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

[hopefuldreamer]

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 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.

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 guess what you see as 'the most realistic good attainable' depends on how optimistic your view of what the most realistic good is.

Take LnC for an example. The man presented in that series felt totally realistic, and the only time he ever even came close to killing someone, was just THINKING it for a minute so that he could get the mojo needed to work the kryptonian weapons in the beginning of season 4.

You don't have to make him some kind of saviour/god type of hero in order to have him be a high standard of GOOD.

(And I feel like I know that version of the character well enough to know that if he HAD to kill someone, it would have absolutely broken him for a really long time).

 

[roach]

Source

Did no one catch that it was part of a conspiracy to make the JL look bad...I'm willing to bet he was controlled into killing Dr Light

 

[The Sage]

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 believe it's the ultimate good, but I find nothing wrong with him struggling to get to that point to a degree.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I guess what you see as 'the most realistic good attainable' depends on how optimistic your view of what the most realistic good is.

Take LnC for an example. The man presented in that series felt totally realistic, and the only time he ever even came close to killing someone, was just THINKING it for a minute so that he could get the mojo needed to work the kryptonian weapons in the beginning of season 4.

You don't have to make him some kind of saviour/god type of hero in order to have him be a high standard of GOOD.

(And I feel like I know that version of the character well enough to know that if he HAD to kill someone, it would have absolutely broken him for a really long time).

Agreed. I hope the address this point in the sequels.

I feel like realistically, someone wouldn't know how to balance saving people and fighting. But I also think a mass evacuation is unrealistic, so I don't think Suerman should be a slave to realism :/

 

[Nathan]

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.

I know he's supposed to be representing the human ideal. To be something to strive towards. But he has still been raised as a regular human. And with that, come human problems. He may be godlike, but he isn't a god. He's not infallible. He will make mistakes, he will struggle, he will doubt himself. But despite all that, still aiming to be better, makes him interesting. I don't want him to be this guy that just has a number of rules and swears not to break them ever, ever, ever, ever. I want him to be someone that feels and fights these temptations, to just use his strength to put these criminals down once and for all.

[YT]dq2J5LsOF5w[/YT]

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Agreed. I hope the address this point in the sequels.

I feel like realistically, someone wouldn't know how to balance saving people and fighting. But I also think a mass evacuation is unrealistic, so I don't think Suerman should be a slave to realism :/

Totally.

I know he's supposed to be representing the human ideal. To be something to strive towards. But he has still been raised as a regular human. And with that, come human problems. He may be godlike, but he isn't a god. He's not infallible. He will make mistakes, he will struggle, he will doubt himself. But despite all that, still aiming to be better, makes him interesting. I don't want him to be this guy that just has a number of rules and swears not to break them ever, ever, ever, ever. I want him to be someone that feels and fights these temptations, to just use his strength to put these criminals down once and for all.

[YT]dq2J5LsOF5w[/YT]

Absolutely. But that's what makes him different... he doesn't actually do it.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah. YOU THINK YOU CAN THREATEN MY MOTHER-fries Zod's brains-screams.

LOL, well if it had happened that way, the movie DEFINITELY would have dodged all the criticism that it was too long! t:

 

[Nathan]

Absolutely. But that's what makes him different... he doesn't actually do it.

And in 99% of the cases I agree he shouldn't.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

And in 99% of the cases I agree he shouldn't.

I know. I just think that other 1% belongs in our logic and imagination. Not on screen, in the first cinematic representation of the character in 7 years.

 

[Herolee10]

Given the scenario that he was put in along with the fact that this was his first outing, I'm willing to let it go personally in regards to what he did to Zod; now if he started killing his opponents after this, then I'd take a issue to it.

Like others have said, this has unfortunately happened in the past, and were executed (no pun intended) in ways far worse than what MOS did.

 

[Nathan]

Some fans would would never be ok with it anyway. No matter the circumstances or time. So they decided to tackle that issue in the first Movie. And now it'll be even more interesting to see how he'll deal with future encounters against powerful enemies.

 

[STARMAN]

Probably would have been better if they ended scene with Superman seeing all the destruction and vowing to never kill again.

 

[Nathan]

I still don't get the need of having him to spell it out. Let his actions speak for him in the sequel.

 

[STARMAN]

Because that's smoother than going from crying in Lois's arms to casually talking to the general like nothing happened.

 

[roach]

Maybe it's just me but Superman crying in her arms told me he wasn't going to kill again

 

[STARMAN]

I know he's not going to kill again. But didn't you find it odd to go from that to the scene with the general?

 

[Nathan]

It's not just you. Dropping to his knees, screaming, being embraced by Lois. All of that said plenty. I didn't need him to swear a vow.

I know he's not going to kill again. But didn't you find it odd to go from that to the scene with the general?

Only if you don't acknowledge that it was clearly a time skip.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Some fans would would never be ok with it anyway. No matter the circumstances or time. So they decided to tackle that issue in the first Movie. And now it'll be even more interesting to see how he'll deal with future encounters against powerful enemies.

Yeah, I guess i'd be more okay with it if I knew we were safe from now on and it was just something they had to get out of their systems... but we have no assurances that it won't happen again.

I still don't get the need of having him to spell it out. Let his actions speak for him in the sequel.

Because we waited with our breath held for 3 years... it's so hard to then just go 'oh well, i guess i'll wait another couple of years to see what i've been wanting to see, no biggie'.

 

[roach]

I know he's not going to kill again. But didn't you find it odd to go from that to the scene with the general?

why did you find it odd?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Maybe it's just me but Superman crying in her arms told me he wasn't going to kill again

I did love that BTW.

It's a great thing they did, allowing him to do something so incredibly not 'macho'.

I know he's not going to kill again. But didn't you find it odd to go from that to the scene with the general?

Yup.

It's not just you. Dropping to his knees, screaming, being embraced by Lois. All of that said plenty. I didn't need him to swear a vow.

There is a huge difference between being upset by the act of killing, and deciding that you're going to set up a whole set of principals around never doing it again and try to actually hold to that even harder, even in the same situation.

You can't just infer that from a reaction of some emotion.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in proffesions in which they have to kill in certain situations that are rocked by their first actual kill. But it doesn't make them vow to never do it again.

That is something that needs to be spoken to be true. We can't just assume it.

 

[Nathan]

I just don't get the fear of thinking he's gonna turn into Punisher, and needing an extra line just to reassure he's not gonna do it again in a sequel.

 

[Herolee10]

I know he's not going to kill again. But didn't you find it odd to go from that to the scene with the general?

It's true that I thought they could have used another scene in between, but I'm assuming that some time had passed since Zod's destruction of Metropolis that Superman would have enough time to at least get his act together and confront the General the way that he did.

 

[Herolee10]

That is something that needs to be spoken to be true. We can't just assume it.

Wasn't it confirmed by Snyder though that the reason why he had Superman kill Zod the way he did was to establish Superman's no killing policy within this franchise?

 

[roach]

There is a huge difference between being upset by the act of killing, and deciding that you're going to set up a whole set of principals around never doing it again and try to actually hold to that even harder, even in the same situation.

You can't just infer that from a reaction of some emotion.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in proffesions in which they have to kill in certain situations that are rocked by their first actual kill. But it doesn't make them vow to never do it again.

That is something that needs to be spoken to be true. We can't just assume it.

By why do we need him to say it? It's a vow to himself. Who makes vows to themselves out loud?
Look at the scene in BB where Bruce throws the gun in the harbor. Right there he made his vow not to use guns or kill. Do we need to have him say it out loud to understand that he wont use a gun or kill again?

 

[InJustice]

New 52 Superman has been utter garbage to read. Would not recommend to anyone.

What I don't understand is the John Byrne controversial issue getting a lot of hate. The story was very melancholic and you get the feel that while Superman had no choice but to kill General Zod, Zaora, and Quex-Ul (they deserved to die...I mean seriously...who kills 5 billion people + Lex + Bruce Wayne and get away with it by being banished to the Phantom Zone? I might cause a ****storm, but if Zod and Co's crimes were measured in reality, Hitler's holocaust would pale in comparison), he's never the same character after his act. And that's what was interesting...you can sense the internal conflict within Superman: he killed and believes that he can no longer take the mantle of Superman. That is how you do a compelling kill, not the New 52 BS.