All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 2

[misslane38]

Killing is never (or should never be) 'the right thing to do'. That moral standard is what makes Superman Superman.

If the only way to stop mass shooter Adam Lanza from killing more innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut would be to kill him, then killing him is the right thing to do. That's the moral standard. Putting absolutist moral codes above saving innocent lives is not morality. It is a code that exists to absolve one from the responsibility and guilt that comes from being a real hero who sometimes has to make hard choices.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

There is no canon to support that reading.

That's a very bold statement coming from you

As far as we know, this Superman isn't against killing,

Then we should stop calling this character (as presented) Superman

and I say thank goodness.

and that's why you obviously enjoy those movies. good for you

 

[Samuron]

Good people -- moral people -- kill sometimes to save lives. Cops, soldiers, and even regular citizens sometimes kill others in self-defense of themselves or others.

Those are people; we are discussing a comic-book alien superhero, which represents an ideal.

There are plenty of cop movies and war films that explore your point; the allure of characters like Superman is that their abilities sallow them to transcend such situations. What good is a godlike character otherwise?

 

[misslane38]

Here is something I read once about this No-Kill Rule issue.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

that comes from being a real hero who sometimes has to make hard choices.

ah see, there you almost get it. Superman is more than just a 'real hero', he's a symbol that HAS TO BE more to work as a character. One can cynically deconstruct that, but then the essence of what makes Superman Superman gets lost. He's not a character for cynical times or readers, because he wasn't designed to be that. He was designed to transcend that line of thoughts.

 

[Samuron]

Then we should stop calling this character (as presented) Superman

Agreed

 

[misslane38]

Those are people; we are discussing a comic-book alien superhero, which represents an ideal.

There are plenty of cop movies and war films that explore your point; the allure of characters like Superman is that their abilities afford them the ability to transcend such situations. What good is a godlike character otherwise?

They don't transcend, because the stories always present the character with another way. It would be different if Superman had another way written for him, and didn't choose it. When you see Superman in stories finding another way, it's not the same situation that this Superman was in. Situations like the one Superman was in in Man of Steel in do exist. They test heroes. Cops have to shoot someone, and they can be traumatized by that and offered counseling. It's not easy. It's not ideal. But a hero who only gets to be righteous because the world is set up for him to succeed, has a righteousness that's a lie, because it's untested. Superman also isn't a god. He shouldn't be viewed that way, and he certainly shouldn't act like one because that notion opens up a huge can of worms, some of which Batman v Superman explored.

 

[misslane38]

ah see, there you almost get it. Superman is more than just a 'real hero', he's a symbol that HAS TO BE more to work as a character. One can cynically deconstruct that, but then the essence of what makes Superman Superman gets lost. He's not a character for cynical times or readers, because he wasn't designed to be that. He was designed to transcend that line of thoughts.

You are not talking about Superman being an ideal or a symbol. You are talking about making Superman a God. You are talking about absolving and protecting him from difficult choices and their difficult outcome because the plot always gives him a way out. His morality is never tested and his idealistic symbolism is preserved because those who create him always find another way. But sometimes there isn't another way. Sometimes difficult choices have to be made, and real heroes are people who are capable of making those choices and overcoming the toll those choices can take without letting it shatter them or prevent them from continuing to do their best. What is cynical is believing that goodness, hope, morality, and idealism can only be preserved if one is perfect and protected from difficult choices.

 

[Samuron]

They don't transcend, because the stories always present the character with another way.

Precisely the point; he's a fictional construct based on our desires to find a better way out of such situations. If he's just like us, then what is the point?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

You are not talking about Superman being an ideal or a symbol. You are talking about making Superman a God.

What is a god if not an ideal or a symbol?

Sometimes difficult choices have to be made, and real heroes are people who are capable of making those choices and overcoming the toll those choices can take without letting it shatter them or prevent them from continuing to do their best.

While this is true in reality, this is not true for Superman. The moment it is true for him, he essentially, by design, stops being Superman.

I see there is a huge philosophically misunderstanding in your interpretation and reading of that character, and I won't hold that against you. In fact, that misunderstanding seems to let you enjoy these films, so again, that's good for you.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Killing is never (or should never be) 'the right thing to do'. That moral standard is what makes Superman Superman.

There is such a thing as justifiable homicide, and I think the Zod incident certainly qualifies. Some of the things Batman and Superman do in BvS is a different story.

 

[GothamBat]

You are not talking about Superman being an ideal or a symbol. You are talking about making Superman a God. You are talking about absolving and protecting him from difficult choices and their difficult outcome because the plot always gives him a way out. His morality is never tested and his idealistic symbolism is preserved because those who create him always find another way. But sometimes there isn't another way. Sometimes difficult choices have to be made, and real heroes are people who are capable of making those choices and overcoming the toll those choices can take without letting it shatter them or prevent them from continuing to do their best. What is cynical is believing that goodness, hope, morality, and idealism can only be preserved if one is perfect and protected from difficult choices.

Exactly. How boring would it be if these people had it their way? And there was always a way for him to circumvent the bad stuff? "And then Superman handily defeated the bad guys and his morality was never tested. The end. *credits roll*"

 

[Flint Marko]

Superman killing Zod isn't a problem for me. The problem is that it was done for no other reason than, as I'm sure Snyder put it, "it'd be, like, sick bro". That's what it boils down to. Him killing Zod was of no consequence, it wasn't something that the story had been building towards, nor did it have any effect on anything going forward, it was just done to let audience's know how hardcore this Superman was just in case the forty five minutes of punching didn't get that point across. The next scene is him joking around with a general and starting his job at the daily Planet as if nothing had even happened. That is, by any objective standard that may exist, terrible writing.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Right. Good writing is parking the Iron Man armor outside a restaurant.

 

[misslane38]

Superman killing Zod isn't a problem for me. The problem is that it was done for no other reason than, as I'm sure Snyder put it, "it'd be, like, sick bro". That's what it boils down to. Him killing Zod was of no consequence, it wasn't something that the story had been building towards, nor did it have any effect on anything going forward, it was just done to let audience's know how hardcore this Superman was just in case the forty five minutes of punching didn't get that point across. The next scene is him joking around with a general and starting his job at the daily Planet as if nothing had even happened. That is, by any objective standard that may exist, terrible writing.

It doesn't have to be built up to or have profound consequences. Superman did what needed to be done in a difficult situation, and we saw that it broke his heart. I cannot believe Snyder's intention was to portray killing Zod as "sick" or "cool" because those goals seem incompatible with showing Superman weeping and having his head cradled by Lois in the aftermath.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Exactly. How boring would it be if these people had it their way?

idk, it worked fine for over 70 years not bringing him down to our level

 

[Flint Marko]

It doesn't have to be built up to or have profound consequences.

This is a joke, right? It absolutely does if you want that moment to matter.

Superman did what needed to be done in a difficult situation, and we saw that it broke his heart. I cannot believe Snyder's intention was to portray killing Zod as "sick" or "cool" because those goals seem incompatible with showing Superman weeping and having his head cradled by Lois in the aftermath.

Screaming "no" just might be the most superficial, cliche way to display anguish. It does nothing to actually inform us of anything with the character, it's cheap cinematic shorthand for "I'M SAD!" Then the movie immediately starts wrapping things up and showing everyone all joking and exchanging banter as if nothing ever happened. Again, this is terrible writing.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

idk, it worked fine for over 70 years not bringing him down to our level

Man it's blanket statments like that...

Golden Age Supes was definitely not a god.

 

[The Fact]

It doesn't have to be built up to or have profound consequences. Superman did what needed to be done in a difficult situation, and we saw that it broke his heart. I cannot believe Snyder's intention was to portray killing Zod as "sick" or "cool" because those goals seem incompatible with showing Superman weeping and having his head cradled by Lois in the aftermath.

Y... Yes it does. That's not just how filmmaking works but storytelling in general works. You set something up, and you pay it off. You show the gun put in a drawer in the first act, and you take it out and fire it in the third. This is a fundamental aspect of storytelling that theycompletely ignored for this scene. Maybe they thought it wasn't important or Snyder and Goyer don't understand this concept or maybe they're too stupid. I'd guess all three personally.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

This is a joke, right? It absolutely does if you want that moment to matter.



Screaming "no" just might be the most superficial, cliche way to display anguish. It does nothing to actually inform us of anything with the character, it's cheap cinematic shorthand for "I'M SAD!" Then the movie immediately starts wrapping things up and showing everyone all joking and exchanging banter as if nothing ever happened. Again, this is terrible writing.

Yeah and it gets worse in the sequel. After Superman has that "character arc", his first scene in BVS has him pick up a human being and smash him through at least two walls of concrete.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Man it's blanket statments like that...

Golden Age Supes was definitely not a god.

he wasn't a man neither, he transcended humanity from day one

 

[Grommers]

I think the part that everyone is discussing Superman's morality was kind of the focal point of B vs S...crazy how reflective it is of real-life, and people's real opinions.

I have to say even if you "intend" to bash this superman by saying he killed, the fact that you're having a discussion about it, is exactly the point of B vs S.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Superman killing Zod isn't a problem for me. The problem is that it was done for no other reason than, as I'm sure Snyder put it, "it'd be, like, sick bro". That's what it boils down to. Him killing Zod was of no consequence, it wasn't something that the story had been building towards, nor did it have any effect on anything going forward, it was just done to let audience's know how hardcore this Superman was just in case the forty five minutes of punching didn't get that point across. The next scene is him joking around with a general and starting his job at the daily Planet as if nothing had even happened. That is, by any objective standard that may exist, terrible writing.

If nothing else, it is poor attitude for a filmmaker to have and can (and has many times in the case of Snyder) lead to bad decisions being made.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I think the part that everyone is discussing Superman's morality was kind of the focal point of B vs S...crazy how reflective it is of real-life, and people's real opinions.

I have to say even if you "intend" to bash this superman by saying he killed, the fact that you're having a discussion about it, is exactly the point of B vs S.

The point of BvS (and MoS btw) is:
Superman is dead.
Superman remains dead.
We killed him.

It's burying the embodiment of the deontological moral philosophy of Kant and presenting a misguided 'relatable' parody instead that is almost the extreme opposite, missing the whole concept of what makes it work in the first place.

 

[TeeKay]

Superman killing Zod isn't a problem for me. The problem is that it was done for no other reason than, as I'm sure Snyder put it, "it'd be, like, sick bro". That's what it boils down to. Him killing Zod was of no consequence, it wasn't something that the story had been building towards, nor did it have any effect on anything going forward, it was just done to let audience's know how hardcore this Superman was just in case the forty five minutes of punching didn't get that point across. The next scene is him joking around with a general and starting his job at the daily Planet as if nothing had even happened. That is, by any objective standard that may exist, terrible writing.

It was bad writing.

Right. Good writing is parking the Iron Man armor outside a restaurant.

No one can access the armour except Stark. The suits are coded to him. He said it in the film. Irrelevant point regardless.

Y... Yes it does. That's not just how filmmaking works but storytelling in general works. You set something up, and you pay it off. You show the gun put in a drawer in the first act, and you take it out and fire it in the third. This is a fundamental aspect of storytelling that theycompletely ignored for this scene. Maybe they thought it wasn't important or Snyder and Goyer don't understand this concept or maybe they're too stupid. I'd guess all three personally.

Exactly. I'll give one example. The party scene in AoU where they all try to lift Mljonir. Set up hetr then it was paid off when Vision lifts it. The next snap was poor writing. After they drag each other through buildings (with no disregard of the loss of life) even taking the fight to space, Superman suddenly cares about a family that Zod is about to fry then just snaps his neck? Nope.