BvS Is Batman justified when he refuses to kill? Do you wish he was more like Superman?

[Tempest]

This part of the argument makes no sense. If you believe that Batman as we know him - the Post-Crisis Batman of the Modern Age comics - would understand that what Superman in MOS did is justified, then by your own definition, the new Batman understanding this in the movie would not be out of character at all.

Ok? I guess I don't understand the pissing and moaning that went on a few pages back when I dared to suggest that Batman would understand Superman's difficult situation. I was slapped down with a "OMG you moron, Batman doesn't kill. He NEVER kills. He would NEVER EVER EVER understand or support Superman's decision to kill Zod!"

So...I guess we're in agreement to some extent? My point had been that this will be a new Batman, and that while he's based on the comics (duh, he has to be, or he'd be just a random character), he's probably not going to be a carbon copy of a character from the comics.

You are saying this from the perspective of a moviegoer. In the MOS universe, the only people that were there to witness what happened to Zod were Superman himself and those four people he saved (Lois only got there after). The rest of the world has no clue how Zod died and why he died in the first place. The only thing they know? Superman killed him. That and the fact that Zod was found with a broken neck next to Superman's body. Why would anyone (other than Lois and the people close to him) trust the alien with infinite power that the whole world fears at this point when he says that he had no choice but to kill him?

First, wrong. Lois was there in the station when Superman kills Zod. She is running down the stairs and pauses to take in the scene when Superman is pleading with Zod. When Clark falls to his knees, and screams, she rushes over, but she was there when Clark snapped Zod's neck.

Secondly, I think that regular people will figure out fairly easily that Superman = Good Guy, Zod = Bad Guy. There were an awful lot of witnesses besides Lois and the military who saw how hard Superman fought to stop Zod and his crew.

Of course, there will be groups who potentially support Zod and his crew (just look at the Boston bombers' popularity), but I think the majority of people would be able to figure out that Superman was protecting them, not trying to hurt them. If you add Lois into the equation, and the people from the DP, it will help a great deal.

Don't forget, we got an acknowledgement from Jenny that Superman saved them. In the scene where Superman gets squashed by the locomotive, we see the lower-ranking military members standing down of their own free will. Harding declares that Superman is not the enemy.

These people are not special or unique. They were used to illustrate the larger picture.

NOW, given the possible climate for the next film, I definitely see some people stirring the anti-Superman sentiments. People are moody, so it wouldn't shock me if we see Superman being a hero to people, and then they all loathe him, to them loving him again.

Just like in the comics or the animated series. Superman is always dancing that knife's edge between public enemy or mankind's saint. I like brooding, angsty men, what can I say?

This is especially true for Batman, who always mad major trust issues. Batman was not there to witness what happened and only has Superman's word on what happened. It makes logical sense for Batman to be a bit suspicious of Zod's death and to believe Superman is dangerous due to it.

I know. I'm not arguing that. But I'm hoping that once the guys have their little rumble, they can get over it, and Batman can be more understanding.

Furthermore, Batman has many arguments to counter Superman's "I had no choice but to do it" statement. You've probably seen some of those same arguments on this site. How exactly did he have to kill Zod in that situation? There are plenty of other things he could have done. He could have flew with him. He could've covered his eyes. Pull his head back so that he fries the ceiling instead of the people. The list goes on. Why didn't Superman do any of these things? Because he was stressed out, put under pressure, could not keep his cool or think rationally. Those things are perfectly normal human reactions and the vast majority of people would have reacted the same way if put into that situation. But Batman has always been a guy who remains calm and calculative even in the worst situations and, to an extent, views what Superman experienced in that moment as a weakness that people can exploit. Thus even if Batman knows exactly what happened in that museum, it would only be evidence for him that Superman lets pressure & his emotions get a hold of him and is thus dangerous having all that power.

Break it down a little.

THINK about the position Superman was in -- he had Zod finally mostly contained, except for the Laser Beams of Doom. What would you have suggested? ANY of your potential choices would have resulted in Superman shifting his grip on Zod. If Zod had been granted even an inch, the battle would have started up again. Or Zod would have just murdered those four people, anyone else in the vicinity, before they would have fought for even longer, causing more death, more chaos, more injuries.

There's a fine line in heroism where you're either an idiot, insane, or a little of both. Which would Superman have been if he'd let Zod go?

Batman is known for strategy. Breaking down the fight, I'm fairly sure he'd realize that the position Clark was in, there was only one choice.

I think Batman's concern won't be in the fact that Superman killed Zod, but that Superman is raw power that is untrained. That much power, and the idea of it not being controlled -- or, having it controlled by the wrong person --would probably rub Batman the wrong way.

I never said you said he wasn't complex. My point is that Batman's no-kill rule and the way it is handled is part of what makes him such a complex character in the first place. In my opinion, he became a far more complex character due to it.

Of course he is a bit of a bastard. I never said Batman is morally perfect. My entire argument here is that Batman does not kill. Bruce crosses a lot of lines to get the job done, but the one line he refuses to cross is to resort to killing. That is his one and only rule and is part of what makes him so interesting. He is a monster, but he is a monster on our side. Plus, in a way, Batman's no-kill rule is why he has such a strong bond with Superman in the first place. Both men have the same morals; just different methods and views on everything else.

Agreed. BUT I still think Batman could understand what Clark (or any other law officer or military person) has had to do in extreme circumstances. Clark didn't have the luxury of an asylum to put Zod into, the Phantom Zone was gone; where was he going to put Zod?

By that same logic, what's the point of even coming on this website at all? All arguments and discussions on this site would be silly.

I was poking fun at myself. With some of the other stuff I'm involved in, these conversations end up being ridiculous.

1) You're making it sound as if Superman killing is going to be his motto in this universe from now on. It isn't. It is a one-time thing. The whole point of getting Superman to kill Zod was to have him learn from that the horrors of killing and for him to never do it again. Goyer even confirmed this in an interview. Superman has always been one of the most moral superheroes, if not the most moral one. In order for this Superman to become that Superman, he has to experience murder in order to have a deep understanding on why it is wrong and on the horrors that come with it in the first place. As people often say, you can't fully learn something until you experience it. I don't really agree with this character arc, but it is the character arc that Snyder and Goyer have in mind.

Yes to the first half of your post, no to the second half. Yes, I realize that Superman is not going to go on a murder spree. I've never suggested that he will kill again. I'm not the one spazzing that he's killed someone. I'm glad though, that at least one fanboy seems to have caught up with me. That only took two months. Geez.

It wasn't murder, it was homicide. BIG difference. Clark already knew that killing was not good, which was why he begged Zod to not force him to do it. I honestly think that the death of Zod was less about teaching Clark a lesson, and more about mirroring the story of Jesus. Christian lore suggests that after his death, Jesus descended to hell, and did battle with Satan to free the souls Satan had trapped.

The fact that Clark was fighting a man driven by greed for power, underground, with hellfire blazing from his eyes, seems more symbolic than anything else.

2) Superman breaking Zod's neck was when he had his "This is why killing is wrong" moment. Now this particular version of Superman has just as much of a complex reason for his no-kill rule as the new Batman presumably does. But assuming that the new Batman has his parents murdered as a kid and then traveled the world to train, he already had his "This is why killing is wrong" moment prior to becoming Batman. It automatically comes with the origin. Thus it would be pointless to apply that same character arc to Batman here.

Right? No arguments here.

3) Having the perfectly-sane boy scout who grew up in Kansas kill this one time is no big deal. One death is not going to corrupt him and destroy him inside out. On the other hand, Batman is a monster in human form and is insane. Killing one person is going to have a far bigger impact on him than on someone like Superman and would lead him to corruption much faster. Basically, you have to push Superman a few meters first while Batman is right at the edge and just needs a little push (as the Joker would say ). Having Batman murder would get him over that edge not too long.

Which is why, of the two characters, I am content with Superman being the one to take the marks on his soul that Batman can't take. It will be even more interesting to see how Batman would respond to a request from Clark to be the one to 'put him down' if he gets out of control somehow (in the film, I mean. I know the comics already have that sort-of in place).

I do.

Wooo! I knew we'd get there!

It has.

 

[Kevin Smith]

It's pretty simple really.
Right now I'm firmly against killing, I'm a normal decent guy.
If I had to kill my own brother it would be likely that out of that I would be passionately against killing. As passionate as people like Superman(and particularly batman are).

Here's a question, for you. Why is it none of the heroes in avengers have a no kill code? I mean they are all decent people after all.

Next time superman is put into a no choice situation(though it rarely happens(never in comics apparently)), he might have to struggle even more with the choice. Which is the point.

Oh. Okay. So how many more "no other choice" situations would you like them to put Superman in?

It's not an issue of the "character" being bad, it's the writers being bad for choosing to do that. Let's put him in Saw like situations next time since they are gruesome yet also completely justifiable because they're "do or die" circumstances.

Here's a question, for you. Why is it none of the heroes in avengers have a no kill code? I mean they are all decent people after all.

Iron Man has killed. Cap is a soldier, I'm sure he has killed. Thor has probably killed SOMETHING, but they're not going to have him have a showdown with Loki where they have him break his neck and kill him, then berate the character in following installments for doing what he did when Loki was as much of a menace as he was. If anything, there'd be miles of drama and sorrow to milk out of Thor for having to kill his "brother", but would this now somehow warrant a "no kill policy" from him for any situational "no way outs"?

Absolutely not.

The answer to your question, in short, is that Marvel, for the most part, is not "ashamed" of their characters and has better writers who seem to "believe" more in what they are writing and don't want to just write every character like they are Iron Man or Wolverine, they seem to respect and appreciate the individuality of each of their characters and see it as an advantage rather than a stumbling block.

Ask this same question to mothers after abortions...

No, I won't, because killing an unborn child and killing a mature adult who is conscious and responsible for their own decisions and very aware of what they are doing, having chosen to endanger innocent lives, are two completely different things.

Superman's kill was not a "kill" for vengeance/selfish personal reasons. There was only positive that came from what he did. Zod was not an "innocent" or "good" person.

The jedi don't seem to have any "aversion" to killing if it is necessary and as a last resort. Why should Superman now in this MOS-verse? There's no reasoning for it.

 

[storyteller]

Thor is a soldier. Captain America is a soldier. Iron Man made weapons that ended plenty of lives. Wolverine is a soldier. These are men who have been conditioned to kill. But throw in someone like Spider-man and killing is a big issue to this guy.

Now Batman is simple. He will kill if he has to. But Batman has trained to find alternatives. He also believes that he is not an executioner. He has no right to kill a person just because he thinks they deserve to die. He knows that society has to do it or else there is no point. The Joker doesn't die because Gotham/state/country allows this man to live.

Superman is simple. He will kill if he has to. But Superman tries to find the alternatives. He will beg for an alternative. But remember that in most cases Superman has more raw power then his foes. He is not an executioner. Zod was his equal, the circumstances change. But if Zod had been in some powersuit. He would have found another way. Hell maybe this incident will teach him to create more alternatives, to try harder.

 

[Marvin]

I would rather them not put him in any more overly contrived circumstances to attempt to "break" the "mold" of the character.

No you would rather they just put him in somewhat contrived circumstances(see comic book plots) with somewhat contrived way's out of them(see comic book plots for magic green rocks aimless floating though the galaxy or scientists opening doors to pocket universes at star labs etc).

You could assume they did it to break the mold if you want, one can just as easily assume a bunch of other things(such as what the producers themselves said). To each his own I guess.

No one would need to kill to gain a "no kill policy", particularly in the MOS logic case, that would be the most idiotic stance would could adapt and take away from a situation like that.

Guess we'll have to disagree there. Nolan seems to agree with me however. I suppose that's why we are where we are.

No, that Superman and Batman have historically not needed to kill someone to adopt that stance, and using the events in MOS as justification for it isn't just unnecessary, it's also stupid.

Batman's no kill rule sprung from an particular event and situation in his life. Superman's no kill rule, "historically" has no such thing..until now.
I love when creators fix things.

Because it's been a staple of who Superman and the DC characters are for YEARS and it's a part of their character, one of their most defining traits and they've got mileage and mileage from it as a story telling standpoint for years. The Marvel heroes have historically NOT had a "strict no kill" policy, least not as boasted as Superman and Batman. Cap is a soldier, Iron Man builds weapons for a living.

So you are def going to keep missing my point on this. Ok.
I simply asked you what it takes for a character in literature or in life to develop a no kill rule. According to marvel a no kill rule is not something all good people just have. I asked you plainly, why does superman just have it? Break it down for me...
Your answer is seemingly: "historically he does"

But you said "you don't need to kill to have a no kill rule." That implies that good people just don't kill it's pretty simple. So I ask you what about all the good people in avengers, why don't they have a no kill rule? I'm talking about all those characters btw.

Which has nothing to do with this discussion.

Actually it has everything to do with it. I know a girl who when asked about abortion said she didn't believe in it and would avoid ever having anything do with it. When her close friend got pregnant she was the first to that friend to have the baby, it's the right thing to do. Then she herself got pregnant and was in a bad situation, that forced her to have an abortion...

If you ask this girl how she feels about abortion now she will give you a passionate answer full of conviction and remorse.

Ask superman how he feels about killing now.
Sorry pal but it has everything to do with the discussion. If you can't see it then I suppose we're done here.

 

[Kevin Smith]

No you would rather they just put him in somewhat contrived circumstances(see comic book plots) with somewhat contrived way's out of them(see comic book plots for magic green rocks aimless floating though the galaxy or scientists opening doors to pocket universes at star labs etc).

In circumstances that don't try to buck what the character is for the sake of making him "hip", yes.

You could assume they did it to break the mold if you want, one can just as easily assume a bunch of other things(such as what the producers themselves said). To each his own I guess.

That is the only reason why it was put in. The half assed "well where does he develop a no kill policy from of he never kills" excuse flies in the face of logic, and everything about the character. Superman is optimism incarnate, the Kents raised him to develop his strict moral code.

Guess we'll have to disagree there. Nolan seems to agree with me however. I suppose that's why we are where we are.

F*** Nolan.

Neither he nor Goyer agreed initially, and DC Comics and Mark Waid (one of, if not the greatest Superman writer of all time) agree with me.

Some people are bigger Nolan fans than they are Superman and Batman fans though, so it looks like you're spoken for.

Batman's no kill rule sprung from an particular event and situation in his life. Superman's no kill rule, "historically" has no such thing..until now.
I love when creators rape things.

Fixed.

Superman is optimism incarnate, the Kents caused him to develop his strict moral code. Superman was not created to take the Kobayashi Maru and pass it, he was created to "cheat" it (just like Captain Kirk ).

So you are def going to keep missing my point on this. Ok.
I simply asked you what it takes for a character in literature or in life to develop a no kill rule. According to marvel a no kill rule is not something all good people just have. I asked you plainly, why does superman just have it? Break it down for me...
Your answer is seemingly: "historically he does"

My answer is he has a different moral code/set of ethics than other good guy characters, and taking what is a pretty defining attribute about the character and attempting to make a "justifiable contradiction", just for the sake of doing so when it doesn't play off of anything else in the film (a la Batman avenging the murder of his parents with wanting to kill The Joker in the '89 film), is unnecessary, weak, and lazy, and desperate writing.

But you said "you don't need to kill to have a no kill rule." That implies that good people just don't kill it's pretty simple. So I ask you what about all the good people in avengers, why don't they have a no kill rule? I'm talking about all those characters btw.

Good people can and sometimes need to kill. Same goes for Superman, it was just an unnecessary and poor attempt at making Superman "edgy" in Man of Steel by people who don't believe enough in the character and should have been left how Goyer ended it originally.

As far as characters and people go, no, one does NOT need to kill in order to have a "no kill" stance. Superman has a "no kill" policy because he is good and that is how the Kents raised him, and with all of his powers there isn't any reason why he would have to kill (unlike the lesser powered marvel crew), unless you put him in a situation to intentionally contradict who he is to make him "kewl". I don't want to see Superman saw his leg off to save a bus of children, but I am sure he would do it if he had to and that he, as a character, should because it is in his character in that case. Why put him in that situation though as a writer? It is stupid and unnecessary to do, it's just bad writing. That is my whole point. As a writer, particularly with how it was done in MOS, it smacks of laziness and lack of faith in the character.

What would have been more emotional and better to do as a writer would have been to make it PERSONAL for Superman and have Zod goading him on to kill him and the audience really rooting for Superman to do so but then having him resist it and put Zod in the Phantom Zone. THAT is drama and THAT is tension right there. There's a great episode of Superman: the animated series when he deals with Darkseid in a similar manner, and then they could build him up to where he HAS to be killed because he is so evil and there is no other way and Superman must break his CODE (that he already has in place because of who he is) and do it. It was just so limp dicked and half assed how they went about it in MOS and that I did not like. It did not seem like character development but something they threw in out of desperation to me, easily, and it's very obviously so.

Actually it has everything to do with it. I know a girl who when asked about abortion said she didn't believe in it and would avoid ever having anything do with it. When her close friend got pregnant she was the first to that friend to have the baby, it's the right thing to do. Then she herself got pregnant and was in a bad situation, that forced her to have an abortion...

If you ask this girl how she feels about abortion now she will give you a passionate answer full of conviction and remorse.

Ask superman how he feels about killing now.
Sorry pal but it has everything to do with the discussion. If you can't see it then I suppose we're done here.

You're comparing killing an unborn child and feeling remorseful about it, never wanting to do it again, to killing a murderous madman when if you don't within a split second he will kill lots of people, and then saying you will never kill a murderous madman again no matter what the circumstances. There's no comparison and you are greatly deluded to think that there is, and that what Superman did in MOS somehow logically brings him to the conclusion that he should adopt a no kill policy.

 

[Kevin Smith]

Having him walk around "haunted" by killing Zod, when it was the right thing to do in that situation and Zod was an evil man, and letting that be the reason he is psychologically "paralyzed" to killing, in addition to the ridiculous "I let my father die" guilt that they gave him makes him too tragic a character, when Superman, while yes, Pa Kent died, yes, he is the sole survivor of his planet, does not walk around teary-eyed and "tragic", but remains positive and optimistic in the face of all this. That is probably the biggest departure from the Superman we (or at the very least I) know and love and MOS' Superman, but I really gave it the benefit of the doubt because he was "beginning" in it.

But I am really, really, REALLY hoping for more SUPERMANish moments in the next installment, where things look bleak and then SUPERMAN! - out of nowhere. MOS lacked that a good bit, IMO, there's virtually no build up and I did not care about anything that happened in it.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ One can still have him be optimistic overall, yet feel some guilt for killing Zod. Just show him having nightmares or something, and confess his overall feelings of the situation INCLUDING the fact that he wasn't able to save enough people to Lois. IF he saves Luthor, his guilt can be absolved, because he was able to stop a villain without resorting to deadly force.

But the film shouldn't be BUILT around his guilt. It should be just one emotional subplot out of many (the world's response to Superman, Clark as a fish out of water, Superman vs Lex, Superman vs Metallo, and the fear of a certain stranger who turns out to be Batman)

Wow, it seems like this would be best suited to a 3 hour film

 

[Marvin]

In circumstances that don't try to buck what the character is for the sake of making him "hip", yes.

It may have made him hip in your eyes but that wasn't the reason they did it. If you want to know the reason, look it up, it's been well documented. Sometimes people try and actually explain things on screen. You know like why batman put on the suit, or why batman has an aversion to guns....an attempt to explain things...not just "make them hip"

That is the only reason why it was put in. The half assed "well where does he develop a no kill policy from of he never kills" excuse flies in the face of logic, and everything about the character. Superman is optimism incarnate, the Kents raised him to develop his strict moral code.

Preconceived plots and ploys you walked in to the film with. When they do an all star superman movie you can talk to me about how the film flies in the face of that characterization...
This film is something else, just like Superman earth one is something else and not just what you want. To each his own.

F*** Nolan.

Neither he nor Goyer agreed initially, and DC Comics and Mark Waid (one of, if not the greatest Superman writer of all time) agree with me.

Some people are bigger Nolan fans than they are Superman and Batman fans though, so it looks like you're spoken for.

I'm not the biggest nolan fan but I do suppose he agrees with me. I don't know what Mark Waid is other than a hypocrite masquerading as a mal context. His own work speaks against his "firm beliefs" in a way MOS could only dream of.

And that's right neither nolan or goyer agreed at first, they were like you. Then I suppose they encountered someone with far better rhetoric than I and they saw the error in their ways.

Superman is optimism incarnate, the Kents caused him to develop his strict moral code. Superman was not created to take the Kobayashi Maru and pass it, he was created to "cheat" it (just like Captain Kirk ).

He was? I suppose Donner and a bunch of other writers(waid included) didn't get the memo of what your superman is.

BTW that kirk comparison is what we call great writing, not a contrived element to be found.

My answer is he has a different moral code/set of ethics than other good guy characters, and taking what is a pretty defining attribute about the character and attempting to make a "justifiable contradiction", just for the sake of doing so when it doesn't play off of anything else in the film, is unnecessary, weak, and lazy, and desperate writing.

No your answer is he hates killing because he just does, he's good. The marvel guys don't hate killing because they just don't, they're good. Before you go off on the bad writing angle, ask yourself, what in this movie is a would lead you to believe that this superman is the guy you say he is right now? His parents?

Here's the thing you and some of the others are missing. Superman having a "no kill rule" is supposedly a defining character trait, supposedly known far and wide. But how he get's it that defined. His parents taught him to be good, they never once said two words about killing is the cardinal sin, never do it. Funny enough I just don't think because momma and poppa simply told you not to has all that much artistic integrity and dramatic purpose...

As far as characters and people go, no, one does NOT need to kill in order to have a "no kill" stance. Superman has a "no kill" policy because he is good and that is how the Kents raised him, and with all of his powers there isn't any reason why he would have to kill (unlike the lesser powered marvel crew), unless you put him in a situation to intentionally contradict who he is to make him "kewl".

Superman doesn't walk around ripping kids heads off because his parents raised him to be good. Why does he believe killing is an absolute last resort though? The kents raised a good natured mid western american values man, those kinda people usually don't have superman's famed passion against taking a life no matter what the circumstances.

"Lesser powered marvel crew", that's why they kill? Their power levels? I'm pretty sure Stark could find a way around most of the killing he does. He's pretty powerful and smart. Funny enough Batman has no powers and he never kills(in the comics that is).

But sure superman's powers are so high that he will never have to kill, until you put him in a situation intentionally to make him kewl.
Such as facing off against someone with higher or equal powers right? But that's not for story, that's just to make him Kewl, he should never face off against someone with equal or stronger powers.

You might be right, goyer and co probably did want to put an end to all the lame superman tropes of antiquity. That stuff was holding him back. That, he's so powerful he never will face a real crisis and all that.

I don't want to see Superman saw his leg off to save a bus of children, but I am sure he would do it if he had to. Why put him in that situation though as a writer? It is stupid and unnecessary to do, it's just bad writing, IMO. That is my whole point. As a writer, particularly with how it was done in MOS, it smacks of laziness and lack of faith in the character.

That's nice that you don't want to see him saw his leg off, but how do you feel about him doing what he's done several times in the source material though? Not sure how that's bad writing. Putting a character in a no win is hardly bad writing. Laziness is having Zod fly up into the portal with the rest of them imo.

You're comparing killing an unborn child and feeling remorseful about it, never wanting to do it again, to killing a murderous madman when if you don't within a split second he will kill lots of people, and then saying you will never kill a murderous madman again no matter what the circumstances. There's no comparison and you are greatly deluded to think that there is, and that what Superman did in MOS somehow logically brings him to the conclusion that he should adopt a no kill policy.

No, I'm talking about having a passion about life(as superman seems to at the beginning), then being forced taking a life(obviously didn't want to do it) and then having an even more deep rooted passion about taking life. You know the kind of deep rooted passion superman(not the marvel crew) is known for.

Taking a life a big deal, whether it be your unborn child or the murderer of your sister. I assume you would agree with this. Once you do it, it's fair to assume you will develop strong feelings about such things.

Having him walk around "haunted" by killing Zod, when it was the right thing to do in that situation and Zod was an evil man, and letting that be the reason he is psychologically "paralyzed" to killing, in addition to the ridiculous "I let my father die" guilt that they gave him makes him too tragic a character, when Superman, while yes, Pa Kent died, yes, he is the sole survivor of his planet, does not walk around teary-eyed and "tragic", but remains positive and optimistic in the face of all this. That is probably the biggest departure from the Superman we (or at the very least I) know and love and MOS' Superman, but I really gave it the benefit of the doubt because he was "beginning" in it.

I don't get what you are saying here, say again...

 

[Kevin Smith]

It may have made him hip in your eyes but that wasn't the reason they did it. If you want to know the reason, look it up, it's been well documented. Sometimes people try and actually explain things on screen. You know like why batman put on the suit, or why batman has an aversion to guns....an attempt to explain things...not just "make them hip"

The only reason it was done was to make him "edgy". It was poorly conceived and shoe horned in.

(even Zod's eyes, it would have been better to have had them almost completely turning out of the side of his head in an attempt to kill the people because he is unable to turn his head any further because Superman won't let him, in the movie the beams are coming straight out of his head and he has his head turned towards the people, if he wanted to kill them all he'd have to do was literally just LOOK at them, it's really astounding at how poorly conceived the concept was)

Preconceived plots and ploys you walked in to the film with. When they do an all star superman movie you can talk to me about how the film flies in the face of that characterization...
This film is something else, just like Superman earth one is something else and not just what you want. To each his own.

It was supposed to be a Superman movie but the creators wanted to make him Bat-Superman.

I'm not the biggest nolan fan but I do suppose he agrees with me.

You were the one who touted this in the first place as though it awarded you some "brownie points".

I don't know what Mark Waid is other than a hypocrite masquerading as a mal context. His own work speaks against his "firm beliefs" in a way MOS could only dream of.

You don't know what Mark Waid is? How about one of the greatest comic book writers of all time? How about a better writer than Frank Miller? How about more talented than anyone who wrote Man of Steel? How about someone who loves and appreciates Superman as a character and doesn't want to make him "tragic" or Batman?

And that's right neither nolan or goyer agreed at first, they were like you. Then I suppose they encountered someone with far better rhetoric than I and they saw the error in their ways.

Yeah, "we have to make Superman kewl for teh keeds and make sure this makes money and having him kill somehow guarantees it will make money, just like removing the 'undies'".

He was? I suppose Donner and a bunch of other writers(waid included) didn't get the memo of what your superman is.

Donner seemed to get very much who Superman is and as did everyone else. Superman is just a good person, like Captain America. What is so wrong with that?

BTW that kirk comparison is what we call great writing, not a contrived element to be found.

Yeah, the Kirk writing is good characterization and story, you get tension from that because Kirk refuses to submit to the terms of the test, the no-win scenario, he "cheats" it. That is also what Superman is supposed to be and what he was CREATED to be. Period.

No your answer is he hates killing because he just does, he's good. The marvel guys don't hate killing because they just don't, they're good. Before you go off on the bad writing angle, ask yourself, what in this movie is a would lead you to believe that this superman is the guy you say he is right now? His parents?

Here's the thing you and some of the others are missing. Superman having a "no kill rule" is supposedly a defining character trait, supposedly known far and wide. But how he get's it that defined. His parents taught him to be good, they never once said two words about killing is the cardinal sin, never do it. Funny enough I just don't think because momma and poppa simply told you not to has all that much artistic integrity and dramatic purpose...

You've never seen Forrest Gump. Yes, he's ******ed, but he is a good person inside, and he didn't have to experience some tragedy to shape him this way.

Superman doesn't walk around ripping kids heads off because his parents raised him to be good. Why does he believe killing is an absolute last resort though? The kents raised a good natured mid western american values man, those kinda people usually don't have superman's famed passion against taking a life no matter what the circumstances.

The Kents did and they were good people. Superman himself was also a good person. This is what he believes. He is good in the same way that Captain America is good. Even Chris Evans has said that Cap is just a really good guy. That's who Superman is. And if you miss that then I guess you don't understand who the character is.

"Lesser powered marvel crew", that's why they kill? Their power levels? I'm pretty sure Stark could find a way around most of the killing he does. He's pretty powerful and smart. Funny enough Batman has no powers and he never kills(in the comics that is).

Lesser powered, maybe less convicted, I'm just saying it's easier for them, but that's beside the point. Superman doesn't kill because he is a good person, moreso than your Marvel heroes in some aspects. He is the ultimate good guy.

But sure superman's powers are so high that he will never have to kill, until you put him in a situation intentionally to make him kewl.
Such as facing off against someone with higher or equal powers right? But that's not for story, that's just to make him Kewl, he should never face off against someone with equal or stronger powers.

He should never have to be put in a situation where he has to kill them just for the sake of doing it. Maybe it's an issue with the movie on the whole, but the whole thing was very poorly conceived and just done to make Superman kill someone. Snyder wanted him to kill Zod, he didn't care how or wasn't sure how, he just thought it should happen.

You might be right, goyer and co probably did want to put an end to all the lame superman tropes of antiquity. That stuff was holding him back. That, he's so powerful he never will face a real crisis and all that.

The way they went about it was ill conceived and poorly developed. You may consider Superman's values "archaic", but they are what makes his character, but in a film where poor characterization is the standard for everyone, I guess it's okay that something was lost in translation.

That's nice that you don't want to see him saw his leg off, but how do you feel about him doing what he's done several times in the source material though?

You mean where it's properly developed and has the right dramatic tension to match and Superman and the other characters have strong characterization and it's done for the sake of enhancing the story and not just as a desperate attempt to overload Superman with tragedy to make him "kewl"? Yeah, I feel pretty good about that.

Too bad MOS didn't deliver it.

Not sure how that's bad writing. Putting a character in a no win is hardly bad writing. Laziness is having Zod fly up into the portal with the rest of them imo.

When it is done for the sake of doing so then it is bad writing. The original ending was fine and fit better and sounded more like....idk...a Superman story, but Snyder said "NO HE MUST KILL!!!!!!" and so he did.

No, I'm talking about having a passion about life(as superman seems to at the beginning), then being forced taking a life(obviously didn't want to do it) and then having an even more deep rooted passion about taking life. You know the kind of deep rooted passion superman(not the marvel crew) is known for.

Wait. So Superman DIDN'T want to kill Zod before he HAD to kill him? Gee. Sounds like there was already a no kill policy in place there, certainly some very strong feelings toward the subject. And he never had to kill anyone to get that. Wow. Imagine that.

Taking a life a big deal, whether it be your unborn child or the murderer of your sister.

How do you know this in that you haven't killed anyone (per your "logic")?

I assume you would agree with this. Once you do it, it's fair to assume you will develop strong feelings about such things.

But it's not possible at all to already feel strongly about it, to the point of where you don't ever want to do it or at the very least hope you never have to? Aaaand then somehow going and doing it will cause you to have the even greater epiphany that you don't want to do it and hope you never have to?

And again, an innocent life and a murderer are two very different things. Yes, it is a big deal to take any life, but taking the life of an amoral, evil, un-remorseful person will not rack someone with guilt to the point that were they ever in the situation again where it's that person or the lives that person would take they'd now have a different philosophy towards it. Just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Marvin]

The only reason it was done was to make him "edgy". It was poorly conceived and shoe horned in.

I guess we could just saying saying the opposite back and forth all day.(though again I've cited the producers, you've cited yourself).

(even Zod's eyes, it would have been better to have had them almost completely turning out of the side of his head in an attempt to kill the people because he is unable to turn his head any further because Superman won't let him, in the movie the beams are coming straight out of his head and he has his head turned towards the people, if he wanted to kill them all he'd have to do was literally just LOOK at them, it's really astounding at how poorly conceived the concept was)

There is a difference between poorly conceived and poorly executed.

That being said, perhaps he could have just turned his eyes...IF THE POWERS actually WORKED THAT WAY. Maybe just maybe, the heat vision in this film works the way the movie says it does and not the way you want it too... This right here is a prime example of you not looking at the film but rather your preconceived notions again. It's why I fear you and others will forever have this films in the hole imo.

Notice the axis of his neck in relation to the direction of the beam...
At a certain point the we the audience have to a a bit of work.

You were the one who touted this in the first place as though it awarded you some "brownie points".

I don't care about brownie points, just facts. I don't have to be a fan of his movies to respect that fact that a smart and talented individual saw the strength of the argument. I'm not a fan of alan moore's work but I'll easily cite his rhetoric if it makes sense. That's cause I know he's a smart guy. Nolan is a smart guy who was against this and somehow changed his mind. Take that for what it's worth.

You don't know what Mark Waid is? How about one of the greatest comic book writers of all time? How about a better writer than Frank Miller? How about more talented than anyone who wrote Man of Steel? How about someone who loves and appreciates Superman as a character and doesn't want to make him "tragic" or Batman?

I know who he is, I said I don't know what he is OTHER THAN a hypocrite. Sorry if I worded that wrong.
Plz explain to me how he's a better writer than frank miller? Explain it? How is he more "talented" than the one man who wrote man of steel? If you and others like his work that's fine I do too, but these statements are fanboy silly. All these people are immensely talented.

As for Waid. I suggest you read or re read Kingdom come, perhaps his most famous and iconic work. It seems to have all that tragic and violent stuff you hate. Just saying.

Yeah, "we have to make Superman kewl for teh keeds and make sure this makes money and having him kill somehow guarantees it will make money, just like removing the 'undies'".

I'm starting to get the feeling you aren't taking this seriously...
I also assume you were one of the underwear lovers? I suppose you have a compelling argument for those as well?
something along the lines of "historically..."

Donner seemed to get very much who Superman is and as did everyone else. Superman is just a good person, like Captain America. What is so wrong with that?

Last I checked superman killed in the donnerverse.
As for Superman simply being a good guy I think his film captured that....

As for captain america! Sure, he's a great guy. He's also a great guy with no No Kill rule. Imagine that. A good guy like cap but a killer? Oh right but cap enlisted to kill the bad guys so he's still a great guy. That means if superman "enlisted" to stop the bad guys he's also be a great guy, maybe even a hero. What do you have to do to enlist, work with and for the armed forces?

Yeah, the Kirk writing is good characterization and story, you get tension from that because Kirk refuses to submit to the terms of the test, the no-win scenario, he "cheats" it. That is also what Superman is supposed to be and what he was CREATED to be. Period.

Where does it say that?
You do appreciate that back when superman was "created" he was doing things alot differently than he is today. Pretty sure golden age superman killed. But you know fan boys can just keep running off about what he was created to be till the cows come home.

Kirk finding a way out of a no win is like batman escaping the death traps at the end of the 60's how every week....

It's like when Riddler asks batman to choose between robin and nicole kidman and batman saves both...wow amazing. Then in TDK he actually has a real choice to make, one the cartoon gods didn't just write him out of, and the film is celebrated for it's plotting and tone. Just doesn't seem like writing as as black and what as you might assume.

You've never seen Forrest Gump. Yes, he's ******ed, but he is a good person inside, and he didn't have to experience some tragedy to shape him this way.

Ask yourself this, how does forest gump feel about his son? The one he fears might be ******ed and thus will go through all the "tragedy" he did...
It's called character driven story telling.

Can't believe you brought up Gump, a movie about a guy with a mental disorder who isn't exactly a rational person, in a film that hops from one contrivity to the next...in comparison to why superman is good. And here I thought you were all about his parents making him good.

The Kents did and they were good people. Superman himself was also a good person. This is what he believes. He is good in the same way that Captain America is good. Even Chris Evans has said that Cap is just a really good guy. That's who Superman is. And if you miss that then I guess you don't understand who the character is.

No you missed the point. The Kents could have raised Steve Rogers to be a "good person" as good as clark kent. But that wouldn't stop Steve Rogers from killing bad guys.

Every time you bring up Captain American being a good old boy then compare that to superman, I'm going to ask you why steve rogers doesn't have a no kill rule. Why is it that in spite of all his good natured upbringing, this man will kill people instead of look for a way out?

He should never have to be put in a situation where he has to kill them just for the sake of doing it. Maybe it's an issue with the movie on the whole, but the whole thing was very poorly conceived and just done to make Superman kill someone. Snyder wanted him to kill Zod, he didn't care how or wasn't sure how, he just thought it should happen.

So when should he be put in the situation?
And please, if you are going to speak for what Snyder wants at least call him a liar first cause he's clearly stated why he had superman kill.

Wait. So Superman DIDN'T want to kill Zod before he HAD to kill him? Gee. Sounds like there was already a no kill policy in place there, certainly some very strong feelings toward the subject. And he never had to kill anyone to get that. Wow. Imagine that.

YES.
And you know where he got those? The farm. So do yourself a favor and stop covering your ears to the film, apparently it had what you want.

As for how that works against my point, it doesn't. Like I said people can be raised to be good and to value life. But when it comes to explaining someones deep rooted passion against taking life in dire circumstances even at the cost to one's own life...that might be better explained by way of experience.
imagine.

See the Abortion story again, it might make 2x more sense this time.

How do you know this in that you haven't killed anyone (per your "logic")?

I've been told.

I said it's a big deal never said two words about how I was changed by it(that's my logic).
You don't need to see your dog die to "know" it's big deal, however experiencing it is something different.

But it's not possible at all to already feel strongly about it, to the point of where you don't ever want to do it or at the very least hope you never have to? Aaaand then somehow going and doing it will cause you to have the even greater epiphany that you don't want to do it and hope you never have to?

Pretty sure if Someone asked obama to wipe out a continent with a nuke he'd be against it. Pretty sure if was then forced into war and did it, he'd have strong passionate feelings about it. He might even say something along the lines of...get this:

"never again"

And again, an innocent life and a murderer are two very different things. Yes, it is a big deal to take any life, but taking the life of an amoral, evil, un-remorseful person will not rack someone with guilt to the point that were they ever in the situation again where it's that person or the lives that person would take they'd now have a different philosophy towards it. Just doesn't make any sense.

A different philosophy towards it in this case is the difference between snapping a neck and pulling a captian kirk is it not. What do you just want superman to keep snapping evil peoples necks?
Here's a question if you are a really really really good person, you know like the kind your version of ma and pa kent raise. Then what is the difference between taking the life of an innocent child or an amora evil murdering villain. Shouldn't your version superman feel they are equal? Wouldn't they have the same impact on his soul? He doesn't hold any lives above others right?

When it is done for the sake of doing so then it is bad writing. The original ending was fine and fit better and sounded more like....idk...a Superman story, but Snyder said "NO HE MUST KILL!!!!!!" and so he did.

I think this pretty much sums up your views imo. I suppose I'll leave it at that.

 

[Shazam]

Generally I don't mind either way, as I'm not a Batman fan. But do some of you who like Batman feel a bit 'robbed' when you see Batman wuss-out? The only time Batman's lack of menace might bother me is if he waves the finger at Superman.

There is a difference between justice and the law obviously. And I think Batman puts the law above justice, while Superman is wise enough to see justice and not be blinded by the law. Then again, Batman didn't receive guidance from Jor-El and merely thinks like a human (not a mistake, just a limitation).

Maybe in the next film we will see Superman enlighten Batman and educate him on the limitations of the law and the need for real justice.

Lots of people would be alive today if he had killed Joker years ago.

 

[MANOFSTEELtrilogy]

Lots of people would be alive today if he had killed Joker years ago.

Exactly true, there is no better example.

 

[Tobias]

Yes. I want that to be a contrast with Superman in the film. Superman has killed but Batman refuses to.

 

[MANOFSTEELtrilogy]

I hope Batman is trying to uphold the law, while Superman is trying to save the world (by killing the villain), they clash and Batman tries to use kryptonite (haha...what else?) to stop Superman and Superman kills Batman in order to save the world.

 

[Bathead]

"Never mind." - E. Litella

 

[Batmannerism]

Wow. what an intense debate.

Just a couple of thoughts, they've probably been expressed, and expressed better , but what the hell.

My starting point is that Batman's a very complicated and contradictory character, and as such we aren't going to resolve anything about him
, especially by applying logic. But it's fun to try, so why not ?

Batman and Killing:

Thought 1

From a comic book perspective, IMO The Dark Knight Returns (1987) is the greatest Batman story (Alan Moore thought so, and who am I to argue with him, although I enjoyed the film versions of Watchmen and V for Vendetta, so forget I said that ).

Anyway, remember the bit where Batman's got the mutant leader in his sights in the Batmobile (well, the Bat-tank) and he says to himself that only thing that makes sense is to pull the trigger and blast him off the face of the earth (because he's a psychopathic murdering scumbag, and really had it coming).

Of course he doesn't and then gets his ass kicked. For some weird reason, that seems okay (well it did to me anyway), because that's who Batman is and he's defined by his obsession with crime fighting.

I guess that's what we like about Batman, he makes hard choices (but sadly, probably not the right one), we like the fact that he's flawed (well, besides being handsome, athletic, unimaginably rich, and a genius).


Same series, remember when Batman's about to confront the Joker at the funpark, where the evil psycho's just tried to kill a bunch of boy scouts and is shooting anyone nearby for fun. BM says to himself that he (Batman) has murdered all those people, by letting the Joker live.

And then, when they finally duke it out, Bats can't go through with it and actually kill him. Again, reinforces the stuff I said before, it's a moral choice
(but probably the wrong choice) although at the same time, it's Miller asking a whole bunch of philosophical questions of the reader - essentially, do you believe in capital punishment....while at the same time making it damn entertaining comic book reading. If any of you like Batman and haven't read
it, you're missing out.

Of course, Gordon also says to Batman "We have to show him that our way works" suggesting that he want Bats to take the Joker alive, regardless of what he's done.

Still on comic books. I remember the whole saga (back in the 1988), when the Joker kills Jason Todd. The year before that he paralyzed Barbara Gordon (Killing Joke, another Batman classic, penned by the master himself, Alan Moore).
Personally, I thought it was a bit sick, getting fans to vote on Robin's death - anyway, if ever there was a time for Batman to kill the Joker, that was it ( I was fully expecting Bats to even the score, and would have cheered at the
righteous vindication of Batman killing that psycho).

In truth, Batman probably never kills the Joker because the Joker sells comic books , put him in an issue and it'll sell more than usual. He's a great character who makes
entertaining and horrifying stories.

However, even as a fan, I've always thought that Batman should either kill
or permanently incapacitate that guy - he has it coming a couple of thousand times over. There's no logic to it, just a feeling, but I think the Joker has gone so far, that if Bats retired him, permanently, the readers could live with it.
Solve the problem by having someone else take over as the Joker (although I've often thought the same could be said for Batman).


There's the argument that the Joker only kills people, only even exists because of Batman - and as such that those deaths are Batman's fault.
I've always believed that was a ******** argument, because the truth is that
everyone is responsible for their own actions, the Joker kills those people.
At the same time, it's good for Batman to see that his actions have consequences.

Now in the movies.....remember the interrogation scene, where the Joker just laughs at Batman, as he gets punched in the face, because he reveals how impotent Bats is. Maroni said the same thing earlier (after being dropped off a fire escape) because Bats won't kill, then ultimately bad guys aren't afraid of him. I think this was Nolan's way of showing us that ultimately Batman's approach isn't effective - in fact the whole point of the trilogy (particularly the last film - if you don't believe me, watch it, and pretend that everything Alfred says is Nolan speaking directly to the audience) is that while he
helps out in the short term, ultimately he's doomed to fail.


(think: "Let's not stand on ceremony...Mr. Wayne" BANG ! Bats shoots
Bane, or at least puts one of those throwing knives through his head,
and none of that 5 months of occupied Gotham, which probably claimed hundreds of lives, happens

Or instead of saying "Then, you're going to love me" Batman doesn't just punch the Joker but kills him on the spot, result = heaps of lives saved, Harvey Dent still in one piece, Gotham gets back to normal).

None of this diminishes the great myth of Batman, or takes away our affection for the character. So, where do we get to in the end, that Batman is a strange paradox of prowess and futility, about making the moral choice, but probably not the right one. If we try and make a deep analysis of the character or prove that his methods are correct, we're kidding ourselves.

But, hey, he's a comic book character, so all of this is moot. In the real world, when the Seals found Bin Laden (which is a bad example, but the first one that comes to mind) they didn't slap the cuffs on him.

Although having said that, remember that Norwegian bastard, Anders Breivik, who murdered all those kids (about 70 or so), he's sitting in a prison writing books (and the maximum sentence, for anything, in Norway is 21 years, although he's got a special sentence that could be extended forever).
And then there's those Serbian military guys who masterminded all that ethnic cleansing in the former-Yugoslavia, they went on trial, and then to prison.
I suppose the difference between these guys and the Joker is the difference between real life and comics - that they aren't going to break out every three months or so and go on a killing spree.

Hey, maybe Batman's way is more realistic after all. Although there's an inherent fallacy about comparing comic books to the real world
(unless you belong to the "Art imitates life " school of thought).

Now that I've just undermined my entire argument I'll move on to....


Superman and Killing !

In the comic books Superman has killed, there's no argument there
I used to own the John Byrne issue when he killed Zod the first time,
which I found a bit unsettling at the time.

Personally, I went into MOS thinking "Superman doesn't kill !" so I was expecting to be outraged when he breaks Zod's neck.

But, I felt, after watching the film, that within the context of the story it
worked. (I loved, and I mean LOVED, Man of Steel, I thought it was a perfect reboot - but again, that's just my opinion).

Anyway, back to the Zod solution:

I've read hundreds of posts arguing each way that either
1) Supes could have solved the problem in some other way.
vs.
2) it was the only choice.

I don't want to restate the arguments, because they're all good, on both
sides.
For myself, I fall into category 2. My take on it, is that Supes didn't kill
Zod to save that family, he killed Zod to save humanity, as Zod would have gone on and exterminated us (which was his original plan anyway).

Also, I'm convinced Zod had a death wish, after the "Either you die, or I do."
speech. That he wanted Kal to kill him, he couldn't face life without the purpose that had driven him his entire existence -that was probably the only
thing that got him through the 33 years they were searching for Kal.

So why is Superman held to different standards than Batman ?

Good question. I suppose as he's practically a god, and faces problems
that only a god-like being could deal with (eg, a completely genocidal god)
then he's free to impose his own solutions.

Could Batman be more like this....maybe, but do we want him to be?

For some reason I think we want Batman to remain human (I'm sure
there are plenty of opportunities for him to have acquired super-powers
over the years, but he doesn't, it just wouldn't fit with the character
-and yet he too confronts super-human adversaries on a regular basis
, by the same token, Superman's arch-enemy is a mere human)
So once again, I've wrecked my own argument.

Maybe that's because what I said at the beginning was true. There's no
way to argue this out using logic or justification, or even continuity (since
DC reboots, revamps and retcons character histories with an increasingly
regular basis).

At the end of all this, it all comes down to how you feel about the character. For some weird reason it feels right to me that Batman doesn't kill (even though I think he should) and by the same token it feels right that
Superman has. And as a reader/audience member, that's all that matters.

Peace.

 

[Marvin]

Batman has killed in every single live action feature he's been in save for maybe the 60's film.

Superman has killed in 3 of his.

Yet MOS is some great no kill rule character assassination. I call hypocrisy with a hint or rather just a touch of bs.

Especially when mos is the first film to do it "differently" and with purpose as opposed to acceptable risk conflict resolution.

 

[Heretic]

Not sure if this has been answered...but is there any reason to believe that this Batman does not kill?

 

[Marvin]

Not sure if this has been answered...but is there any reason to believe that this Batman does not kill?

Nolan supposedly hates the idea, and he's still calling the executive shots.

 

[SentinelMind]

Don't get me wrong. I found it immensely emotionally powerful. It rocked me to my very core.

That was what made my heart break with such extreme force.

Cavill's performance, the whole silence of the scene, the violence of it... it shocked the hell out of me.

But it was in a way that I never ever wanted a Superman story to make me feel. It was a moment of absolute defeat. Superman was broken.

But ultimately, despite that emotional moment, they painted it as the 'right' choice straight after...

It was such a weird thing to do. To show the very act of it in such a way that it makes you feel this sense of defeat, regret and loss, and then start talking about how proud JK would be of him and how Clark wishes he could have seen what he turned out to be...



My faith is shattered.

Agreed, Man of Steel didn't give Superman an optimistic feel at the end of the movie. While he won the final battle, he basically succumbed to grimy, urban warfare environment instead of separating himself from it and providing a source of inspiration to the rest of the world. His smile and entrance to the Daily Planet just signaled that Superman is ok being just another anonymous stranger in Metropolis.

I don't think the next movie can be significantly lighter, since thy want to keep the Nolan tone (that's all WB knows is financially successful) and now they're introducing Batman. That's a shame.

 

[SentinelMind]

I'd only considered Superman killing Zod out of character if he spit on the ground, dusted off his hands, and walked away saying, "That's that." But he did nothing like that. Superman's action was not out of character -- it was about building character.

It was about sure shock value. Snyder/Goyer made Clark Kent into a violent redneck. Sorry, somebody had to say it.

 

[MANOFSTEELtrilogy]

Batman has killed in every single live action feature he's been in save for maybe the 60's film.

Superman has killed in 3 of his.

Yet MOS is some great no kill rule character assassination. I call hypocrisy with a hint or rather just a touch of bs.

Especially when mos is the first film to do it "differently" and with purpose as opposed to acceptable risk conflict resolution.

Who did Batman kill in Nolan's trilogy? Batman didn't save Ras in Batman Begins, but he didn't kill him. And who did Batman kill in the other films? He had the perfect opportunity to kill The Joker (and you definitely should kill The Joker, because you know he has the skills to find a way out of prison).

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Dent for one. And shooting missiles at a truck seems pretty deadly to me.

 

[SentinelMind]

Batman has killed in every single live action feature he's been in save for maybe the 60's film.

Superman has killed in 3 of his.

Yet MOS is some great no kill rule character assassination. I call hypocrisy with a hint or rather just a touch of bs.

Especially when mos is the first film to do it "differently" and with purpose as opposed to acceptable risk conflict resolution.

I didn't like how they handled Zod in Superman II either, but I take that up to problematic script development. I think Superman The Movie had right characterization, if they continued with that.

Yes, we can argue some of the characters (Spidey, Supes, Bat) are directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of villains. I think what polarizes MOS is the entire tone of the movie and laziness/dry cut writing near end of movie. MOS has a Superman who actively punches villains in all directions but doesn't really stop all that much to stop genocidal levels of destruction (I can only remember him saving one military officer in entire film). Superman isn't portrayed as actively saving people or being minimalist. He causes almost as much destruction as General Zod. When it was time for Superman to break his neck, I wasn't surprised at all....I saw it come and expected it...because this Superman is part of this cold-blooded dog-eat-dog world of Metropolis. It was proper culmination of his attitude and treatment we saw throughout entire film.

 

[Marvin]

It was about sure shock value. Snyder/Goyer made Clark Kent into a violent redneck. Sorry, somebody had to say it.

If you would describe that as turning superman into a redneck, I'd be pretty interested to hear what you think of the Avengers and Ironman specifically.

I'm not sure a redneck(seems like an offensive term but I'm not sure though, I'm not white) would beg and plead, then bellow and cry after the fact. But that's me.

I think what polarizes MOS is the entire tone of the movie and laziness/dry cut writing near end of movie. MOS has a Superman who actively punches villains in all directions but doesn't really stop all that much to stop genocidal levels of destruction (I can only remember him saving one military officer in entire film). Superman isn't portrayed as actively saving people or being minimalist. He causes almost as much destruction as General Zod. When it was time for Superman to break his neck, I wasn't surprised at all....I saw it come and expected it...because this Superman is part of this cold-blooded dog-eat-dog world of Metropolis. It was proper culmination of his attitude and treatment we saw throughout entire film

You might need to revisit the film. First off you say he caused more damage than he stopped, genocidal levels in fact. You are wrong. He stopped the world ending and nearly died doing so. That's about 8 billion human lives alone. How many did he kill?
He was thrown though about 7 buildings, nothing he could have done about that. He collaborated in bringing a building side down on a half deserted street, hardly genocidal....I'm just not seeing it.
You saw only one life he directly saved in the movie?
1. The colonel
2. Two separate pilots
3. His mother
4. Lois(multiple times)
5. 8 billion lives(on 2 separate occasions)
6. Oil rig
7. about 10 years of saving strangers and never revealing himself to take credit
8. a school bus full of jerks
I'm probably missing something.

I saw a very different attitude throughout the film than you did apparently.

Who did Batman kill in Nolan's trilogy? Batman didn't save Ras in Batman Begins, but he didn't kill him. And who did Batman kill in the other films? He had the perfect opportunity to kill The Joker (and you definitely should kill The Joker, because you know he has the skills to find a way out of prison).

In the nolan trilogy, he killed Ra's, he Killed Dent and he killed Talia.
Not to mention all the LOS members throughout the trilogy(ninja temple, missiles in the streets).

He's also technically responsible for a good amount of innocent deaths in gotham but that's not really his fault, just the result of his decisions to put on the mask.

More on Ra's.
He killed Ra's in the same way he saved the joker. By choosing to or not to rescue them from a situation he himself put them in. I mean, he "didn't have to save joker" either. He can just run around pushing all sorts of people off buildings and trains he destroys the controls for, and just choose not to save them.