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

[Limonade]

Isn't that Batman?

Jinx

 

[The Guard]

Isn't that Batman?

Batman uses a specific type of intimidating tactic.

Intimidating with power is a trait shared by many superheroes.

It's part of the way Superman operated when he was first created, and he still does it from time to time.

 

[Limonade]

Batman uses a specific type of intimidating tactic.

Intimidating with power is a trait shared by many superheroes.

It's part of the way Superman operated when he was first created, and he still does it from time to time.

Not the best scene in the movie to make that case, if you ask me.

Superman's presence and reputation precedes him in doing just that though.

He doesn't have to go to such extreme lengths as he is nigh indestructable and all powerful.

Batman has to though, as he's merely a man trying to be something more.

In fact, there's a ying and yang relationship there that was never truly explored and probably won't be until JL2.

 

[The Guard]

Not the best scene in the movie to make that case, if you ask me.

Structurally, it's more or less the best place to do it, because this scene introduces the concept of Superman operating unilaterally and somewhat recklessly. That kicks off the entire conflict that his character deals with throughout the movie.

Superman's presence and reputation precedes him in doing just that though.

He doesn't have to go to such extreme lengths as he is nigh indestructable and all powerful.

As the comics and various other media have shown, some criminals aren't afraid of that and think he's a boy scout and all bluster until he shows them otherwise.

Batman has to though, as he's merely a man trying to be something more.

Batman uses a different set of tactics because he doesn't have the power to intimidate the way Superman does.

It's less about who is doing the intimidating, and more about the person being intimidated, and what they respond to.

 

[Boy Scout]

It wasn't, though, or I wouldn't have had to ask you to clarify.

I mean...obviously.

It's actually at least two instances. Zod and the Kryptonian criminals and Doomsday.

I'm aware. It changes nothing.

And I haven't ignored anything.

Right.

You seem to think people disagree with you on the point that Superman doesn't usually kill. No one is disagreeing that Superman usually doesn't kill, only that him having to kill a few characters is part of his modern mythology.

Why are we having a conversation if we're talking about two different things?

 

[DrCosmic]

Google "Superman kills Zod in the comics" or the storyline called "The Price".

It's a very well known part of Superman's modern lore. He literally executes the Kryptonian criminals with Kryptonite.

This event was followed by an equally famous storyline called SUPERMAN: EXHILE, where Superman felt so bad about what he had done that he left Earth. EXHILE includes a very well known storyline with the villain Mongul where Superman fought in gladitorial matches on Warworld, a storyline that was adapted on Justice League the animated series, and has been adapted on SUPERGIRL, and which later informed the Superman AND Green Lantern mythologies, because Mongul returned after Superman's death and return and sought to destroy Superman's adopted homeworld as part of the Reign of the Superman/Return of Superman storyline.

I'm not saying the story didn't happen, or that other more important stories didn't happen after it, but The Price just isn't key or well known, or else you would have jut said, "The Price" and no further explanation is needed. BH/HHH wouldn't have had to post pictures, because 90% of the forum would be shocked I didn't know about it already, and I would know about it, because it would have come up SOMEWHERE in the dozens of top ten superman stories I've seen from all kinds of Superman fans. But it hasn't, because it's not. Exile is less obscure, sure, but Death of Superman doesn't reference The Path (even if it references Exile).

But, to go back to the core of the argument here, The Price is a full story, not just a moment. Zod slays an entire planet, and leaves Superman powerless. If such a thing had inspired Man of Steel, the execution would have gone over much better, because it puts Superman in not just a morally justifiable position, but an empathetic one. The fact that such a superior version of the feeling Snyder attempted exists is wonderful news, and proves that he, if he was referencing it, so profoundly misunderstood the context of it, that he felt like the superman coming out of that was a hero to celebrate instead of a pariah to exile. The Price. Exile. Death of Superman. There's a Superman trilogy worth seeing.

So thank you for pointing out this obscure story, and how well it exemplifies what's so heartless and hamfisted about the ending of MoS.

Can't say I can garner any sympathy for a terrorist who was about to shoot a woman in the head.

It's not about sympathy, it's about principle. If human life is valuable, then human life is valuable. If you only value the human lives you like, then you're thinking just like a criminal. Superman isn't supposed to be someone who thinks like a criminal, is he?

 

[Limonade]

Structurally, it's more or less the best place to do it, because this scene introduces the concept of Superman operating unilaterally and somewhat recklessly. That kicks off the entire conflict that his character deals with throughout the movie.

As the comics and various other media have shown, some criminals aren't afraid of that and think he's a boy scout and all bluster until he shows them otherwise.



Batman uses a different set of tactics because he doesn't have the power to intimidate the way Superman does.

It's less about who is doing the intimidating, and more about the person being intimidated, and what they respond to.

We're straying off the point I am making.

It does no favors to the audience to portray a reckless Superman and then go on this woe-is-me attitude only to go on to say, "Well that wasn't me..."

The only reason I supplemented an alternative structure to the movie was to simple prove a way to avoid these types of discussions and have EVERYONE on board with this Superman.

Now if you're making the argument that we're not suppose to be on board with him at this point. Then fine, whatever... Superman in this film is morally unethical and no different than the people he stops.

His sacrifice at the end of the movie is merely a cheap ploy to get someone to say, "He sacrificed himself... so he's not that heartless."

If that's not what you're saying then clarify why should we believe the terrorist is alive and is no longer important to the overall story for Superman.

Clearly I feel that dudes dead or else why have us forget him and stop associating Superman's action due to the aftermath of the situation.

It's a plot hole nevertheless.

 

[The Guard]

I'm not saying the story didn't happen, or that other more important stories didn't happen after it, but The Price just isn't key or well known, or else you would have jut said, "The Price" and no further explanation is needed. BH/HHH wouldn't have had to post pictures, because 90% of the forum would be shocked I didn't know about it already, and I would know about it, because it would have come up SOMEWHERE in the dozens of top ten superman stories I've seen from all kinds of Superman fans. But it hasn't, because it's not. Exile is less obscure, sure, but Death of Superman doesn't reference The Path (even if it references Exile).

Which The Path are you speaking of?

With regard to The Price, a quick Google search has The Supergirl Saga, which it is part of, ranked 43 out of the best 75 stories on CBR.com.
http://www.cbr.com/the-75-greatest-superman-stories-of-all-time-master-list/

Here it's at 98 of 100 at Comicvine
http://comicvine.gamespot.com/profi...top-100-superman-universe-stories-list/43534/

It's not top ten or top 25 or anything like that, but being considered in the top 50-100 storylines is a pretty big deal given the thousands and thousands of stories featuring Superman over the years.

It was not only the execution storyline, but also the reintroduction of Supergirl to the mythology. It was a key event in the Superman mythos.

Look, the fact that a lot of movie fans or younger fans of the comics don't know the story does not make the story less key in the modern Post-Crisis mythology. A lot of the Superman fans here aren't the hardcore students of Superman mythology they might think, simply because they haven't read stories from all or some of the eras.

Amongst comic fans with a knowledge of Superman's entire history, this is known a key storyline and event, as several posters have pointed out.

Anything is obscure to a certain audience who hasn't seen it, but the event in question is not that obscure to die-hard fans with a truly broad knowledge of the mythology. A newer comics-reading generation's ignorance of it does not make it "obscure" in the history of Superman. It's arguably one of the more famous and impactful Superman stories there is, and Superman historians treat it as such, and writers used it to develop and reflect on Superman's morality for the better part of two decades, the Byrne/MAN OF STEEL era, into DEATH OF SUPERMAN, and then beyond that, into the mid 2000's (where I think Superman killed a version of Zod again).

But, to go back to the core of the argument here, The Price is a full story, not just a moment. Zod slays an entire planet, and leaves Superman powerless. If such a thing had inspired Man of Steel, the execution would have gone over much better, because it puts Superman in not just a morally justifiable position, but an empathetic one. The fact that such a superior version of the feeling Snyder attempted exists, and that, if he was referencing it, so profoundly misunderstood the value of it, that he felt like the superman coming out of that was a hero to celebrate instead of a pariah to exile.

The core of the argument was about whether it existed in the mythology or not.

You are essentially creating a separate argument now about how well the issue was executed.

Never said the concept couldn't have been handled better. It could have been.

Only said that there was a precedent for it in the comics.

 

[The Guard]

We're straying off the point I am making.

It does no favors to the audience to portray a reckless Superman and then go on this woe-is-me attitude only to go on to say, "Well that wasn't me..."

Unless your goal is to establish Superman as somewhat reckless, in which case it absolutely DOES do a favor to the audience, by establishing the character specific element early on.

He's not all "woe is me", Limonade. He doesn't become all "woe is me" until the middle of the film.

In the earlier sequence, he basically says "I didn't do anything wrong" after Lois questions him about his methods and involvement, essentially brushes off her concerns and doesn't give it another thought, and engages in hanky panky with Lois. He doesn't take the issue as seriously as he needs to until he sees how far reaching it is.

It is not until Clark sees what has happened with the Senate hearings and the media's assessment of Superman that he even begins to question his unilateral actions and attempts to change his approach.

The only reason I supplemented an alternative structure to the movie was to simple prove a way to avoid these types of discussions and have EVERYONE on board with this Superman.

But it is not particularly good character development to fail to establish character elements as early as possible.

Now if you're making the argument that we're not suppose to be on board with him at this point. Then fine, whatever... Superman in this film is morally unethical and no different than the people he stops.

You're supposed to realize there are flaws in his process, yes.

No different? That is ridiculous. He is clearly not exactly the same as the people he is opposing.

His sacrifice at the end of the movie is merely a cheap ploy to get someone to say, "He sacrificed himself... so he's not that heartless."

His sacrifice at the end of the movie is about him recognizing that he will have to sacrifice the things he wants, which is happiness with Lois, to save
others.

It's pure Superman.

It also sets up the specific dynamic they wanted for Justice League.

saying then clarify why should we believe the terrorist is alive and is no longer important to the overall story for Superman.

Because it's not important for the story that he is dead or alive.

What's important to the story is that Superman saved Lois and was a little bit reckless in doing so.

If that's not what you're saying then clarify why should we believe the terrorist is alive and is no longer important to the overall story for Superman.

Assuming it even MATTERS to the story whether the guy is alive or not...

Because Superman says he didn't kill those men. That terrorist is part of "those men", which suggests Superman did not kill anyone.

Clearly I feel that dudes dead or else why have us forget him and stop associating Superman's action due to the aftermath of the situation.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase this?

It's a plot hole nevertheless.

Do you know what a plot hole is?

 

[DrCosmic]

Which The Path are you speaking of?

With regard to The Price, a quick Google search has The Supergirl Saga, which it is part of, ranked 43 out of the best 75 stories on CBR.com.
http://www.cbr.com/the-75-greatest-superman-stories-of-all-time-master-list/

Here it's at 98 of 100 at Comicvine
http://comicvine.gamespot.com/profi...top-100-superman-universe-stories-list/43534/

It's not top ten or top 25 or anything like that, but being considered in the top 50-100 storylines is a pretty big deal given the thousands and thousands of stories featuring Superman over the years.

It was not only the execution storyline, but also the reintroduction of Supergirl to the mythology. It was a key event in the Superman mythos.

Look, the fact that a lot of movie fans or younger fans of the comics don't know the story does not make the story less key in the modern Post-Crisis mythology. A lot of the Superman fans here aren't the hardcore students of Superman mythology they might think, simply because they haven't read stories from all or some of the eras.

Amongst comic fans with a knowledge of Superman's entire history, this is known a key storyline and event, as several posters have pointed out.

Anything is obscure to a certain audience who hasn't seen it, but the event in question is not that obscure to die-hard fans with a truly broad knowledge of the mythology. A newer comics-reading generation's ignorance of it does not make it "obscure" in the history of Superman. It's arguably one of the more famous and impactful Superman stories there is, and Superman historians treat it as such, and writers used it to develop and reflect on Superman's morality for the better part of two decades, the Byrne/MAN OF STEEL era, into DEATH OF SUPERMAN, and then beyond that, into the mid 2000's (where I think Superman killed a version of Zod again).

So we basically disagree on what 'key' means. For me, top 10 is key. For you, top 100 is key. Good to know. To you, something that die hard fans with "truly broad knowledge" know is not obscure. Good to know.

The core of the argument was about whether it existed in the mythology or not.

You are essentially creating a separate argument now about how well the issue was executed.

Never said the concept couldn't have been handled better. It could have been.

Only said that there was a precedent for it in the comics.

Who cares if it existed if we're not saying it's a justification? The idea of a precedent is, at it's core, an appeal to the similarity of a current event and a previous one. If I hit someone with my car and then cite a totally different context as 'precedent' (bumper cars, destruction derby), then no one is saying that I executed badly, but that I completely misunderstood the precedent that was being set.

But you know, we probably disagree on what core means as well, so, here's to you Guard. And, thanks BH especially for bringing up the panel, so we can see how MoS ignore the precedents set by The Price.

 

[Limonade]

Unless your goal is to establish Superman as somewhat reckless, in which case it absolutely DOES do a favor to the audience, by establishing the character specific element early on.

He's not all "woe is me", Limonade. He doesn't become all "woe is me" until the middle of the film.

In the earlier sequence, he basically says "I didn't do anything wrong" after Lois questions him about his methods and involvement, essentially brushes off her concerns and doesn't give it another thought, and engages in hanky panky with Lois. He doesn't take the issue as seriously as he needs to until he sees how far reaching it is.

It is not until Clark sees what has happened with the Senate hearings and the media's assessment of Superman that he even begins to question his unilateral actions and attempts to change his approach.



But it is not particularly good character development to fail to establish character elements as early as possible.



You're supposed to realize there are flaws in his process, yes.

No different? That is ridiculous. He is clearly not exactly the same as the people he is opposing.



His sacrifice at the end of the movie is about him recognizing that he will have to sacrifice the things he wants, which is happiness with Lois, to save
others.

It's pure Superman.

It also sets up the specific dynamic they wanted for Justice League.





What's important to the story is that Superman saved Lois and was a little bit reckless in doing so.



Assuming it even MATTERS to the story whether the guy is alive or not...

Because Superman says he didn't kill those men. That terrorist is part of "those men", which suggests Superman did not kill anyone.



I don't understand what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase this?



Do you know what a plot hole is?

Clearly I feel that dudes dead or else why have us forget him and make no mention of him.

You say he's alive because Superman said so.

But his actions and words contradict each other.

It's not clear what happened to him afterwards. It just jumps to Lois walking out and the soldiers coming in.

That's when Lois sees the dead body and which she questions him on.

She saw what he did to the Warlord. So she doesn't question him on that either.

I'm not jumping to any illogical conclusion given the information I was presented.

Spoiler

This is what I saw.[YT]61wHscWglSU[/YT]

I'll rescind my plot hole comment though.

 

[The Guard]

So we basically disagree on what 'key' means. For me, top 10 is key. For you, top 100 is key. Good to know. To you, something that die hard fans with "truly broad knowledge" know is not obscure. Good to know.

I could care less about rankings. I don't equate "popular" with "key". Someone else made the comment about how it's not even in top few dozen storylines, I pointed out a list where it, in fact, was.

For me, "key" is something that affects the character, and informs their psychological mindset toward major moral or life issues. This is historically, one of those types of storylines/events for Superman throughout the late eighties, 90's, and early 2000's.

It's a character touchstone, very similar to say, Batman's loss of Jason Todd. It wasn't ALWAYS brought up, but it came up fairly often. It's one of those storylines where at least once or twice a year, the character referenced the event, reflected on it, and rededicated himself to his decision against taking life, etc.

Who cares if it existed if we're not saying it's a justification?

Because the conversation was about whether or not it existed.

The idea of a precedent is, at it's core, an appeal to the similarity of a current event and a previous one.

And there is a fairly obvious basic similarity. Superman killed Zod to stop him from taking lives.

If I hit someone with my car and then cite a totally different context as 'precedent' (bumper cars, destruction derby), then no one is saying that I executed badly, but that I completely misunderstood the precedent that was being set.

Superman killing Zod is not a "totally different context".

The example you just gave is obviously not a precedent in the same realm as this is.

The argument has been about whether Superman has killed or not, as a character.

There are people who are under the impression that he does not, and has not.

That is not the case.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I think Snyder, Terrio, and whoever wrote this sequence didn't expect people to question the nature of the English language.

Or did I miss something where Superman says "I didn't kill those men...well, except that one guy I killed"?

Lois was inside with the warlord while people were being killed outside. By the time Superman arrives to save her the conflict outside was already over. They were obviously talking about the other men, not the warlord. Lois says "I want to understand what happened". She "knows" what happened to the warlord. She doesn't know what happened to the other people, except that it looked like Superman had heat visioned them to death. That's what she's asking about.

The whole thing is very ambiguous as to what actually happened to the warlord, which is why you get these discussions.

 

[The Guard]

Clearly I feel that dudes dead or else why have us forget him and make no mention of him.

Feel how you want. Feelings about something don't always equal what logically likely happened. You have to look at the actual elements of the scene.

We forget about the gunman because he's literally just a plot device. You realize that not every character seen in a film has to show up later in the film, right?

We also forget about countless other people who show up, like rescued citizens, news reporters...

You say he's alive because Superman said so.

I say it literally doesn't matter, but you certainly cannot assume he was killed by Superman. The information to make this call just isn't there, and the film contradicts it directly by having him literally say he did not kill any of those men.

But his actions and words contradict each other.

No. They don't. He is never shown to have killed the man.

He literally denies killing in the scene that follows the sequence.

It's not clear what happened to him afterwards. It just jumps to Lois walking out and the soldiers coming in. That's when Lois sees the dead body and which she questions him on.

What dead body? When does Lois find a dead body?

Lois finds a book or journal with a bullet in it. Where does she see a dead body?

Lois questions Superman about his involvement and his reckless in becoming involved in a foreign country, not about a specific dead body.

She saw what he did to the Warlord. So she doesn't question him on that either.

She doesn't question him about the warlord because she knows he is a good man. She's basically saying "Clark, I know you mean well, but there are consequences to your involvement".

She is concerned that he will be misunderstood, and that people will fear his unilateral involvement, even if its on her behalf.

I'm not jumping to any illogical conclusion given the information I was presented.

You weren't presented with any concrete information to justify the conclusion you have made.

This is what I saw

You saw a blur. You cannot draw the conclusions you are from a blur. There are no contextual clues to suggest that this blur resulted in Superman killing that man.

 

[TeeKay]

Well Batman never killed the people in the car he was dragging with his Batmobile because we never see them die.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Well one of those guys actually survived getting a car dropped on him (he later appears in the warehouse sequence) and is quickly killed (?) by the flamethrower explosion that Batman triggers to save Martha.

 

[The Guard]

Lois was inside with the warlord while people were being killed outside. By the time Superman arrives to save her the conflict outside was already over. They were obviously talking about the other men, not the warlord.

No.

First, they're in the bathroom some time later when they discuss this, so they are now placing the event in the larger context of the world's reaction to Superman, not discussing that specific part of the event.

Second, that is simply not the way the English language works.

"Those men" means the group in question: IE, the men who died, or that group of men as a whole.

There is nothing inherent in his statement that excludes the warlord contextually, especially since the warlord/gunman was part of that group, which he refers to as "those men".

Why would Superman deny killing, and then forget to mention the single one of "those men" that he killed?

Lois says "I want to understand what happened". She "knows" what happened to the warlord. She doesn't know what happened to the other people, except that it looked like Superman had heat visioned them to death. That's what she's asking about.

She is not asking what happened to the dead men. She knows. Everyone does. It is major news at that point. That is part of why the hearings are held; the mess that the conflict became.

Lois knows full well that he didn't do whatever happened, and now, because she is concerned about the mess that her investigation into the terrorists became, she wants to know what DID happen, which informs her character arc and investigation throughout the rest of the film.

She is referring to being concerned about Superman's involvement in the conflict, period. The "cost" she mentions is the unforseen consequences that his involvement can lead to (further explored with Jonathan Kent's analogy of the horses), and her concerns over the perception that the rest of the world has about Superman being unilaterally involved in these types of incidents.

The whole thing is very ambiguous as to what actually happened to the warlord, which is why you get these discussions.

Meh.

There are plenty of ambiguous moments in other films where people don't assume the worst about a character.

You get these discussions on this point mostly because some posters have a hatred of a portrayal of Superman that has killed in the previous film, are hypersensitive about the issue and looking for any reason to condemn this version of the character further.

That, or they're literally just jumping to conclusions despite not having the info to draw those conclusions from a logical standpoint.

The people who believe this character is basically a decent human being who probably doesn't go around snapping necks and such don't seem to be insisting on the "he clearly killed that guy" interpretation of the sequence.

It has historically been those who have been the most vocal about Superman killing and it being poorly handled who jumped all over this sequence.

And hey, if you want to believe that he killed that guy, go right ahead. But your "feeling" is not tangible proof of something.

 

[misslane38]

Well Batman never killed the people in the car he was dragging with his Batmobile because we never see them die.

I think this is a bogus analogy. Superman, as we know, is capable of using his powers with precision. Superman, as we have seen him, does not kill unless there is literally no other option. Superman, as we know him, feels some measure of grief about killing. Superman not only did not comment on the killing of the warlord, he makes a clear statement of denial for the deaths of all men killed in Nairomi. Batman, on the other hand, had been established as hunting and cruel by the point we see him dragging that car. Superman even intervenes at that moment because he has become so concerned about Batman's brutality and injustice that waiting until he can make a difference as a journalist is no longer an option. The opposition to Superman, by contrast, is presented as faux controversy manufactured by a billionaire and covered up by the government that is happy to use Superman as a scapegoat for their mistakes.

 

[DrCosmic]

I could care less about rankings. I don't equate "popular" with "key". Someone else made the comment about how it's not even in top few dozen storylines, I pointed out a list where it, in fact, was.

For me, "key" is something that affects the character, and informs their psychological mindset toward major moral or life issues. This is historically, one of those types of storylines/events for Superman throughout the late eighties, 90's, and early 2000's.

It's a character touchstone, very similar to say, Batman's loss of Jason Todd. It wasn't ALWAYS brought up, but it came up fairly often. It's one of those storylines where at least once or twice a year, the character referenced the event, reflected on it, and rededicated himself to his decision against taking life, etc.

So... The Price is somehow on the same level as Jason Todd's death, and is touched on just as much?

I think Crisis has started in real life. Guard and I are from different Earths. It's the only explanation I can come up with.

Because the conversation was about whether or not it existed.

Not in this context. In the context of a DCEU discussion it's about whether a precedent (your word) for MoS's neck snap scene existed.

And there is a fairly obvious basic similarity. Superman killed Zod to stop him from taking lives.

Except it wasn't. He was punishing them for lives taken, after there was no one left to kill.

Superman killing Zod is not a "totally different context".

The example you just gave is obviously not a precedent in the same realm as this is.

The argument has been about whether Superman has killed or not, as a character.

There are people who are under the impression that he does not, and has not.

That is not the case.

But it is the case. The reaction of Superman, to Superman killing is to stop being Superman. That's the storyline that you brought up, that even Superman knows Superman doesn't kill. It's not just a totally different context, but you aren't even aware of what happened in the story you brought up. You thought that Superman was trying to stop them from taking lives, and that this event informed the character. This is the "true knowledge" of Superman's "entire history" you're bringing to bear here?

And an action "Superman killing Zod" "Me Hitting TeeKay's Car" (Sorry man, you know how demolition derby is) cannot be a context. Context is the setting an action takes place in, not the action itself.

But honestly, if we disagree on the meaning of the word context, we pretty much are speaking different languages at this point. Core, key, context, they all just meaning different things to you. What are we even talking about, dude?

 

[The Guard]

So... The Price is somehow on the same level as Jason Todd's death, and is touched on just as much?

Not NOW, in this current more recent era of comics, where Jason Todd has now literally come back into popularity and back into the universe, but back then, when the stories in question were written? The 90's and into the early 2000's. Yeah, definitely a similar type of psychological touchstone, something the character occassionally dwelled on and rededicated his values over.

Not in this context. In the context of a DCEU discussion it's about whether a precedent (your word) for MoS's neck snap scene existed.

The context is the one we set when we began the discussion, which is whether or not the incident happened.

Someone literally told me that it did not.

If you'd like to discuss a different context, we can do so, but you're moving goalposts here. I'm not going to argue that it's the exact same scenario, because it isn't.

Except it wasn't. He was punishing them for lives taken, after there was no one left to kill.

I said BASIC similarity. Not that it was the exact same scenario with all the same elements.

Clearly MAN OF STEEL's Zod wasn't from a pocket universe, etc...

But it is the case. The reaction of Superman, to Superman killing is to stop being Superman.

That is the reaction to killing in a specific storyline, Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow, which is arguably not even continuity, but an imaginary story of the sort they used to run in the Golden Age.

However, in the Supergirl Saga storyline where he kills Zod and the others, he does not stop being Superman, he chooses to leave Earth. He continues to be Superman and to help people elsewhere in the universe. And that event WAS part of Superman's ongoing continuity in the books for quite a while.

That's the storyline that you brought up, that even Superman knows Superman doesn't kill. It's not just a totally different context, but you aren't even aware of what happened in the story you brought up. You thought that Superman was trying to stop them from taking lives, and that this event informed the character. This is the "true knowledge" of Superman's "entire history" you're bringing to bear here?

I am well aware of not only what happened, but what is actually said.

Maybe you should read the story a bit closer before you make this assertion.

Stopping them from continuing to be able to take lives is clearly part of why he executes them.

The Kryptonians, after he has robbed them of their powers, tell him that they will find a way to get their powers back, find a way to get to his Earth and destroy him and his world.

He clearly considers them a threat still, and doesn't just talk about punishment and justice. He says "I must find a way to stop you".

He is not just executing them for the sake of justice, but to prevent them from killing anyone else, and wreaking the terrible havoc they have sworn.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Was Superman killing Zod and his friends in the comics before or after S2? I ask because the reason used in the comics would explain why Superman killed Zod in the movie rather than letting them live like in the Donner cut.

 

[BH/HHH]

Was Superman killing Zod and his friends in the comics before or after S2? I ask because the reason used in the comics would explain why Superman killed Zod in the movie rather than letting them live like in the Donner cut.

It was way after Superman II. Heck it was about a decade after.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

It was way after Superman II. Heck it was about a decade after.

I don't read comics so I wouldn't know. At least both Zack and the comics have him not happy about taking life unlike Lester who made a joke out of it.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I don't read comics so I wouldn't know. At least both Zack and the comics have him not happy about taking life unlike Lester who made a joke out of it.

Lester as a choice of director given his previous work was a major no no, Donner got well and truly shafted on his time with Superman II.

 

[Limonade]

What dead body? When does Lois find a dead body?

Lois finds a book or journal with a bullet in it. Where does she see a dead body?

Lois questions Superman about his involvement and his reckless in becoming involved in a foreign country, not about a specific dead body.

my bad, I meant dead bodies--as in the bullet riddled and burned bodies that Lex's henchmen did.

She walks outside and discovers the bodies, right after the scene of Superman smashing that Warlord through multiple walls, as the soldiers come in to the aftermath of the fallout between the terrorist and CIA.

That's what she questioned him on. She saw what Superman did to the Warlord because she was there. She had no reason to ask him about him. So, therefore, we assume she's fine with Superman killing or mangling the Warlord.

If she asked an additional question such as, "Did you kill him?" in the later scenes you keep mentioning, I would've obviously gotten the reference to the Warlord. But she didn't. So I figure she assumed he wasn't walking away... ever!