Should this Superman kill? - Part 1

[CLARKY]

Of course he should kill. Not killing is so out of fashion. Let it be real! Yeah!

 

[Prime]

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.

Yeah, but I don't consider a ´´no kill`` code to be a moral high-ground, if it was im sure there'd be a bad place of a lot more killing out there. People get into fights all the time, but they very very rarely end up killing each other. I mean, I would have no hesitation of punching someone's lights out if they raised their hand on me, but I wouldn't take their life. I guess this ´´issue`` is just very simple for me. Superman always finds a way and never takes a life.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

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.

This.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Not Superman related, but I felt one of Batman's explanations for not killing suits Superman best.

When young Bruce Wayne asked Thomas Wayne why he saved the life of a criminal, when he could have turned him away. Thomas said he believed that all life was sacred, no matter who's it was. It was his duty, not just as a doctor, but as a good man, to preserve life.

So Bruce believed in his father's philosophy, to preserve life and not end it, even if it was the life of an evil person, and the belief of the good within himself, that stops him from crossing that line into evil...hence why he doesn't believe in killing or leaving evil men to die. Because it's his duty as a good person, to do the right thing. That's why he can't be swayed by his personal feelings of anger, its his philosophy on life itself.

 

[gugumugats]

How bout AI robots and giant monsters. Would that fall into the no-kill rule?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

If they are 'humanoid' i'd argue yes. For instance, the little kid in AI

If they are without conscious thought, then it's fine IMO. I mean, he's fine eating a hamburger too.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Eating the hamburger is fine. Killing the hamburger however is not

 

[Alien Anal]

Eating the hamburger is fine. Killing the hamburger however is not

But Superman wants to prevent death from happening if he can too right?

 

[Rodrigo90]

They could pull a Quest For Peace and have him send all meat factories into the sun

 

[sebialex]

He should. That will end the current Superman and transform him into something else. I'm kinda bored of the current one.

...or at least put him in a situation where he has to do it, tries it but fails. Then later he evaluates the decision, over and over and comes to the conclusion that he doesn't know what he would do if he finds himself in the same position.

Give him some realism, to offset some of his ridiculous, nonsensical powers.

 

[Franklin Richards]

You know.. let him fly but only 20 feet off the ground.

We're keeping it gritty!!!

 

[Rodrigo90]

I think people fail to realise that Superman doesn't have just a 'no kill policy'. It IS a 'no kill philosophy'.

When you look at something philosophically, it completely grips you psychologically. You have basically an unbreakable belief in something, you absolutely swear by it and cant see anything else.
So how do you break an unbreakable belief in someone?

Superman's views on life is philosophical, very, very deep. That's at best how it would be decribed.

Like Batman, he wouldn't kill because he believed in his fathers philosophical view on life. That life, no matter who's it is, ALL LIFE is sacred, and should be saved and preserved by whatever means. That's why Batman saves the lives of even the Joker. Because even HIS life is sacred. He hates those who take life, but it's not within him to break his views on life, reinforced by his belief that he is a good person, and all good people should do the right thing...to preserve life, not end it.

 

[sebialex]

Hahaha, he should be able to fly, have a lot of strength but not too much and that's it. Hate that stupid breath shi t.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Superman just needs a reasonable place to draw the line, and that is simple, due to philosophical reasons, he does not believe it is right to deliberately kill anyone.

It does not need to be too complex, he is a guy who does not want to see anyone else die, and has to make a conscious effort to avoid killing anyone even by accident, due to his vast power. Its important to him to avoid taking any deliberate actions with intent to kill.

I think it should be kept to those basic important reasons, and not get silly.

Getting silly would be Superman exiling himself from earth if a criminal shoots him in the back and the bullet bounces off and hits him in the face killing the gunman instantly. Obviously Superman took no direct action in killing the guy, and despite having super speed he does not always have time to think about where every bullet that bounces off of him goes. Going crazy over every accidental death that happens around him would get stupid. Superman regularly gets himself involved in life and death situations, and he will not be able to save everybody, nor does he have the ability to stand in the way of someone intent on winning a Darwin award.

 

[shallbecomeabat]

It may sound like a dukeebag comment, but I really think anyone who thinks Superman should kill, clearly didn't gets the point about the character. Even if he was more brutal in his first few adventures, he should never kill and don't come back with the whole "He killed three Kryptonians in a parallel dimension once"- thingy. He should never kill. Even moreso than Batman.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Superman just needs a reasonable place to draw the line, and that is simple, due to philosophical reasons, he does not believe it is right to deliberately kill anyone.

It does not need to be too complex, he is a guy who does not want to see anyone else die, and has to make a conscious effort to avoid killing anyone even by accident, due to his vast power. Its important to him to avoid taking any deliberate actions with intent to kill.

I think it should be kept to those basic important reasons, and not get silly.

Getting silly would be Superman exiling himself from earth if a criminal shoots him in the back and the bullet bounces off and hits him in the face killing the gunman instantly. Obviously Superman took no direct action in killing the guy, and despite having super speed he does not always have time to think about where every bullet that bounces off of him goes. Going crazy over every accidental death that happens around him would get stupid. Superman regularly gets himself involved in life and death situations, and he will not be able to save everybody, nor does he have the ability to stand in the way of someone intent on winning a Darwin award.

Definitely agreed.

There is a massive difference between Superman never KILLING and no one ever DYING in a fight against him.

 

[Dr.]

Like Batman, he wouldn't kill because he believed in his fathers philosophical view on life. That life, no matter who's it is, ALL LIFE is sacred, and should be saved and preserved by whatever means. That's why Batman saves the lives of even the Joker. Because even HIS life is sacred. He hates those who take life, but it's not within him to break his views on life, reinforced by his belief that he is a good person, and all good people should do the right thing...to preserve life, not end it.

Yes, Nolan (for one) clearly drew that line. In BB, Bruce says he’s “no executioner.” And in TDK, Batman can’t bring himself to kill the Joker in cold blood. (Indeed, as you mention, he actually saves his life later.) That said, there were the inadvertent deaths of Ducard and Dent. Now it doesn’t seem that those were treated as egregious violations of Batman’s “code” (note, again, the “inadvertent” proviso). Yet, if a similar circumstance were to occur in a Supes story, there would be (at least some) strenuous objections – “No! They obviously don’t get Superman.”

But if no moral denunciations apply to the Batman example, I’m puzzled as to why they would in the (hypothetical) Superman case.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Those Batman examples ARE egregious. Read the WHOLE thread.

 

[Rodrigo90]

The thing with Begins was, Bruce said he wouldn't become a killer. Ducard was egging him on to kill him and was mocking Bruce for saving him in the first place. Bruce's reasoning behind it is simple,
"I won't intentionally kill someone in cold blood, but if I leave them to die or kill them accidentally, it's fine"

That really doesn't fit in with the philosophy he has in the comics...Not saving them just because he's the hero, but because he wants to preserve life, like Thomas Wayne did.

That view in Begins makes sense to THAT characterisation of Batman. He won't shoot a criminal to death, but he won't save them if he get's mocked for it, and he doesn't mind if he kills a criminal accidentally, because it wasn't intentional on his part. I'm sure there is a logic in there somewhere, but I can't find it

Superman doing something like that
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"
It isn't him. Batman may not have a problem with leaving someone to die. But it's in Superman's very nature to save lives from anything and everything. He's a more spiritual character, who has an appreciation for life. Superman has more empathy than Batman.
Cause in the comics Batman can be a cold character, he just feels less warmth than Superman in himself. I think that scene in Begins was definitely inspired by Frank Miller's Batman, a very cold and cynical interpretation.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

The thing with Begins was, Bruce said he wouldn't become a killer. Ducard was egging him on to kill him and was mocking Bruce for saving him in the first place. Bruce's reasoning behind it is simple,
"I won't intentionally kill someone in cold blood, but if I leave them to die or kill them accidentally, it's fine"

That really doesn't fit in with the philosophy he has in the comics...Not saving them just because he's the hero, but because he wants to preserve life, like Thomas Wayne did.

That view in Begins makes sense to THAT characterisation of Batman. He won't shoot a criminal to death, but he won't save them if he get's mocked for it, and he doesn't mind if he kills a criminal accidentally, because it wasn't intentional on his part. I'm sure there is a logic in there somewhere, but I can't find it

Superman doing something like that
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"
It isn't him. Batman may not have a problem with leaving someone to die. But it's in Superman's very nature to save lives from anything and everything. He's a more spiritual character, who has an appreciation for life. Superman has more empathy than Batman.
Cause in the comics Batman can be a cold character, he just feels less warmth than Superman in himself. I think that scene in Begins was definitely inspired by Frank Miller's Batman, a very cold and cynical interpretation.

I for one am not a fan of the Miller cynical Batman, or the Nolan version of **gravel voice** "but I dont have to Sthave you!"

In most incarnations of Batman he will at least attempt to save anyone, even if they mock him for it. He may beat the heck out of them, but he is not going to let them die even if they laugh at him for saving them.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I don't agree with them either.

Batman, to me, is a troubled soul who tries to do the right thing. So to have him become cold, cynical and uncaring, it doesn't make sense. It never has. It does not make any sense for Batman to kill or leave people to die when he has the opportunity to save them.

That scene in Begins was 100% inspired by Miller's take. Batman turning cold and cynical just to get one over on Ducard for lecturing him about saving his enemies. What he should have done was saved him, but knocked him out cold and hard afterwards!

 

[Kurosawa]

I don't agree with them either.

Batman, to me, is a troubled soul who tries to do the right thing. So to have him become cold, cynical and uncaring, it doesn't make sense. It never has. It does not make any sense for Batman to kill or leave people to die when he has the opportunity to save them.

That scene in Begins was 100% inspired by Miller's take. Batman turning cold and cynical just to get one over on Ducard for lecturing him about saving his enemies. What he should have done was saved him, but knocked him out cold and hard afterwards!

Begins was such a good movie but that scene really hurt it with me.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I don't agree with them either.

Batman, to me, is a troubled soul who tries to do the right thing. So to have him become cold, cynical and uncaring, it doesn't make sense. It never has. It does not make any sense for Batman to kill or leave people to die when he has the opportunity to save them.

That scene in Begins was 100% inspired by Miller's take. Batman turning cold and cynical just to get one over on Ducard for lecturing him about saving his enemies. What he should have done was saved him, but knocked him out cold and hard afterwards!

Totally agreed.

IMO that is ALWAYS a more satisfying ending. Just the same way that him catching the Joker before he hit the ground in TDK was.

In a way, Harvey Dent's death didn't bug me as much as Ra's, because it was an instinctual thing. It was saving a little boy. And it had a point to it.

Ra's death was a decision that he shoud die. A decision Batman shouldn't have made IMO, and one that didn't fit with the rest of the film.

 

[Dr.]

The thing with Begins was, Bruce said he wouldn't become a killer. Ducard was egging him on to kill him and was mocking Bruce for saving him in the first place.

...

That view in Begins makes sense to THAT characterisation of Batman. He won't shoot a criminal to death, but he won't save them if he get's mocked for it, and he doesn't mind if he kills a criminal accidentally, because it wasn't intentional on his part. I'm sure there is a logic in there somewhere, but I can't find it

Superman doing something like that
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"
It isn't him.

I could be persuaded that the specific line didn’t properly serve the context. It was rather clear that Batman couldn’t save Ducard – the train was about to crash, there was only time and the means for Batman to escape. So it might have been better if he had said: “I won’t kill you, but I can’t save you.” Essentially, that’s what was transpiring. I don't think Bats was goaded into anything by Ducard.

 

[Franklin Richards]

He could have saved him. He sat there for 2 minutes while they talked. You just want to believe that he couldn't save him because the alternative is that Batman killed him by omission. And that's uncomfortable because speaking against Nolan is a crime among Batfans.


He could have saved him. He didn't.



[YT]cGBuvSRIeuo[/YT]



So Rachael can fall off a skyscraper and all he has to do is jump after her and grab her and use his cape to "sorta" break their fall onto a car but he can't grab Ras and jump out the back and "parachute" to safety?


********.