the necessity in proper battle maneuvers when he's actively putting himself in the sight of danger.
I agree with that. But Batman's emphasis was always on martial arts, acrobatics, gadgets designed to incapacitate and capture. He always had the means to stop without killing, like nowadays in the comics.


Quote:
It's only made him more conventionally heroic, which ironically isn't what Batman typically is portrayed as. There's nothing inherently senseless about using fire with fire or being fueled by vengeance. Look up any statistics of our worst kinds of people (rapists, murderers, etc.) and you will undoubtedly find history of violence or wrongdoings that led them on that path. There's no right or wrong way to approach dealing with tragedy and loss. There are enough cases to substantiate all forms of coping.
I drew the line when Robin, a 12 year old boy, killed criminals in his first story, and he got a pat on the back. If Batman acted out of nobility for the greater good, he would have been a better role model for that kid. Pure psycho's.


Quote:
You're not exactly looking at it objectively. It's no use arguing a fictional character's perspective when it was designed that way on purpose. What's "right" to Superman is what it is because that's what the writers have designated. But never mistake that as being written in stone, as the nature of fiction is always boundless and malleable at any given point.
True. But until the day all noble heroes lose theirs morals and teach children it's okay to murder, I'll sleep soundly

__________________
"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles "
Christopher Reeve

I believe in Batfleck

Things I have been right about before they were confirmed -
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
1. Superman having no trunks
2. Bruce Wayne retiring and Batman being made a martyr
3. Bryan Cranston NOT being Lex Luthor
4. Joker being the big bad in Batman: Arkham Origins
5. Green Goblin not wearing a mask and being mutated
Rodrigo90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2012, 09:03 PM   #140
KRIM
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,661
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo90 View Post
He justified murdering people though. Like that monster created by Hugo Strange. He broke it's neck and justified by saying
"Probably better of this way". We know the laws of mercy killing, it's frowned upon. I understand Batman thought himself above the law, and I really can't argue with Bob Kane's idea, it's done. But I think as a responsibility to the reader, it would have sent out a better message. Bob probably didn't think of that when creating Batman, he had no idea how deep his creation would go and the kind of influence it would generate, along with the more moral induced stories later on. But what we all saw was anti-hero, trying justify the wrongs into rights. Not a good lesson.
These aren't educational books or blueprints for morality. Kane and Finger wrote what they envisioned their character to be; someone who took the law into his own hands and sometimes even life itself. Who are we to tell them how to write their creation?

Quote:
Batman was created as a force for vengeance, not justice. But the characterization was out of whack. You're right, he killed when he had to, not because he wanted to, unlike The Punisher. But the way everything was handled was kind of wrong. You have a man, who kills when he has to, has no remorse, and goes home and as a glass of wine with Commissioner Gordon. That behaviour is strictly psychotic. Therefore, the characterisation didn't make sense. Why does a psychotic vigilante bother tying up criminals when all he can do is just as easily kill them and has no quims about doing so? He was plainly psychotic, and really isn't a heroic trait, no matter how it's dressed up.
Well here's your first problem: Batman was never a psychopath. Donning the suit to the benefit of others even if it is largely therapeutic to his own vices, that suggests a level of empathy and care for the greater good. Most importantly, Batman has always been able to think rationally and has great insight into his own character, which is in complete contrast to how a psychopath behaves. If anything, he's a lot closer to a sociopath -- but even that is a stretch as he doesn't fit all the conventional traits of one.

Quote:
I don't look at The Punisher and Dexter as heroes, I look at them as anti-heroes. I can understand though, we see a murderer on TV and we know he's going to jail, but we want to kill him. But does that mean we should? He had no right to take life, but does that give US the right to take his? What are we left with afterwards? Like Batman Forever, Bruce stopped the killing because he found it brung him nothing but more pain. Then it contradicts the message by having him kill Two-face...
The term anti-hero is only used to distinguish individuals whose core qualities are contrary to heroic archetypal attributes. They are still very much a hero -- only a slight variation of one. Bruce has already crossed the line by operating outside the laws and limits written by the people. By extension the similar disregard for certain life follows the self-regulated philosophy. The mortality "issue" is only a question of Bruce's own moral code. It absolutely isn't, and has never been, a case of inconsistency with his own character.

Quote:
I agree with that. But Batman's emphasis was always on martial arts, acrobatics, gadgets designed to incapacitate and capture. He always had the means to stop without killing, like nowadays in the comics.
Having the ability to stop at a certain point doesn't mean you won't be forced to exceed those boundaries. Casualties are the norm in that field. There will be many times when you cannot control the outcome.

Quote:
I drew the line when Robin, a 12 year old boy, killed criminals in his first story, and he got a pat on the back. If Batman acted out of nobility for the greater good, he would have been a better role model for that kid. Pure psycho's.
Robin killed when his life was in danger of being taken. He wasn't out methodically slaying criminals. The greater issue is with Bruce letting a 12 year old fighting alongside crime with him, exposing him directly to dangerous situations. It is downright illogical to hold some perplexed sense of ethics in being ok with that but be aghast that the kid protect himself at all costs, even if it leads to a bad guy's death.

Again, Batman may have a different moral code... but he has one. And it's one that isn't so hard to understand or sympathize with. Having it differ from yours or from what society accepts doesn't negate its existence.

Quote:
True. But until the day all noble heroes lose theirs morals and teach children it's okay to murder, I'll sleep soundly
Batman and Robin have never murdered.

KRIM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2012, 09:42 PM   #141
Rodrigo90
RIP Robin
 
Rodrigo90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 19,129
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRIM View Post
These aren't educational books or blueprints for morality. Kane and Finger wrote what they envisioned their character to be; someone who took the law into his own hands and sometimes even life itself. Who are we to tell them how to write their creation?
I agree. What I would have liked to have known though, is if Kane accepted the idea of Batman sticking closely to morals on life? Or if he preferred his original vision, Batman as a killer?


Quote:
Well here's your first problem: Batman was never a psychopath. Donning the suit to the benefit of others even if it is largely therapeutic to his own vices, that suggests a level of empathy and care for the greater good. Most importantly, Batman has always been able to think rationally and has great insight into his own character, which is in complete contrast to how a psychopath behaves. If anything, he's a lot closer to a sociopath -- but even that is a stretch as he doesn't fit all the conventional traits of one.
But is it not sociopathic in our eyes, that Batman is perfectly fine with killing criminals out of convenience, justifying it, and sleeping soundly back home? Patting himself on the back for killing criminals when he has everything at his disposal and then some, to incapacitate them? If the very nature of Batman is therapeutic to Bruce, satisfying himself by thinking it's ok to do this and that for himself and others, then in some ways, mainly due to him killing, as all part of the job I can honestly compare him to the likes of Ra's Al Ghul. A villain who agrees with murder for the sake of the many. That's most definitely not the right way, is it?


Quote:
The term anti-hero is only used to distinguish individuals whose core qualities are contrary to heroic archetypal attributes. They are still very much a hero -- only a slight variation of one. Bruce has already crossed the line by operating outside the laws and limits written by the people. By extension the similar disregard for certain life follows the self-regulated philosophy. The mortality "issue" is only a question of Bruce's own moral code. It absolutely isn't, and has never been, a case of inconsistency with his own character.
Again, should we consider Ra's a villain, a hero, or anti-hero? Cause the old Batman would have most certainly joined up with him, no? I know Batman wasn't designed as a pure killer, but he had no quims about murder, and justified ft as the right thing for the sake of the many...so why not compare him to Ra's?


Quote:
Having the ability to stop at a certain point doesn't mean you won't be forced to exceed those boundaries. Casualties are the norm in that field. There will be many times when you cannot control the outcome.
But feeling the need to prevent such outcome would be sufficent enough, instead of brushing it off.


Quote:
Robin killed when his life was in danger of being taken. He wasn't out methodically slaying criminals. The greater issue is with Bruce letting a 12 year old fighting alongside crime with him, exposing him directly to dangerous situations. It is downright illogical to hold some perplexed sense of ethics in being ok with that but be aghast that the kid protect himself at all costs, even if it leads to a bad guy's death.
But he was written with no remorse. He killed someone and just smiled about it...it's creppy. I cant get behind something like that.

Quote:
Again, Batman may have a different moral code... but he has one. And it's one that isn't so hard to understand or sympathize with. Having it differ from yours or from what society accepts doesn't negate its existence.
I get that. We can't just forget about it. Batman killed, he had his reasons, the writers did their thing. But the world is a far darker place nowadays. We need figures to look up to, and be inspired by. I go for what is right, that Batman and Superman don't kill, because it is wrong. We can't sugarcoat the acts of do-gooders who kill, lynch mobs for example. While it may appear noble to some, it's not. If a vigilantie takes the law into his own hands to bring a criminal in, that's great. But if he takes it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner, then it's wrong. It's murder, you get no reward in Heaven at the end of it, just eternity in Hell


Quote:
Batman and Robin have never murdered.
Might as well have lol

__________________
"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles "
Christopher Reeve

I believe in Batfleck

Things I have been right about before they were confirmed -
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
1. Superman having no trunks
2. Bruce Wayne retiring and Batman being made a martyr
3. Bryan Cranston NOT being Lex Luthor
4. Joker being the big bad in Batman: Arkham Origins
5. Green Goblin not wearing a mask and being mutated

Last edited by Rodrigo90; 04-06-2012 at 10:17 PM.
Rodrigo90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2012, 10:46 PM   #142
KRIM
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,661
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo90 View Post
I agree. What I would have liked to have known though, is if Kane accepted the idea of Batman sticking closely to morals on life? Or if he preferred his original vision, Batman as a killer?
Kane and Finger never intended Batman to have absolute value of life. Making him lighter and more compassionate was forced upon them. I went back through my bookmarks and this article should help clarify a lot on the subject. The "no kill" policy wasn't in full effect until the late 80s, which shows just how modern of an alteration it really is. There's much more to the lore than just post-Crisis.

Quote:
But is it not sociopathic in our eyes, that Batman is perfectly fine with killing criminals out of convenience, justifying it, and sleeping soundly back home? Patting himself on the back for killing criminals when he has everything at his disposal and then some, to incapacitate them? If the very nature of Batman is therapeutic to Bruce, satisfying himself by thinking it's ok to do this and that for himself and others, then in some ways, mainly due to him killing, as all part of the job I can honestly compare him to the likes of Ra's Al Ghul. A villain who agrees with murder for the sake of the many. That's most definitely not the right way, is it?
Batman has trace elements of all sorts of mental disorders and the like, but he doesn't satisfy any of them completely (thus cannot be diagnosed under those categories). Which is fitting. He should always teeter that edge, but never fall completely off. Having him mirror so many of his rogues gallery is intentional. The ideologies are rough extensions of Bruce's own, but mixed with sprinkles of insanity and/or megalomania. That is the important distinction. Bruce's actions are from a place of intellectual reason, altruism, and the desire to protect the innocent. The details such as who he (decides to) kill, are secondary to those core values.

Quote:
Again, should we consider Ra's a villain, a hero, or anti-hero? Cause the old Batman would have most certainly joined up with him, no? I know Batman wasn't designed as a pure killer, but he had no quims about murder, and justified ft as the right thing for the sake of the many...so why not compare him to Ra's?
Because Ra's is willing to sacrifice millions of innocent lives to start anew. Batman is nowhere near that level of justifying death. Even at his absolute worst Bruce never had the capacity to consider population extinction.

Quote:
But he was written with no remorse. He killed someone and just smiled about it...it's creppy. I cant get behind something like that.
Truth be told the writers and artists back then didn't place much tonal consistency from panel-to-panel. I've just reread the story now, and it isn't played like Robin was thrilled that he killed someone. The dialog didn't even address it. Robin was made to be cheerful, so that's how he was depicted at all times. I don't think it got any more complicated than that. It was simpler times.

Quote:
I get that. We can't just forget about it. Batman killed, he had his reasons, the writers did their thing. But the world is a far darker place nowadays. We need figures to look up to, and be inspired by.
Superman and Batman were created at the height of the Great Depression. Cinema and all forms of media flourished because people used them as escapist entertainment. Things aren't necessarily great now, but we're a hell of a lot better off than the people of that era.

Quote:
I go for what is right, that Batman and Superman don't kill, because it is wrong. We can't sugarcoat the acts of do-gooders who kill, lynch mobs for example. While it may appear noble to some, it's not. If a vigilantie takes the law into his own hands to bring a criminal in, that's great. But if he takes it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner, then it's wrong. It's murder, you get no reward in Heaven at the end of it, just eternity in Hell
Well again, you're letting your personal views influence what you think fictional characters should be. If that's not how they're written or intended to be, then the viewer should accept that. Art isn't mean to conform, but challenge and question.

KRIM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 02:58 PM   #143
Rodrigo90
RIP Robin
 
Rodrigo90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 19,129
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Well I can't argue with the facts that Batman was indeed a killer, nor can I back up the morality concept unto a character who didn't care about them.

The only thing I can do, is just prefer the present Batman to the old one, who doesn't kill and holds life sacred because of lessons he learnt from his father. That's the characterization I believe in.

__________________
"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles "
Christopher Reeve

I believe in Batfleck

Things I have been right about before they were confirmed -
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
1. Superman having no trunks
2. Bruce Wayne retiring and Batman being made a martyr
3. Bryan Cranston NOT being Lex Luthor
4. Joker being the big bad in Batman: Arkham Origins
5. Green Goblin not wearing a mask and being mutated
Rodrigo90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 03:24 PM   #144
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo90 View Post
Well I can't argue with the facts that Batman was indeed a killer, nor can I back up the morality concept unto a character who didn't care about them.

The only thing I can do, is just prefer the present Batman to the old one, who doesn't kill and holds life sacred because of lessons he learnt from his father. That's the characterization I believe in.
Present Batman is able to crush police cars with policemen in them. And also abandon people about to die inside of a train about to crash, not without being sarcastic first. Way to hold life sacred.

El Payaso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 03:30 PM   #145
Rodrigo90
RIP Robin
 
Rodrigo90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 19,129
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Well as I said before, Nolan's Batman isn't quite the main comic book Batman. He was a Frank Miller inspired Batman, cold and cynical.

__________________
"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles "
Christopher Reeve

I believe in Batfleck

Things I have been right about before they were confirmed -
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
1. Superman having no trunks
2. Bruce Wayne retiring and Batman being made a martyr
3. Bryan Cranston NOT being Lex Luthor
4. Joker being the big bad in Batman: Arkham Origins
5. Green Goblin not wearing a mask and being mutated
Rodrigo90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 05:18 PM   #146
Tacit Ronin
Side-Kick
 
Tacit Ronin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 10,254
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

It seems Nolan's Batman doesn't hold life absolutely sacred like comic Bats. His moral code is more of a self imposed barrier stemming from the realization that when he kills once he won't be able to stop. I think this version of Bats wouldn't stop a cop or anyone if he/she tried to kill the Joker.

__________________
Robert Downey Jr: Max Ray
Daniel Craig: Jake Rockwell
Chris Evans: Ace Mccloud
The Centurions Live Action Film!
Tacit Ronin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 05:28 PM   #147
El Payaso
Banned User
 
El Payaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Rubbing your rhubarb.
Posts: 15,263
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior. View Post
It seems Nolan's Batman doesn't hold life absolutely sacred like comic Bats. His moral code is more of a self imposed barrier stemming from the realization that when he kills once he won't be able to stop. I think this version of Bats wouldn't stop a cop or anyone if he/she tried to kill the Joker.
Well, he doesn't have to save him.

El Payaso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 05:30 PM   #148
Tacit Ronin
Side-Kick
 
Tacit Ronin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 10,254
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Payaso View Post
Well, he doesn't have to save him.
Woosh

__________________
Robert Downey Jr: Max Ray
Daniel Craig: Jake Rockwell
Chris Evans: Ace Mccloud
The Centurions Live Action Film!
Tacit Ronin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 07:26 PM   #149
Rodrigo90
RIP Robin
 
Rodrigo90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 19,129
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior. View Post
It seems Nolan's Batman doesn't hold life absolutely sacred like comic Bats. His moral code is more of a self imposed barrier stemming from the realization that when he kills once he won't be able to stop. I think this version of Bats wouldn't stop a cop or anyone if he/she tried to kill the Joker.
Very true. There was a line when he was questioned by a cop for rescuing the Joker,
"My father saved the life a criminal once, he didn't have to. I asked him why he would want to save a man like that? He told me that life is sacred, and we must do what we can to preserve it, no matter who it belongs to".

It sums up both reasons why Batman won't kill and why he saves the lives of criminals. It's not a moral choice that he's placed on himself just because he wants to be a good guy. It's an unshakeable philosophical notion, that he cannot break, because it's been part of his beliefs since he was a child.

Thats a huge difference between comic Bats and movie Bats, even the old Bats. Old Bats and movie Bats, never learnt that lesson, so they are different in nature.

Too elaborate further. The explaination from his dad saving a criminal, was already in existence during the 70's. It was simple, but the jist was that Batman thought life as sacred after seeing his parents murdered, and vowed never to become like those who didn't share his beliefs, namely killers.

How he gained the philosophy has changed over the years, but the concept was always the same, and always made sense in whatever way it was introduced to him. The question as to why he saved criminals, was added to the philosophy of not killing, tailored by saying his father saved one and he alone was the one who told Bruce of all life being sacred. So the history was changed again to fit.

__________________
"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles "
Christopher Reeve

I believe in Batfleck

Things I have been right about before they were confirmed -
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
1. Superman having no trunks
2. Bruce Wayne retiring and Batman being made a martyr
3. Bryan Cranston NOT being Lex Luthor
4. Joker being the big bad in Batman: Arkham Origins
5. Green Goblin not wearing a mask and being mutated

Last edited by Rodrigo90; 04-07-2012 at 08:01 PM.
Rodrigo90 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 07:44 PM   #150
LibidoLoca
Sensually Delicious
 
LibidoLoca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 13,725
Default Re: Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior. View Post
Woosh
Kaboom!

__________________
BRYAN SINGER | ZACK SNYDER | JOSS WHEDON
APOCALYPSE | DAWN OF JUSTICE | AGE OF ULTRON
*\S/T*
LibidoLoca is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.