Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

[hopefuldreamer]

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 bad place 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.

My god yes!

People in this thread have repeatedly tried to say Superman should kill because 'in the real world he'd have to'.

**** the real world. I want my fiction.

The other day I was watching one of those horror survival movies called frozen. Half way through the film after one of the guys has broken both his legs jumping from too high a height and then been eaten by wolves while his girlfriend is screaming, I turned to my friend and said 'This is why I prefer Superhero movies... cause I know everything is going to turn out all right. If this were a Superhero film, he'd have dropped and rolled and been fine.'

I don't WANT to see what would realistically happen if that realism means that the hero fails and has to kill somebody. I want it to all turn out hunky dory. I want it to be a heck of a journey to get there, I want there to be a lot of struggle. But it want it to end HAPPY.

Everyone wants elements of realism so that they can 'almost believe' that a hero like that could exist. It gives them hope. It makes them feel that teensy bit better about life.

But that realism should and does have limits in a Superman film. And it most definitely should not extent to whethe or not he'd have to kill villains.

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.

It'd prob be weird in a big film, but i'd love to see it in a cartoon

 

[Micromind]

How would fans feel if the Government sanctions the death penalty to Kryptonians but since no one on Earth can really implement the punishment they ask Superman to do it, that is kill the kryptonians.

Will that use of deadly force be acceptable ? As it is according to law of the land and will of the government ( or say UN council.)

 

[hopefuldreamer]

No.

I can't even believe I have to say this, but NO, Superman would not be okay with the government asking him to become an executioner...

And how would he kill them exactly?

Beat their skulls in with his fists? Choke the life out of them with his bare hands? Burn their flesh with his heat vision?

Why are we even talking about this!

 

[Rodrigo90]

It would be good if Supes took Zod and Faora to the Fortress and asked Jor-El to dish out the suitable punishment, resulting in the Phantom Zone. Similar to Zod's fate in the original movie.

That gives justice in the most fitting and appropriate way. Not to mention how cool it would be to see Zod and the 'ghost' of Jor-El coming face to face!

 

[manofsteel4life]

Yea that would be awesome

 

[hopefuldreamer]

It would be good if Supes took Zod and Faora to the Fortress and asked Jor-El to dish out the suitable punishment, resulting in the Phantom Zone. Similar to Zod's fate in the original movie.

That gives justice in the most fitting and appropriate way. Not to mention how cool it would be to see Zod and the 'ghost' of Jor-El coming face to face!

It's a possibility.

Though I cringe at any reliance of the fotress and the ghost of jor-el. But that's my issue, and mostly comes from it's overuse in Smallville

 

[SpideyFan866]

It's a possibility.

Though I cringe at any reliance of the fotress and the ghost of jor-el. But that's my issue, and mostly comes from it's overuse in Smallville

And the fact that originated in the Donnor movies and Snyder has said they are distancing themselves from that, including a new fortress and Krypton design.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

And the fact that originated in the Donnor movies and Snyder has said they are distancing themselves from that, including a new fortress and Krypton design.

Snyder said something about a new fortress?

I wasn't aware we'd had any confirmation that there would BE a fortress in this film... Did I miss something?

 

[Prime]

Exactly. I mean, who likes a Batman that kills nowadays? Who actually wants Batman to go back to his old killing habits?

I do, on both accounts (not that I want it, but I sure wouldn't mind. And didn't when it happened, both in comics and the Burton films). However I won't discuss this here as it's obviously not the place for it. But Batman is a whole different animal and comparing him to Superman in such a topic is invalid. I do however agree with you on everything you said in your post that concerns Superman.

 

[Prime]

Snyder said something about a new fortress?

I wasn't aware we'd had any confirmation that there would BE a fortress in this film... Did I miss something?

I don't recall Snyder ever mentioning the fortress and I was under the impression I saw, read and heard every interview in which he mentioned or talked about MOS.

 

[Prime]

How would fans feel if the Government sanctions the death penalty to Kryptonians but since no one on Earth can really implement the punishment they ask Superman to do it, that is kill the kryptonians.

Will that use of deadly force be acceptable ? As it is according to law of the land and will of the government ( or say UN council.)

Ugh, no. Just no. I don't think even Goyer would be capable of writing such a mess. Government declaring the death penalty against super powered aliens? Superman the executioner? Besides, many people are against death penalty and it is not legal in many countries. But yeah no, Superman doesn't kill.

 

[Rodrigo90]

It's a possibility.

Though I cringe at any reliance of the fotress and the ghost of jor-el. But that's my issue, and mostly comes from it's overuse in Smallville

Aye, I agree with that. But it was with the circumstances at hand. It would be good if Jor-El, as a victim of Zod's war, would be the one to give him justice.

But I know the early days of the comics didn't have Jor-El's floating head in the fortress, and the fortress itself was actually in the mountains and not made of crystal, which Synder is doing, I think.

Even with that, saying as how Superman is from Krypton, and speaks for its victims. It would also be appropriate for Supes to assume the role of judge, jury and exectioner...and banishing Zod to the Phantom Zone. It would also heighten Supes' own form of justice. Knowing that the PZ is worse than death...but still keeping the criminals alive.

SEE, thats even darker than killing them, but its the right thing to do!

 

[manofsteel4life]

Snyder said something about a new fortress?

I wasn't aware we'd had any confirmation that there would BE a fortress in this film... Did I miss something?

I could have sworn someone on these boards said something about their building the fos in Snyders backyard or something....unless that was debunked already I don't know

 

[manofsteel4life]

Aye, I agree with that. But it was with the circumstances at hand. It would be good if Jor-El, as a victim of Zod's war, would be the one to give him justice.

But I know the early days of the comics didn't have Jor-El's floating head in the fortress, and the fortress itself was actually in the mountains and not made of crystal, which Synder is doing, I think.

Even with that, saying as how Superman is from Krypton, and speaks for its victims. It would also be appropriate for Supes to assume the role of judge, jury and exectioner...and banishing Zod to the Phantom Zone. It would also heighten Supes' own form of justice. Knowing that the PZ is worse than death...but still keeping the criminals alive.

SEE, thats even darker than killing them, but its the right thing to do!

I think if it comes to be, I could see Henry owning that scene....

 

[Rodrigo90]

definitely

 

[gkokujin]

I'm just going to add, that the original question by the OP was whether Superman should kill IN THIS MOVIE.

Not whether him killing Doomsday is okay. Or robots. Or whether he should be a vegetarian.

Just whether or not it will be okay if he kills Zod/Faora/another kryptonian in this film.

And I very much vote no.

thank you for understanding the correct context.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

But I know the early days of the comics didn't have Jor-El's floating head in the fortress, and the fortress itself was actually in the mountains and not made of crystal, which Synder is doing, I think.

Based on...

 

[Rodrigo90]

Based on...

Based on my premonitions

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Ok I do not believe Superman should kill; but as someone who does not read the comic books, when if ever has he been written as someone who kills? Also what is the reason given for why he can't shouldn't and won't? Is it because of his upbringing with the Kents? Or because he knows as the strongest being on the planet there needs to be a line he doesn't cross or he will turn into Emperor Palpatine or some other form of tyrant? Or is it just to give hope to humanity?
The only person I have ever wanted and rooted for Superman to kill is Darkseid; Doomsday was a necessity, but all the other villains I have never felt needed to be killed by him.
Now for Batman I go back and forth, I've seen Return of the Joker and that sure as he11 made me want Batman to kill the SOB.

 

[maenalus]

The fact that there is a thread debating this is ridiculous.

Superman doesn't kill.

Your exasperation is unjustified. If people were arguing that Superman shouldn't believe in good and evil, that he should propound a survival of the fittest definition of justice that leaves the weak to fend for themselves, advocate a dictatorship, or that he should be a brooding sourpuss; those would be ridiculous and go against what he has always been and how Siegel always described him. But Superman started out a killer, the change was mandated by DC whether Siegel favored it or not, and in all the descriptions of SM by Siegel I've seen, not only does he not mention no-killing as essential to who SM is, he never mentions it at all. When a change is made to an already established character, it's not ridiculous for fans to debate the merits and demerits of that change and to want a good reason for it.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Imagine a Superman who surfed on the Motherless website...a website without morals for a guy without morals...IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT???!!!

 

[John Locke]

No, Superman should not kill. The fact that he has in the past doesn't matter because he doesn't now. Killing is not something he does anymore. That aspect has become part of his character. There are many reasons why he doesn't, the Kents, because he's afraid of becoming a god, to be a model for others, because he is human, etc. Having Superman kill would make the him a different character than the one in modern comics, animated shows, movies, bad place even Smallville. Whether you love Smallville or hate it you have to admit it got Clark Kent right. This enitre question was addressed in the majority of season 8. When he talks to the Legion of Superheroes he says, "You speak of a code, but if it had anything to do with me, rule number one would be do not kill ever!" Not killing in his number one rule and he witholds to that rule even more so then Batman. Superman just hasn't had an entire movie devoted to this issue.

 

[Alien Anal]

If Superman doesnt kill is it still alright for him to inflict pain upon another being?

This is what brings me to the idea the Supes would be a vegetarian as most meat eaters are fine with eating meat because they consider the animal to be killed humanely(not that this is always the case)

Considering Kal El can move planets i am pretty sure he could punch and villain in the head and give them a much more humane killing than most.

 

[Prime]

If Superman doesnt kill is it still alright for him to inflict pain upon another being?

Superman does not kill, but he is not a pacifist either. If someone threatens his homeworld or his loved ones, he is quite a brawler (or in Grant Morrison's words; ´´he’s a brawler who doesn’t give in until he’s dead or the bad guy’s down``). So if someone is inflicting pain upon him in a battle he'll return the favor and there is nothing wrong with that. Superman is not Jesus Christ (too bad Bryan Singer didn't get that memo!)

This is what brings me to the idea the Supes would be a vegetarian as most meat eaters are fine with eating meat because they consider the animal to be killed humanely(not that this is always the case)

I think there's enough issues available to deal with in regards to Superman without resorting to vegetarian propaganda. I don't ever want to see such nonsense being brought up in a Superman movie as it is a waste of screen time and doesn't belong in a Superman movie.

 

[Dr.]

Superman does not kill, but he is not a pacifist either. If someone threatens his homeworld or his loved ones, he is quite a brawler (or in Grant Morrison's words; ´´he’s a brawler who doesn’t give in until he’s dead or the bad guy’s down``). So if someone is inflicting pain upon him in a battle he'll return the favor and there is nothing wrong with that. Superman is not Jesus Christ...

I agree that there’s a distinction. But (at least some of) the rhetoric in this thread suggests otherwise. The objection is often framed as: “what’s happened to society/fandom when we think the only way for a hero to be ‘cool’ is if they kill?” That could just as easily be reworded to repudiate all acts of aggression or violence. (What’s ‘cool’ about hitting someone?) So if the “moral high-ground” is going to be used as an argument, it should be applied consistently.