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

[Marvin]

You know people's bigger argument against Superman killing Zod was he shouldn't have been out in that situation. Which I always thought was laughable, if they're doing a realistic take on Superheroes then it makes sense they'd be out into that type of situation at least once.

If we want to like superheros we should be willing to accept them doing their thing in any situation as long as they are true to their characterization. There's something to be said for not having any interest in seeing superman save the world by way of a porn audition situation. However seeing our heroes in truly testing and dramatic situations is the entire point. To suggest that the story is better served by avoiding what the character would do with his back truly against the wall is akin to what a Disney executive would argue in the 80's.

Times have changed. In the 90's batman was asked to choose between Robin and the love interest of the week and he saved both. In 2008, batman was asked to choose between the girl and the white knight and he chose the girl OUT RIGHT. Joker not only played him(he knew he would choose her), but the greater issue is that the writers took the opportunity to fuel the characterization with this choice and loss. Superman killed a suicidal villain and it hurt him. I look forward to seeing this used to fuel characterization in the future. This isn't the 90's sometimes the heroes don't get everyone and the cat and the stuffed animal out of the burning building, funny enough even the Disney exec's seem to understand that now.

At the very least if they do more with it(killing) than they have in the Ironman films that will be a shinning success.

imo.

 

[Lencho01]

Of course you don't. However that doesn't mean it's not in Tim's characterization. It begins to beg the question of:
If you like the character as he has been written over the years vs If you like the character as you see him.

That's Bruce Tim's superman, period. He has his good moments and his bad, as most heroes do.

Well, I believe I've shared how I feel about Timm's take on the character and how I feel they were generally kinda different in STAS versus JL/JLU, to which I feel the voice acting was a part of.

I did like that when it came to Luthor, Brainiac, and Darkseid, his mood would change because of the history they had.

 

[BH/HHH]

If we want to like superheros we should be willing to accept them doing their thing in any situation as long as they are true to their characterization. There's something to be said for not having any interest in seeing superman save the world by way of a porn audition situation. However seeing our heroes in truly testing and dramatic situations is the entire point. To suggest that the story is better served by avoiding what the character would do with his back truly against the way is akin to what a Disney executive would argue in the 80's.

Times have changed. In the 90's batman was asked to choose between Robin and the love interest of the week and he saved both. In 2008, batman was asked to choose between the girl and the white knight and he chose the girl OUT RIGHT. Joker not only played him(he knew he would choose her), but the greater issue is that the writers took the opportunity to fuel the characterization with this choice and loss. Superman killed a suicidal villain and it hurt him. I look forward to seeing this used to fuel characterization in the future. This isn't the 90's sometimes the heroes don't get everyone and the cat and the stuffed animal out of the burning building, funny enough even the Disney exec's seem to understand that now.

At the very least if they do more with it(killing) than they have in the Ironman films that will be a shinning success.

imo.

Agreed

 

[Krumm]

If we want to like superheros we should be willing to accept them doing their thing in any situation as long as they are true to their characterization. There's something to be said for not having any interest in seeing superman save the world by way of a porn audition situation. However seeing our heroes in truly testing and dramatic situations is the entire point. To suggest that the story is better served by avoiding what the character would do with his back truly against the way is akin to what a Disney executive would argue in the 80's.

Times have changed. In the 90's batman was asked to choose between Robin and the love interest of the week and he saved both. In 2008, batman was asked to choose between the girl and the white knight and he chose the girl OUT RIGHT. Joker not only played him(he knew he would choose her), but the greater issue is that the writers took the opportunity to fuel the characterization with this choice and loss. Superman killed a suicidal villain and it hurt him. I look forward to seeing this used to fuel characterization in the future. This isn't the 90's sometimes the heroes don't get everyone and the cat and the stuffed animal out of the burning building, funny enough even the Disney exec's seem to understand that now.

At the very least if they do more with it(killing) than they have in the Ironman films that will be a shinning success.

imo.

Well said.

And more to your point, it's interesting to hear people call the killing of Zod as lazy writing. Lazy would be to construct an out for Superman in which he has an easy to decision to make. Making a choice that causes controversy can never be considered lazy.

 

[Steamteck]

Well said.

And more to your point, it's interesting to hear people call the killing of Zod as lazy writing. Lazy would be to construct an out for the Superman in which he has easy to decision to make. Making a choice that causes controversy can never be considered lazy.

I agree completely. Not lazy at all. Personally I though t the scene was really well done.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Well said.

And more to your point, it's interesting to hear people call the killing of Zod as lazy writing. Lazy would be to construct an out for Superman in which he has an easy to decision to make. Making a choice that causes controversy can never be considered lazy.

I actually think that was one of the less "lazy" writing choices.

Everything up to that point had a logic to it. Zod's purpose is tied to his mission to restore Krypton. Superman destroyed the scout ship in order to take away his motive for terraforming earth/killing him. Zod is too honorable to commit suicide, and too dark to desire anything but personal revenge. He wanted to kill every single person he could. But more importantly, he wanted to die.

This is why I don't take the "why doesn't he fly up/cover Zod's eyes/move Zod's head" or "why does Superman care so much for that ONE family" questions too seriously.

One doesn't offer a longterm solution to the problem. Even if Superman SAVED the family, Zod would still be there to attack as many people as possible.

The other shows that the family REPRESENTS ANY group of people that Zod can come in contact to. That's a SUBTLE idea, and flew over the head of a disturbingly high amount of people.

It's as if people have to say that an idea exists in the script for some people to understand it.

So given that he wanted to kill every human on earth, with no long-term solution in sight, and the risk of being responsible for the death of the family through inaction, he did what he had to do.

The family in danger is what gave Superman the emotional drive to do what he did. Without that situation, who knows how much longer the fight would last, and how much more people would die?

Lazy writing would have Superman accidentally breaking Zod's neck during the heat of the battle, and with no remorse.

 

[Marvin]

Just like superman, we don't even know if Kryptonians can die under a yellow star.
Now that would be what I call a comic book back door.

 

[Krumm]

I actually think that was one of the less "lazy" writing choices.

Everything up to that point had a logic to it. Zod's purpose is tied to his mission to restore Krypton. Superman destroyed the scout ship in order to take away his motive for terraforming earth/killing him. Zod is too honorable to commit suicide, and too dark to desire anything but personal revenge. He wanted to kill every single person he could. But more importantly, he wanted to die.

This is why I don't take the "why doesn't he fly up/cover Zod's eyes/move Zod's head" or "why does Superman care so much for that ONE family" questions too seriously.

One doesn't offer a longterm solution to the problem. Even if Superman SAVED the family, Zod would still be there to attack as many people as possible.

The other shows that the family REPRESENTS ANY group of people that Zod can come in contact to. That's a SUBTLE idea, and flew over the head of a disturbingly high amount of people.

It's as if people have to say that an idea exists in the script for some people to understand it.

So given that he wanted to kill every human on earth, with no long-term solution in sight, and the risk of being responsible for the death of the family through inaction, he did what he had to do.

The family in danger is what gave Superman the emotional drive to do what he did. Without that situation, who knows how much longer the fight would last, and how much more people would die?

Lazy writing would have Superman accidentally breaking Zod's neck during the heat of the battle, and with no remorse.

Exactly.

 

[BH/HHH]

I actually think that was one of the less "lazy" writing choices.

Everything up to that point had a logic to it. Zod's purpose is tied to his mission to restore Krypton. Superman destroyed the scout ship in order to take away his motive for terraforming earth/killing him. Zod is too honorable to commit suicide, and too dark to desire anything but personal revenge. He wanted to kill every single person he could. But more importantly, he wanted to die.

This is why I don't take the "why doesn't he fly up/cover Zod's eyes/move Zod's head" or "why does Superman care so much for that ONE family" questions too seriously.

One doesn't offer a longterm solution to the problem. Even if Superman SAVED the family, Zod would still be there to attack as many people as possible.

The other shows that the family REPRESENTS ANY group of people that Zod can come in contact to. That's a SUBTLE idea, and flew over the head of a disturbingly high amount of people.

It's as if people have to say that an idea exists in the script for some people to understand it.

So given that he wanted to kill every human on earth, with no long-term solution in sight, and the risk of being responsible for the death of the family through inaction, he did what he had to do.

The family in danger is what gave Superman the emotional drive to do what he did. Without that situation, who knows how much longer the fight would last, and how much more people would die?

Lazy writing would have Superman accidentally breaking Zod's neck during the heat of the battle, and with no remorse.

great post

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I actually think that was one of the less "lazy" writing choices.

Everything up to that point had a logic to it. Zod's purpose is tied to his mission to restore Krypton. Superman destroyed the scout ship in order to take away his motive for terraforming earth/killing him. Zod is too honorable to commit suicide, and too dark to desire anything but personal revenge. He wanted to kill every single person he could. But more importantly, he wanted to die.

This is why I don't take the "why doesn't he fly up/cover Zod's eyes/move Zod's head" or "why does Superman care so much for that ONE family" questions too seriously.

One doesn't offer a longterm solution to the problem. Even if Superman SAVED the family, Zod would still be there to attack as many people as possible.

The other shows that the family REPRESENTS ANY group of people that Zod can come in contact to. That's a SUBTLE idea, and flew over the head of a disturbingly high amount of people.

It's as if people have to say that an idea exists in the script for some people to understand it.

So given that he wanted to kill every human on earth, with no long-term solution in sight, and the risk of being responsible for the death of the family through inaction, he did what he had to do.

The family in danger is what gave Superman the emotional drive to do what he did. Without that situation, who knows how much longer the fight would last, and how much more people would die?

Lazy writing would have Superman accidentally breaking Zod's neck during the heat of the battle, and with no remorse.

In fairness, i've never called it lazy writing.

I just think a greater 'victorious' and more optimistic ending was completely within their reach, but Snyder and Goyer felt so strongly that victory in this situation was 'unrealistic' and not in keeping with the rest of the gritty tone of their film, that they decided to change it.

It's not laziness... it's just sad. They were so focused on putting Superman in the context of reality, that they stripped away a lot of what makes the character fill the audience with hope and wonder... a lot of which comes from the fact that his fights tend to end with triumph... not this cold and shocking moment of defeat.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

putting Superman in the context of reality, that they stripped away a lot of what makes the character fill the audience with hope and wonder.

I'm sure that's partly true. I would argue that Superman choosing humans above his own shows the loyalty he has for earth.

But the film itself has a bit of a bleak tonality. I do want more wonder and human in the sequel, though

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'm sure that's partly true. I would argue that Superman choosing humans above his own shows the loyalty he has for earth.

But the film itself has a bit of a bleak tonality. I do want more wonder and human in the sequel, though

Yeah, it does. But is that really the biggest act of heroism in the movie? Picking us over the alien terrorists killing thousands of people?

Even if they are from his home planet.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I'd argue risking exposing his identity twice and going into the gravity beam was pretty darn heroic.

But yes, I will gladly take a "lighter" sequel. Just as long it isn't a comedy, or campy.

 

[Krumm]

In fairness, i've never called it lazy writing.

I just think a greater 'victorious' and more optimistic ending was completely within their reach, but Snyder and Goyer felt so strongly that victory in this situation was 'unrealistic' and not in keeping with the rest of the gritty tone of their film, that they decided to change it.

It's not laziness... it's just sad. They were so focused on putting Superman in the context of reality, that they stripped away a lot of what makes the character fill the audience with hope and wonder... a lot of which comes from the fact that his fights tend to end with triumph... not this cold and shocking moment of defeat.

Believe me, I wouldn't say MOS is the movie I wanted but I just choose focus on the story it told. And I think in the context of the world and the story, I found that ending to be emotionally powerful. Now, had it been a completely hollow effort, then yeah, I'd be pretty annoyed.

I also have faith that sequel will tap more in the hope aspect of the character.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

They kind of hinted at that near the ending.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

^ I'd argue risking exposing his identity twice and going into the gravity beam was pretty darn heroic.

The gravity beam was great, my favourite part, and the only real moment of triumph in the film.

But yes, I will gladly take a "lighter" sequel. Just as long it isn't a comedy, or campy.

I really don't think it's going to be lighter. I can't help it.

 

[EssayM]

The problem with Superman killing Zod was not that it was lazy or out of character (though both could be argued for), but that they don't properly address it. There's a moment of Superman reacting to it, but by the next scene, it's like it never happened. They should have allowed more time to really show this weighing on Superman's psyche, instead of just leaving it all for the sequel (by which the tension will have been lost and nobody will care anymore). It's one thing for him to kill, it's another to just ignore the consequences.

 

[Krumm]

The problem with Superman killing Zod was not that it was lazy or out of character (though both could be argued for), but that they don't properly address it. There's a moment of Superman reacting to it, but by the next scene, it's like it never happened. They should have allowed more time to really show this weighing on Superman's psyche, instead of just leaving it all for the sequel (by which the tension will have been lost and nobody will care anymore). It's one thing for him to kill, it's another to just ignore the consequences.

That is fair. However, I don't think there is anyway to argue the choice as lazy.

 

[BH/HHH]

The problem with Superman killing Zod was not that it was lazy or out of character (though both could be argued for), but that they don't properly address it. There's a moment of Superman reacting to it, but by the next scene, it's like it never happened. They should have allowed more time to really show this weighing on Superman's psyche, instead of just leaving it all for the sequel (by which the tension will have been lost and nobody will care anymore). It's one thing for him to kill, it's another to just ignore the consequences.

Admittedly the way that was cut was poor but it's a 2 and a half hour movie you can't expect repercussions at the end of a film of that length. Personally I think a few lines of dialogue between Lois & Clark in the subway station after the scream would have gone a long way. But I don't dwell on it because I knew (or I'm expecting) them to address it in the sequel. I guess one thing you could say is that Superman had so much going on I don't think he had time to really dwell on it. Look at what they did in the comics after he killed the Zoners it wasn't over night he broke down, maybe the sequel will start with him having nightmares thinking back to what happened or something along those lines.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Believe me, I wouldn't say MOS is the movie I wanted but I just choose focus on the story it told. And I think in the context of the world and the story, I found that ending to be emotionally powerful. Now, had it been a completely hollow effort, then yeah, I'd be pretty annoyed..

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...

I also have faith that sequel will tap more in the hope aspect of the character.

My faith is shattered.

 

[Herolee10]

Honestly, I think there can be some wonders and triumph shown in a person just by how they choose to move forward with their life after having experienced a tragedy in their lives. It’s true that most of us would prefer to see an ending of where the hero saves the day and everyone is happy at the end, but I think it’s also true that a person can be shown to conquer their greatest battle by what they do with their life after experience a great loss or emotional pain.

Which is why, for the issues that “TDKR” had as a film, when you think about the trilogy as a whole, it’s a even more satisfying ending because Batman went through hell at the end of “TDK”, which left the hero in a rocky place which wasn’t a traditional thing to do with superhero films, but we later saw him eventually conquer and move on with his life.

I think this might be the same case, or could be the same case for us, that’s in stored for Superman’s character in the long run of his franchise.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Honestly, I think there can be some wonders and triumph shown in a person just by how they choose to move forward with their life after having experienced a tragedy in their lives. It’s true that most of us would prefer to see an ending of where the hero saves the day and everyone is happy at the end, but I think it’s also true that a person can be shown to conquer their greatest battle by what they do with their life after experience a great loss or emotional pain.

Which is why, for the issues that “TDKR” had as a film, when you think about the trilogy as a whole, it’s a even more satisfying ending because Batman went through hell at the end of “TDK”, which left the hero in a rocky place which wasn’t a traditional thing to do with superhero films, but we later saw him eventually conquer and move on with his life.

I think this might be the same case, or could be the same case for us, that’s in stored for Superman’s character in the long run of his franchise.

Yeah, I feel differently about the ending of TDK for two reasons.

1. Batman is of course a darker character, and I find him having to deal with defeat and regret much less out of 'tone'.

2. It was absolutely clear that the ending was the middle of a longer arc. There was no ambiguity about whether the way they left it would be resolved in the sequel.

The way they wrapped up Man of Steel in a nice bow at the end of the film made it unclear how they felt about the events of the Zod/Supes fight, and we have no sense of the direction they are going with it other than what Goyer/Snyder have mentioned in interviews... and i'd say even that is subject to change.

 

[Marvin]

I compare how begins addressed batman breaking his no kill rule at the end and into the epilogue to how MoS did and I feel MoS made a strong enough effort. Especially if you look at the way most comic book epilogues are structured. I'm surprised we didn't get one final scene of Luthor in his office.
I also stand by the idea that had that film not ended in the donner tone that it did then the people who felt the film's tone too glim and sour, might have actually had grounds to stand on.

Trying something new(Supermans fights do tend to almost always end a certain way), and at the same time keeping everyone happy is no simple task. I for one think given the place the property was in not but 2 years ago cinematically, bold creative new decisions were worth taking.

If it comes down to the greater victory vs a bitter sweet one, the question rises what does it actually take for a story to be successful and or celebrated. Does the hero need to get the girl too?

 

[Sub-Zero]

its been said time and time again.
batman doesn't kill because his journey into the cowl was due to tragedy. his parents were killed by this man. he vows to never let what happened to him happened to anyone else. he has a reason to not kill right from the start. his whole world was taken from him that way. batman begins handled this well when he tried to kill joe chill, then rachel literally slapped some sense into him to look beyond his own pain.

superman killing zod is completely different. he did that to save everyone on earth. he had no choice but to do that. the scream at the end said it all. the movie was about the choices that we make and how it shapes us. it showed that superman has a conscience, and feels remorse because of what he had to do. remember this was superman begins. he has to learn how to become a hero.

 

[The Sage]

Is everyone assuming that Batman doesn't kill in this interpretation? He did kill Harvey Dent at the end of The Dark Knight, showing that there are times to him that he's willing to cross the line.