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

[Marvin]

young Bruce Wayne has always been a sketchy character, but in that scene he pays the guy for his coat...then offers his own and tells him people are looking for him. He really could have just burnt the coat after giving him his money for his coat. It's up to the homeless guy what to do with that warning. I don't have a huge problem with that scene, although I guess it could have been written out since its purpose is to have Batman say "nice coat."

Clark Kent steals someone's clothes. Period. He could have asked...but I guess he had no faith in human goodness and compassion back then....or really any
point of the movie.

You missed the point, paying someone and giving them a warning isn't enough for a crazy batman purist fan like me. Batman would never NEVER ever willingly put someone, some idiot hobo, in harms way, warning or no.
I don't care if he payed him $900 cash money.

Batman is the most morally stringent hero there is imo. At least that's what I've gathered from my 10 years of reading his books....

You this is what you are doing. imo.

I suppose Clark could have asked them for the clothes,though unlike wayne he doesn't have $900 cash money lying around. What you have to consider is that clark has been hiding and drifting and saving people for a while. He's probably been able to do so because he doesn't stick around long enough for other people to see him battle torn near big accidents so as to later report it to the local law officials when his boat crew reports him mia and presumed dead...
stuff like that.

 

[DocHolliday]

in a world where Superman is a morally conflicted thief who kills his opponents if it makes things easier and thinks that it might be best to let innocent people die rather than save them.

This can also be used to describe the Donner Superman as well.

 

[Marvin]

Yeah, In Superman 2 he not only dropped a powerless Zod down a bottomless pit and smiled about it, but he abused his superpowers by getting revenge and hospitalizing the trucker who beat him up earlier. In Man Of Steel Clark get's bullied by a trucker and all he does is take his anger out on the guy's truck, but no, the Man of Steel version isn't true to the character, right guys?

Yea pretty much.
Let's not(never) forget the part where he gave up his powers...and why...and then the out of wedlock buck wild sex with lois, then the roofy kiss...

It's pretty nuts.
But mos is the one that causes all this purist controversy.

My favorite part about MOS is that we are presented with a hero that saves countless lives long before he ever puts on a suit(or meets jor el).
No mainstream cbm has ever given us that sort of hero, definitely not the original films.
10pts.

 

[DocHolliday]

Yea pretty much.
Let's not(never) forget the part where he gave up his powers...and why...and then the out of wedlock buck wild sex with lois, then the roofy kiss...

It's pretty nuts.
But mos is the one that causes all this purist controversy.

My favorite part about MOS is that we are presented with a hero that saves countless lives long before he ever puts on a suit(or meets jor el).
No mainstream cbm has ever given us that sort of hero, definitely not the original films.
10pts.

Or how about the scene in Superman III when he destroys all those bowling pins with his breath just to piss off Lana's husband. The owner of the bowling alley would have to pay at least $150 dollars just to replace that set. Super-vandal, amirite?

 

[Marvin]

Or how about the scene in Superman III when he destroys all those bowling pins with his breath just to piss off Lana's husband. The owner of the bowling alley would have to pay at least $150 dollars just to replace that set. Super-vandal, amirite?

You're not wrong.
Which was the film where he tossed the weights on the gym trainer?
Not ever sure what that trainer did to deserve that...most of the time these people at least deserve some sort of come-up-ins lol

but back to the stealing old clothes in lost drifter mode MOS badass. He's so kewl.

 

[Heretic]

The "Superman did this and that in earlier films" talk should stop.

The fact is that no one has ever completely gotten Superman right in the movies. Heck, he wasn't even really defined in the comics for decades after his debut. Even now, writers for the comics resist the definitive version of Superman because they would rather write a Wolverine story. It is not easy to write Superman. His weaknesses aren't necessarily the same as every other hero and his strengths are so overpowering.

Man of Steel though...that one REALLY got Superman wrong. He met a bully at a diner...and because he didn't like him...destroyed the man's transportation...which was also his source of income...AND it is entirely possible that the truck belonged to his employer...AND he probably was hauling goods that another company paid them to haul...AND he used power poles to do it, meaning that innocent people have been deprived of electricity (possibly people with medical needs that require it). All of that over what??? That is in addition to the theft, the lack of concern for saving anyone except Lois the multiple times she fell out of the sky, the neck snapping, watching his father die etc.

 

[Malcolm Reynold]

The "Superman did this and that in earlier films" talk should stop.

The fact is that no one has ever completely gotten Superman right in the movies. Heck, he wasn't even really defined in the comics for decades after his debut. Even now, writers for the comics resist the definitive version of Superman because they would rather write a Wolverine story. It is not easy to write Superman. His weaknesses aren't necessarily the same as every other hero and his strengths are so overpowering.

Man of Steel though...that one REALLY got Superman wrong. He met a bully at a diner...and because he didn't like him...destroyed the man's transportation...which was also his source of income...AND it is entirely possible that the truck belonged to his employer...AND he probably was hauling goods that another company paid them to haul...AND he used power poles to do it, meaning that innocent people have been deprived of electricity (possibly people with medical needs that require it). All of that over what??? That is in addition to the theft, the lack of concern for saving anyone except Lois the multiple times she fell out of the sky, the neck snapping, watching his father die etc.

So he wasn't a perfect moral centre. But guess what? A protagonist who can do no wrong isn't interesting, that's why a lot of the general audience have no interest in Superman. In my opinion Man of Steel's Superman was the perfect balance between morality and fallibility. Also, just because it's a different interpretation than what you want to see doesn't automatically make it a bad one.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

The "Superman did this and that in earlier films" talk should stop.

The fact is that no one has ever completely gotten Superman right in the movies. Heck, he wasn't even really defined in the comics for decades after his debut. Even now, writers for the comics resist the definitive version of Superman because they would rather write a Wolverine story. It is not easy to write Superman. His weaknesses aren't necessarily the same as every other hero and his strengths are so overpowering.

Man of Steel though...that one REALLY got Superman wrong. He met a bully at a diner...and because he didn't like him...destroyed the man's transportation...which was also his source of income...AND it is entirely possible that the truck belonged to his employer...AND he probably was hauling goods that another company paid them to haul...AND he used power poles to do it, meaning that innocent people have been deprived of electricity (possibly people with medical needs that require it). All of that over what??? That is in addition to the theft, the lack of concern for saving anyone except Lois the multiple times she fell out of the sky, the neck snapping, watching his father die etc.

When you put it like that, Batman shouldn't have used the EMP gun.

Heck, you seem to be thinking about it more than the screenwriter. You should have written the screenplay

 

[Marvin]

The "Superman did this and that in earlier films" talk should stop.

The fact is that no one has ever completely gotten Superman right in the movies. Heck, he wasn't even really defined in the comics for decades after his debut. Even now, writers for the comics resist the definitive version of Superman because they would rather write a Wolverine story. It is not easy to write Superman. His weaknesses aren't necessarily the same as every other hero and his strengths are so overpowering.

Man of Steel though...that one REALLY got Superman wrong. He met a bully at a diner...and because he didn't like him...destroyed the man's transportation...which was also his source of income...AND it is entirely possible that the truck belonged to his employer...AND he probably was hauling goods that another company paid them to haul...AND he used power poles to do it, meaning that innocent people have been deprived of electricity (possibly people with medical needs that require it). All of that over what??? That is in addition to the theft, the lack of concern for saving anyone except Lois the multiple times she fell out of the sky, the neck snapping, watching his father die etc.

No, what should stop is the new outrage. The one that's selectively pointing towards this film and ignoring the previous films. I'd personally have less issues with the outrage if it was at least boarding on consistent but nope.

Secondly, that's quite the story you came up with there about what it's entirely possible Clark may have caused with his little act of vigilante justice. I mean who knows, he maybe hit a major power grid and shut of the entire eastern seaboard lol. Maybe when you work up the energy to revisit the film you will actually notice the truck wasn't resting on "power poles".

Two big issues you are over looking.
1. This isn't superman,unlike the donner version when he did his dirt, this just a guy at this point.
2. Truck companies have insurance rest easy.

All of that over what? This bad man is a pig to women, there is no greater evil lol.
You are still pissed about the clothes eh. Man they really destroyed the character with that move. Again see point 1.
And as for lack of concern, pretty sure he saved the planet like 3 times in that movie, not to mention a ton of other people throughout his years growing up..

 

[Heretic]

So he wasn't a perfect moral centre. But guess what? A protagonist who can do no wrong isn't interesting, that's why a lot of the general audience have no interest in Superman. In my opinion Man of Steel's Superman was the perfect balance between morality and fallibility. Also, just because it's a different interpretation than what you want to see doesn't automatically make it a bad one.

Cool...but the movie they made isn't a Superman movie. Superman is the perfect moral center. But guess what...few seem to get this...THAT IS HIS WEAKNESS. His perfection is what makes him so easy to beat!!

Take this for example...

Superman has been on earth for years. Zod just got here. Superman is more powerful than Zod. However, Zod is a military genius...he knows strategy. Superman has the physical advantage (as always) but Zod is a better warrior with a better strategic mind.

So...the PROPER thing for Zod to have done would be to constantly put people in danger. Superman would be forced to save them, allowing Zod time to beat on him and use his machines to terraform Earth.

But Zod didn't do that. He apparently was no military mastermind after all (then again, on Krypton a SCIENTIST beat him up...so, he doesn't have a great track record for a highly trained warrior). Instead, he just traded punches with a more powerful opponent (rarely a good strategy in war).

Superman should have been at a MASSIVE disadvantage, but the film makers refused to show it because they didn't want a moral Superman. Instead, Superman fought a weaker opponent until he snapped his neck, killing him.

Superman should inspire hope. I am supposed to see his example and believe that I can achieve beyond my supposed limitations. That I can become something greater. Superman's example seems to be "If you face an obstacle...make sure you can physically dominate it, then snap its puny neck." Well...I'm often NOT stronger than my obstacles...so, where is the hope? Where is the inspiration?

Man of Steel is not a Superman movie...it simply borrows the logo to increase box office.

 

[Marvin]

So he wasn't a perfect moral centre. But guess what? A protagonist who can do no wrong isn't interesting, that's why a lot of the general audience have no interest in Superman. In my opinion Man of Steel's Superman was the perfect balance between morality and fallibility. Also, just because it's a different interpretation than what you want to see doesn't automatically make it a bad one.

It's a great point. But it raises an interesting discussion. Can you try and make superman an interesting protagonist by conventional standards and still make purists of this particular character absolutely happy?

Perhaps this has been the kryptonite to the character for all these years. Writers have been afraid to dare...Till now.

lol who am I kidding, they already made a bunch of films and comics with him being beyond flawed, purist just seem to ignore those.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Okay. Heritic. Plane-out-now!

 

[Heretic]

No, what should stop is the new outrage. The one that's selectively pointing towards this film and ignoring the previous films. I'd personally have less issues with the outrage if it was at least boarding on consistent but nope.

Secondly, that's quite the story you came up with there about what it's entirely possible Clark may have caused with his little act of vigilante justice. I mean who knows, he maybe hit a major power grid and shut of the entire eastern seaboard lol. Maybe when you work up the energy to revisit the film you will actually notice the truck wasn't resting on "power poles".

Two big issues you are over looking.
1. This isn't superman,unlike the donner version when he did his dirt, this just a guy at this point.
2. Truck companies have insurance rest easy.

All of that over what? This bad man is a pig to women, there is no greater evil lol.
You are still pissed about the clothes eh. Man they really destroyed the character with that move. Again see point 1.
And as for lack of concern, pretty sure he saved the planet like 3 times in that movie, not to mention a ton of other people throughout his years growing up..

Was it trees that were knocked over? I have zero interest in watching Man of Steel ever again...but it looked like telephone/power poles or something...still...unless it was trees then he was needlessly destroying public property, wasting taxpayer money.

See, that is the thing. You think that massive destruction and a petty grudge is okay because the bully was a bad guy. That is why no one is calling you the Man of Tomorrow. You want Superman to think just like you and be just as petty as you? Yeah...every other hero is like that...Superman isn't. You think the guy was a jerk, so it is okay to destroy property that doesn't even belong to that guy. Let me guess...his company hired him, so they are bad too...and the company paying them to haul stuff paid them, so they are bad too. Superman shouldn't be as quick to vengeance as you are.

And Superman stealing is a small thing...except that Superman doesn't steal.

 

[Marvin]

Superman perfect moral center? lol I suppose that's why batman keeps bumping heads with him.

Superman is stronger than zod? Ignoring how little this seemed to help in the smallville fight and how supermans base of assorted powers(flight/optic blasts) were the real advantage that zod later nullified.
How do you explain him reaching for the sun after the world engine fiasco?

I'm just curious where you are getting this idea that superman is literally "stronger" from.

 

[Heretic]

It's a great point. But it raises an interesting discussion. Can you try and make superman an interesting protagonist by conventional standards and still make purists of this particular character absolutely happy?

Perhaps this has been the kryptonite to the character for all these years. Writers have been afraid to dare...Till now.

lol who am I kidding, they already made a bunch of films and comics with him being beyond flawed, purist just seem to ignore those.

No we don't. No purist that I know of ignores what happened.

Superman wasn't truly defined until post-Crisis. Technically, Batman used to shoot people with a gun...but we accept that he was later given a definitive spin, and that is THE character of Batman. In my opinion, Captain America was floundering around for even longer, as a cheap Superman knock-off...and wasn't truly defined until recently. People can disagree, of course.

Even the definitive Superman killed though. However, pretty much everyone realizes that this was a major mistake by John Byrne (to me, he is one of the greatest of all time, I'm a huge Byrne Victim...and I HATE this one decision of his). After Superman killed, the guilt led to him exiling himself from earth and we got a bunch of angsty nonsense to try to fix the fact that he killed people. As much as I love John Byrne, I went BALLISTIC when he made this stupid move in the comics. It is probably even worse that it was done in the movies, since there are so few movies and less time to really deal with issues. It is especially wrong that it happened in his first film, after not really giving us a sense of is morality.

 

[Lencho01]

So he wasn't a perfect moral centre. But guess what? A protagonist who can do no wrong isn't interesting, that's why a lot of the general audience have no interest in Superman. In my opinion Man of Steel's Superman was the perfect balance between morality and fallibility. Also, just because it's a different interpretation than what you want to see doesn't automatically make it a bad one.

A character with a "perfect moral centre" can be interesting with the right writer(s) at hand. If not, the writer(s) is/are likely to make some changes that'll make him less unique and more like everyone else.

 

[Heretic]

Superman perfect moral center? lol I suppose that's why batman keeps bumping heads with him.

Superman is stronger than zod? Ignoring how little this seemed to help in the smallville fight and how supermans base of assorted powers(flight/optic blasts) were the real advantage that zod later nullified.
How do you explain him reaching for the sun after the world engine fiasco?

I'm just curious where you are getting this idea that superman is literally "stronger" from.

I agree...the movie did an AWFUL job of showing this. But Earth's sun gives Superman his powers. He was on Earth for 30 years. Zod was outside his ship (with Krypton environment) for a couple of minutes. If Superman was not stronger than Zod then...well...the writers need to explain why he wasn't...and no..."we just wanted a big fight" is not a good reason.

 

[Marvin]

Was it trees that were knocked over? I have zero interest in watching Man of Steel ever again...but it looked like telephone/power poles or something...still...unless it was trees then he was needlessly destroying public property, wasting taxpayer money.

See, that is the thing. You think that massive destruction and a petty grudge is okay because the bully was a bad guy. That is why no one is calling you the Man of Tomorrow. You want Superman to think just like you and be just as petty as you? Yeah...every other hero is like that...Superman isn't. You think the guy was a jerk, so it is okay to destroy property that doesn't even belong to that guy. Let me guess...his company hired him, so they are bad too...and the company paying them to haul stuff paid them, so they are bad too. Superman shouldn't be as quick to vengeance as you are.

And Superman stealing is a small thing...except that Superman doesn't steal.

You know what else is a small thing? Lying! Does superman lie?

Second question, why is the man of tomorrow resorting to violence to solve so many of his problems, I mean wouldn't the ultimate moral thing be to find a better way...man of tomorrow lol.
I mean what did Jesus(with his infinite morality) think about violence?
Sorry pal, but it seems you can't have it both ways.

Why people call him man of tomorrow, what ever reason that may be, is down the road. It's not long before he even puts on the costume and takes on the mantle of superman.

And no that truck was definitely not hanging on trees either. Nothing to do with precious tax payer money.

 

[Marvin]

I agree...the movie did an AWFUL job of showing this. But Earth's sun gives Superman his powers. He was on Earth for 30 years. Zod was outside his ship (with Krypton environment) for a couple of minutes. If Superman was not stronger than Zod then...well...the writers need to explain why he wasn't...and no..."we just wanted a big fight" is not a good reason.

I never said two words about the movie doing an awful job, I just asked where you were basing your assumptions from. I for example am basing my assumptions from this movie.

Powers levels don't seem to rely on charging(that's a preconceived idea from the source material that will apparently hurt your experience watching this film).

The writers explained fine. Alot of both show and plenty tell, if you ask me.

 

[Malcolm Reynold]

I agree...the movie did an AWFUL job of showing this. But Earth's sun gives Superman his powers. He was on Earth for 30 years. Zod was outside his ship (with Krypton environment) for a couple of minutes. If Superman was not stronger than Zod then...well...the writers need to explain why he wasn't...and no..."we just wanted a big fight" is not a good reason.

Seriously, we get it, you don't like the movie. Get over it. Some of us do like it.

 

[Heretic]

You know what else is a small thing? Lying! Does superman lie?

Second question, why is the man of tomorrow resorting to violence to solve so many of his problems, I mean wouldn't the ultimate moral thing be to find a better way...man of tomorrow lol.
I mean what did Jesus(with his infinite morality) think about violence?
Sorry pal, but it seems you can't have it both ways.

Why people call him man of tomorrow, what ever reason that may be, is down the road. It's not long before he even puts on the costume and takes on the mantle of superman.

And no that truck was definitely not hanging on trees either. Nothing to do with precious tax payer money.

People call Superman the Man of Tomorrow because of the way the Kent's raised him. That is most certainly not "down the road" for a man in his 30's.

Superman's violence is defensive in nature. He is a reactionary hero. This is partially why Wonder Wonder sees him as a naive boy scout that can't get the job done.

What did Jesus think of violence? He grabbed a weapon and cleared an area by whipping people. So, Jesus would be cool with defensive violence used to protect innocents.

Superman should be better than you. It's as simple as that. I know that you are happy that you got a Superman that is no better than you at all, but I contend that this is not a true representation of Superman.

 

[Heretic]

I never said two words about the movie doing an awful job, I just asked where you were basing your assumptions from. I for example am basing my assumptions from this movie.

Powers levels don't seem to rely on charging(that's a preconceived idea from the source material that will apparently hurt your experience watching this film).

The writers explained fine. Alot of both show and plenty tell, if you ask me.

It's weird...Zod wanted to terraform earth to make it like Krypton because the change to become godlike was too painful...yet it only took minutes and didnt seem very painful...and again...he became godlike!

The better plan would have been to terraform Mars...take all the embryos there and set up a new Krypton a few blocks away from Earth, building a godlike army. Zod's plan was really, really stupid if his goal was to bring back the race.

Don't blame me for thinking that you don't go from powerless to all-powerful in a second, when it took Superman 30 years to realize his full powers.

 

[Malcolm Reynold]

It's weird...Zod wanted to terraform earth to make it like Krypton because the change to become godlike was too painful...yet it only took minutes and didnt seem very painful...and again...he became godlike!

That just shows you don't understand Zod. He didn't want to change Earth into Krypton because having superpowers is too painful, he did it because he was genetically programmed to continue Krypton as it was. The character of Zod in Man of Steel is interesting because he, like all other Kryptonians except from Superman, is incapable of thinking outside of what they were programmed to think. They essentially have no free will.

 

[Marvin]

People call Superman the Man of Tomorrow because of the way the Kent's raised him. That is most certainly not "down the road" for a man in his 30's.

Superman's violence is defensive in nature. He is a reactionary hero. This is partially why Wonder Wonder sees him as a naive boy scout that can't get the job done.

What did Jesus think of violence? He grabbed a weapon and cleared an area by whipping people. So, Jesus would be cool with defensive violence used to protect innocents.

Superman should be better than you. It's as simple as that. I know that you are happy that you got a Superman that is no better than you at all, but I contend that this is not a true representation of Superman.

You wouldn't see me sacrificing myself for the planet. Or pretty much dedicating my life to saving strangers, especially at the age when I was riding school buses. I'm flattered but MOS features a man far more moral than I.

Secondly, jesus "clearing an area by whipping people is pretty hardcore I guess(though it was never clear as to what he actually did with the cords, just that he drove the petty people out of the temple). But I'm talking about the man of tomorrow that punches his enemies square in the face? The one that uppercuts them in their chins, the one that drops double fists on their back lol.
The god that fires, fire from his eyes down upon his enemies....on a daily basis.
For the record, Jesus was against violence. He'd die before he lay a violent finger on an enemy....but I don't know all to much about that stuff.

I do know this, the man said "love thy enemy" pretty sure Superman doesn't love lex. And I'm pretty sure you are ok with this.
Guess that makes him no better than you. Tough break.

 

[Heretic]

That just shows you don't understand Zod. He didn't want to change Earth into Krypton because having superpowers is too painful, he did it because he was genetically programmed to continue Krypton as it was. The character of Zod in Man of Steel is interesting because he, like all other Kryptonians except from Superman, is incapable of thinking outside of what they were programmed to think. They essentially have no free will.

Again, we live in a solar system with more than one planet. Zod's plan ONLY failed because he didn't see Mars on his way to Earth. I get that I'm nitpicking and the movie wouldn't have had a plot...but still...General Zod only lost because he refused to use strategy to win.

Funny though...you mention that Superman is not bound to follow their programmed destiny...yet his father sent him to a world where his strength would be his destiny...and then he used that strength to snap Zod's neck. The real Superman would have used the lessons the Kents should have taught him to think outside of his "programming."