All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - - Part 91

Status
Not open for further replies.
Superman Just Did Something Very Un-Superman Again

If you haven’t read Justice League #22 yet, go away somewhere and come back when you’re done. There are spoilers for the Injustice comics series and the Man of Steel movie, too. You've been warned.

ilppIZ1.jpg


The first issue of DC Comics’ Trinity War summer crossover event features the Man of Steel doing something that he rarely does: killing someone.

mfiF2X1.jpg


The victim this time is Dr. Light, a reluctant superhero caught up in the battle between two superteams. After he inadvertently attacks Wonder Woman—who Superman happens to be dating—Dr. Light gets his head burned off by Kal-El’s heat vision. It's clearly set up as an accident with any number of outs, and Superman expresses shock and regret right after it happens. There’s a vast evil conspiracy going on that’s trying to get the public to distrust the Justice League and this apparent murder at the Man of Steel’s hands is part of that campaign.

Superman Just Did Something Very Un-Superman Again

Justice League #22 marks the third time in recent months that Superman’s killed someone. The previous incident comes at the end of Man of Steel, the blockbuster film that’s re-introducing Superman to a new generation of fans. In the Zack Snyder film, Superman snaps the neck of fellow Kryptonian General Zod when faced with the reality that someone just as unstoppable as him will kill as many people as possible. It’s presented by the movie’s creators as the only possible out.

LOpT7Qj.jpg


The moments where Superman kills in this year's Injustice: Gods Among Us comic are both similar and different as Man of Steel and Justice League #22. He kills Lois Lane by accident but ends the Joker's life with clear intent.

Between the Injustice comic, the Man of Steel movie and today’s issue of Justice League, the questions of the moment now seem to be these: "Is Superman still Superman if he kills?" "Should Superman kill?"

AfPJ6nC.jpg


Comic book creators have toyed with the idea of a Superman who kills before.

mZ2dB5q.jpg


In fact, a quarter century ago, writer-artist John Byrne climaxed his revolutionary revamp of the character by having the Man of Steel reluctantly kill three Kryptonian criminals who had murdered the entire population of an alternate Earth.

In the ensuing months, Superman was wracked by grief. The comic's post-Byrne creators had Superman temporarily exile himself to outer space for a bit of soul searching. He committed himself to not killing again, which seemed to be the character's default moral position. Comics creators kept him from violating that oath for years.

Many people believe that Superman’s supposed to represent the best of humanity’s ideals. He solves problems by punching them, yes, but that use of force has generally been portrayed to be judicious. There’s an implicit trust that Superman will use his powers and judgment in the best way possible.

But that steadfastness gets read as boring by lots of comics readers. And a fear of being seen as staid seems to be what’s driving the most recent instances of Super-killing. With the exception of writer Grant Morrison’s Action Comics run, DC’s New 52 reboot has struggled to make Superman feel as vibrant as other competing characters. And Man of Steel hit theaters in the wake of superhero movie successes where the lead characters could be more human, with more snark or attitude. So the more scuffed-up, less-than-perfect Superman that we're getting now may just be a sign of the times.

Yeah, Superman kills. Human beings kill, too. But that last resort is seen as a moral failing if there are other possible solutions. Of course, the failing here isn’t necessarily at the character’s hands. It’s at the creators’.

Super-killing seems to happen when creators want to convince readers that their take on the character is radically different from the baseline iterations of the character, as in the Injustice: Gods Among Us prequel comic. The problem with continually having Superman send folks to the cemetery is that it robs death of its power as a plot device. Super-Killing-Man also implies a lack of ideas, too. When you have a character who can do impossible things, he shouldn’t be resorting to the most regretful of actions once a month. There've been three Super-killings in 2013, the year of Superman's 75th birthday. It's a really weird way to commemorate his creation.

Source
 
well for those who complained the MOS ENDING(which they handled with a GOOD REASON).. I don't agree with the new comic perspective.. this way of course is way too anti-superman... and has nothing to do with the movie
 
Last edited:
hmmmm......suddenly, I appreciate how they handled it in MOS more.......
 
Maybe it's like in this comic! Superman ACCIDENTALLY snapped Zod's neck!
 
I have not been reading any of the new 52. I think it's pretty much all garbage, and I think that scene proves it. While I don't like the reason they added the Zod neck snap as a development for the no kill rule, I think Superman was justified in that situation. This JL issue though, is straight out crap. Superman didn't just kill that guy, he murdered him.
 
Maybe it's like in this comic! Superman ACCIDENTALLY snapped Zod's neck!
I don't see any accidentally in the comics... I see rage.... common man... comics reason is stupid....
 
I know, it's really not an accident but that description tries to pass it off as one. It's ridiculous.

F*** the new 52. Now, if MOS had ended like THAT, I probably would have been angry.
 
I know, it's really not an accident but that description tries to pass it off as one. It's ridiculous.

F*** the new 52. Now, if MOS had ended like THAT, I probably would have been angry.
Same here.
 
I know, it's really not an accident but that description tries to pass it off as one. It's ridiculous.

F*** the new 52. Now, if MOS had ended like THAT, I probably would have been angry.

Totally agree with you man...
 
so this movie is gonna make over 1 billion counting dvd sales ?
 
I know, it's really not an accident but that description tries to pass it off as one. It's ridiculous.

F*** the new 52. Now, if MOS had ended like THAT, I probably would have been angry.

Yeah. YOU THINK YOU CAN THREATEN MY MOTHER-fries Zod's brains-screams.
 
As far as I know, I've never heard of Superman having a no-kill rule. It's always truck me as him not wanting to do it if he didn't have to. I mean Batman killed Harvey at the end of TDK and nobody cared that he broke what was specifically stated as his no-kill rule. Why the double-standard?
 
As far as I know, I've never heard of Superman having a no-kill rule. It's always truck me as him not wanting to do it if he didn't have to. I mean Batman killed Harvey at the end of TDK and nobody cared that he broke what was specifically stated as his no-kill rule. Why the double-standard?

I'm not going to argue about the justification for the ending, but I will say there is absolutely a double standard for Superman, as there should be. That's kind of the whole point of Superman.
 
I'm not going to argue about the justification for the ending, but I will say there is absolutely a double standard for Superman, as there should be. That's kind of the whole point of Superman.

That's fair. Like it or not, at least we got an emotional finish. I feel like the rest of the Superman movies were kind of lacking in the "big finish" department.
 
Casual Audience pre-MOS: Superman's boring and old-fashioned.

CA: Post MOS: What have you done with this classic character?!

:whatever:
 
That's fair. Like it or not, at least we got an emotional finish. I feel like the rest of the Superman movies were kind of lacking in the "big finish" department.

And that's fine, I'm just saying that Superman does have a double standard compared to other heroes. Comparing what he does to Spider-Man, Batman, or any other hero to me is pointless since the whole idea of Superman is his idealistic nature. The ideal to strive towards. That's why he is judged differently than other heroes. If you take that away, then he actually does become boring, he becomes just that extremely overpowered guy.
 
Again, it all comes to what Superman means to you. For some, it's the ultimate good, while for others, it's the most realistic good attainable. I prefer the latter.
 
As far as I know, I've never heard of Superman having a no-kill rule. It's always truck me as him not wanting to do it if he didn't have to. I mean Batman killed Harvey at the end of TDK and nobody cared that he broke what was specifically stated as his no-kill rule. Why the double-standard?

You weren't on the boards when TDK came out, were you? People, myself included, ****ing hated that.
 
Again, it all comes to what Superman means to you. For some, it's the ultimate good, while for others, it's the most realistic good attainable. I prefer the latter.

I always felt the latter was for Spider-Man.
 
I am so damn glad I stopped reading the new 52 run a while ago.
 
Again, it all comes to what Superman means to you. For some, it's the ultimate good, while for others, it's the most realistic good attainable. I prefer the latter.

I prefer the former. If Superman just symbolized the most realistic good attainable, that symbol could be embodied by anybody. Superman should create a special standard—both because of being the first real superhero and because he pretty much encapsulates the stereotypical superhero.

He can be that ultimate good that nobody else can be and set that standard for other people to strive toward, even if they can never actually get there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"