Discussion in 'Man of Steel' started by Thread Manager, Jan 1, 2012.
I agree completely
Does it really matter? I just want him to be Superman, not a killing machine, or killing in spite.... In this film or any films beyond this one, comics, cartoons... you name it.
There's a good chance he won't have those options. There are hints that Zod, Faora, and others are refugees, not escapees from the phantom zone, and there may not even be kryptonite since this is the first movie.
Ah, yes. Robots and demons. All the vicarious thrills of the justifiable homicide
without the guilt.
Nazis work too.
It really isn't. These are defining characteristics of the character. Superman preserves life, whatever the cost.
Exactly. Calling Superman's code against killing "trivial" just shows a lack of understanding of how essential it is to his character. It's the line that he cannot pass, and if he does, then Superman ends.
I know modern comics and films treat life as a trivial thing, but it is not. Especially not to a figure like Superman.
Agreed. I think the "What's so Funny About Truth, Justice, and American Way" story spelled it out perfectly. There is one line Superman should never cross regardless how distraught or stretched to his limits he can be. I believe that should be both the New 52, MOS, and Earth 2 Superman.
Preserving Doomsday's life would have meant more people would die. It's not like he executed him. It was more like the police shooting someone with their gun to someone's head.
There are other alternatives like the Phantom Zone or, as Cyborg Superman did with Doomsday, chuck him into space to never return (which would have been cool had they stuck with that).
I realize that, and I'm fine with them. I'm just saying in the event that there are no alternatives, if things are truly so desperate, Superman should kill to stop an immediate threat. I feel that's reasonable and it isn't a pessimistic, deconstructive concept.
And if that's how they've written this film, then it will have failed to me
If the big reboot is a storyline in which the only option for Superman to save the world involves killing a bunch of kryptonians, then i'd rather have had him wrestling polar bears in the arctic... dead serious
This topic has been one big stalemate hasn't it? At this point, we're all just repeating ourselves.
I think having Superman resort to killing is lazy writing. There is always a way and like Grant Morrison likes to embed in our subconscious, "nothing is impossible." Having Superman kill because he has no other choice shouldn't happen because Superman is intelligent enough to find that way or go into a beat down induced coma.
The fact that there is a thread debating this is ridiculous.
Superman doesn't kill.
And the idea that nothing is impossible and that there's always a non-lethal method to stop the bad guy and save the day, no matter what, is what leads to deus ex machinas.
I'm always shocked when this thread gets action...
And I'm shocked at how intolerant of opinions you people can be sometimes. If you wanna feel more shocked, go read a fricken golden age comic, watch Superman crash planes full of people. Be so bleeding shocked that the creators of Superman are the ones who came up with it!
So because most people don't agree with your opinions, they are intolerant? I think not. The majority here simply seems to understand a very important characteristic of Superman and are surprised to see something that should really be common sense discussed, that's all.
I'm in favor of tolerance. And anyone who isn't should be shot.
And this is completely why I don't understand any fan who says that the character should stay devotedly true to it's 'roots' as though the first issue is the only material that's viable.
Sometimes characters start off with ideas that are later changed because they don't feel right. Sometimes the creators decide 'actually, we don't like our original concept and we're going to do something much better with it'.
And thank God they did. Because I honestly don't think Superman would be the iconic and successful character he is today if he had stayed as he was at his conception.
Exactly. I mean, who likes a Batman that kills nowadays? Who actually wants Batman to go back to his old killing habits?
We live in a society that NEEDS good morals and ethics, cause lets face it, the world is a ****-hole...and if we can't look at our favourite heroes for comfort and little bit of guidance on whats right and wrong, just who the hell can people/kids look up to? God and Jesus seem to be forgotten nowadays too, so...
If a strong moral person like Superman goes around killing and justifying deaths...then what does that tell us exactly? For example that it's ok to kill someone as long as its a bad guy? That is wrong and doesn't sound like anything Superman would ever dream of doing. We have laws and morals for a reason. Superman isn't a cop, he doesn't have and doesn't want the authority to dish out death sentences.
A cop can kill if lives are at stake...but Superman isn't a cop. Same as Batman, he goes out for justice, not vengeance. That's why he simply brings the crooks in, so they can receive justice from the proper authority, NOT HIS authority or his call.
But Superman is more deeper than that, he was raised with strong morals of right and wrong...killing is the worst thing imaginable. So do you think he would commit such a terrible act or think above himself and others to say he actually has the right to take a life? I don't think so.
I kind of enjoy the idea of Superman wrestling with polar bears in the arctic. I imagine him just being playful and treating them like puppies. Not trying to actually hurt them just having fun.
Me to....that's actually one of the things that I had hoped to see on screen.....but wouldnt the polar bears break their teeth trying to bite Clark? Lol