The Double Standards Against Superman

[Comics N' Toons]

Because of the controversy, I wouldn’t put it past Goyer/Snyder to “explain”/second-guess themselves about the Zod issue in the sequel. But that, imo, would be a can of worms - for exactly the reasons you outline. As the scene was crafted, the Zod kill in MOS was - given the specific and dire circumstances - entirely justified. That is, it was neither a murder (“with malice aforethought”) nor a calculated execution. But if we deem it a moral action (which it was), then a similar action in the future (given similar conditions) cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, introducing a “no kill” vow implies that a terrible - and avoidable - mistake was made in MOS; and this would redefine the events in MOS as immoral. Like I said, a can of worms. My suggestion: don’t say a word about any new “vow” or “code.”

Bingo! And fans would go ape **** again of Superman was faced with the same situation, yet if Batman did it, nobody would panic!

 

[Human Torch]

What's terrible is in Superman 2 after Superman saved the world, he goes back up north with his full powers and bullies the guy that beat him up when Clark had no powers. That's petty.

But it was a funny scene.

No,Supe smashing the guy's rig for throwing beer at him was petty.Letting the guy at the diner get a taste of the violence he dished out,was hardly that.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Now that's a good point!

 

[Shikamaru]

Bingo! And fans would go ape **** again of Superman was faced with the same situation, yet if Batman did it, nobody would panic!

I would. I would instantly hate on it. Batman's no-kill rule has formed Batman as a character more than it has any other superhero, including Superman (though not by a huge margin).

 

[blumatic]

No,Supe smashing the guy's rig for throwing beer at him was petty.Letting the guy at the diner get a taste of the violence he dished out,was hardly that.

Uh once you put on the suit, you can't touch humans.

He poured beer on the Clark. Clark walks away. Then got the can thrown at his head.

Fully formed Superman, in the sequel, couldn't let an issue go and went all the way back north to pick a fight.

So sad.

 

[blumatic]

Because of the controversy, I wouldn’t put it past Goyer/Snyder to “explain”/second-guess themselves about the Zod issue in the sequel. But that, imo, would be a can of worms - for exactly the reasons you outline. As the scene was crafted, the Zod kill in MOS was - given the specific and dire circumstances - entirely justified. That is, it was neither a murder (“with malice aforethought”) nor a calculated execution. But if we deem it a moral action (which it was), then a similar action in the future (given similar conditions) cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, introducing a “no kill” vow implies that a terrible - and avoidable - mistake was made in MOS; and this would redefine the events in MOS as immoral. Like I said, a can of worms. My suggestion: don’t say a word about any new “vow” or “code.”

I wouldn't introduce the no kill rule. I would just explore that issue. Whether righteous or not, Superman killing is a big deal. It should be addressed. Maybe Superman can talk to soldiers in the military or Swanwick or something. Not sure how, but a nice little lesson about tough choices would be ideal.

 

[Human Torch]

Uh once you put on the suit, you can't touch humans.

He poured beer on the Clark. Clark walks away. Then got the can thrown at his head.

Fully formed Superman, in the sequel, couldn't let an issue go and went all the way back north to pick a fight.

So sad.

C'mon,you seriously can't see the difference?

I wasn't upset with Clark trashing the guy's rig,but it was overkill.

In the case of the guy in the diner,Clark lets him take a shot and bust his own hand.The guy got a valuable lesson that you can't just beat people up.Maybe the taste of his own medicine made him change his ways.

The guy in MOS is left wondering if an act of God happened to his property while he was getting drunk.

 

[Dr.]

No,Supe smashing the guy's rig for throwing beer at him was petty.Letting the guy at the diner get a taste of the violence he dished out,was hardly that.

It was more than that. The trucker was guilty of sexual harassment (of the waitress). In all likelihood, he was a serial harasser. He got his just deserts.

 

[Dr.]

I wouldn't introduce the no kill rule. I would just explore that issue. Whether righteous or not, Superman killing is a big deal. It should be addressed. Maybe Superman can talk to soldiers in the military or Swanwick or something. Not sure how, but a nice little lesson about tough choices would be ideal.

But explore it with care and nuance - don't get heavy-handed and preachy.

 

[blumatic]

But explore it with care and nuance - don't get heavy-handed and preachy.

Exactly.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

I would. I would instantly hate on it. Batman's no-kill rule has formed Batman as a character more than it has any other superhero, including Superman (though not by a huge margin).

But inevitably if Bats did kill, Bat-fans would over-analyze and find some way to justify it, like they always find ways to justify anything Batman does on film. I mean, I'm a Batman fan too, have been for 24 years, but it seems like whatever Batman does, some fans will always justify it.

 

[blumatic]

C'mon,you seriously can't see the difference?

I wasn't upset with Clark trashing the guy's rig,but it was overkill.

In the case of the guy in the diner,Clark lets him take a shot and bust his own hand.The guy got a valuable lesson that you can't just beat people up.Maybe the taste of his own medicine made him change his ways.

The guy in MOS is left wondering if an act of God happened to his property while he was getting drunk.

In MOS, Clark took it out on a piece of property. In SM2, Superman took it out on a person waaaaaaaaaay after the events happened.

The guy got his truck trashed, so what, he can thank karma for that.

I find Reeve 's actions more petty. You are already Superman and you just defeated three Kryptonians, you saved the day. Yet Reeve felt compelled to pay this dude a visit. Premeditated beat down.

In MOS, Clark was defending a young lady, got hit (didn't phase him) got beer poured all over him, then a can thrown at his head. Clark has had a lifetime of bullying up to that point. Clark reacted.

Was it overkill, eh, it was a truck. It's not like he beat the guy up.

 

[blumatic]

Bingo! And fans would go ape **** again of Superman was faced with the same situation, yet if Batman did it, nobody would panic!

I think Batman would kill if he had to. He said he considered in TDK. I think it's more his aversion to guns.

But he has guns on his vehicles.

I think the worst thing for a superhero to do is to kill using a weapon. If you going to kill it should be by your hands alone. Whether letting a villain fall or MOS style. No weapons and no constant blows to the body or head until death (that's borderline torture).

 

[Shikamaru]

But inevitably if Bats did kill, Bat-fans would over-analyze and find some way to justify it, like they always find ways to justify anything Batman does on film. I mean, I'm a Batman fan too, have been for 24 years, but it seems like whatever Batman does, some fans will always justify it.

There will always be some fans of any fanbase that justify anything.

 

[Human Torch]

In MOS, Clark took it out on a piece of property. In SM2, Superman took it out on a person waaaaaaaaaay after the events happened.

Eh,I wouldn't say that.The timeframe had to be a week at the most.

The guy got his truck trashed, so what, he can thank karma for that.

In the end,he doesn't learn nothin'. (as the Riddler might say)All he knows is he has to buy a new rig.If you think a guy like that is thinking of karma,you give him far more credit then I give him.

I find Reeve 's actions more petty. You are already Superman and you just defeated three Kryptonians, you saved the day. Yet Reeve felt compelled to pay this dude a visit. Premeditated beat down.

In MOS, Clark was defending a young lady, got hit (didn't phase him) got beer poured all over him, then a can thrown at his head. Clark has had a lifetime of bullying up to that point. Clark reacted.

Was it overkill, eh, it was a truck. It's not like he beat the guy up.

In SM 2 the punishment fit the crime.The bully is taught a lesson,and it's done by Clark (the guy that got beat up).

It's not like he vindictively used his powers to fly the guy to Mt Everest as a form of punishment.He let the guy use his abusive tendencies,and allowed them to backfire.He probably took the experience to heart,or at the very least,had second thoughts about beating people up in the future.

 

[blumatic]

Eh,I wouldn't say that.The timeframe had to be a week at the most.

In the end,he doesn't learn nothin'. (as the Riddler might say)All he knows is he has to buy a new rig.If you think a guy like that is thinking of karma,you give him far more credit then I give him.


In SM 2 the punishment fit the crime.The bully is taught a lesson,and it's done by Clark (the guy that got beat up).

It's not like he vindictively used his powers to fly the guy to Mt Everest as a form of punishment.He let the guy use his abusive tendencies,and allowed them to backfire.He probably took the experience to heart,or at the very least,had second thoughts about beating people up in the future.

Wait after diner dude smashed his hands on Reeve, he spun him like 1000 times on his own chair, picked him up, sat him on his own food, then threw him across the breakfast bar into the pin ball machine.

He took the fight to the guy.

I got no real problems with the Donner films, and MOS. I just find it laughable that people don't see the obvious issues Donner films have and say MOS is poorly written and structured.

I saw Reeve beating up on diner dude funny. But to me if your Superman, you are not in the business of payback.

Before the uniform hey, you can let off a little steam on the unreasonable. And MOS diner dude may not have gotten his lesson, but he got what was coming to him.

 

[Tyrone Parker]

Steak is delicious once in a while but Steak everyday of the week becomes stale very quickly

Not when you know how to cook it.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Batman not only has killed in Batman and Batman Returns, but he has killed in the Nolan films as well. While some people have had issues with it, it hasn't been talked to death NEARLY as much as the Superman issue.

In Begins Batman kills Ras. In TDK he sorta maybe kills the garbage truck driver and he straight up kills Dent. In Rises he kills Talia. In the Burton films he blows up a the chemical plant with goons in it, drops one down a tower and kills the Joker. In Returns he burns a guy alive and blows one up. Yet people find reasons to justify these things but not Superman. It's ok for Batman to knock Dent to his death because he had to save a child, but the save a family Superman kills and it's an uproar.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Eh,I wouldn't say that.The timeframe had to be a week at the most.

In the end,he doesn't learn nothin'. (as the Riddler might say)All he knows is he has to buy a new rig.If you think a guy like that is thinking of karma,you give him far more credit then I give him.


In SM 2 the punishment fit the crime.The bully is taught a lesson,and it's done by Clark (the guy that got beat up).

It's not like he vindictively used his powers to fly the guy to Mt Everest as a form of punishment.He let the guy use his abusive tendencies,and allowed them to backfire.He probably took the experience to heart,or at the very least,had second thoughts about beating people up in the future.

yay:

 

[Shikamaru]

Batman not only has killed in Batman and Batman Returns, but he has killed in the Nolan films as well. While some people have had issues with it, it hasn't been talked to death NEARLY as much as the Superman issue.

In Begins Batman kills Ras. In TDK he sorta maybe kills the garbage truck driver and he straight up kills Dent. In Rises he kills Talia. In the Burton films he blows up a the chemical plant with goons in it, drops one down a tower and kills the Joker. In Returns he burns a guy alive and blows one up. Yet people find reasons to justify these things but not Superman. It's ok for Batman to knock Dent to his death because he had to save a child, but the save a family Superman kills and it's an uproar.

You guys still using the whole "He killed Ra's/Harvey" argument after eight whole years? If I had a cent for every single time that was brought up and refuted in Bat-boards, I would be stinkin' rich by now. And even now, there still are many Batman fans that are upset with that and that are even more upset with Batman killing in the Burton films + killing Talia in TDKR (weird how you excluded the most controversial "murder" of Nolan's Batman in your post).

 

[ShadowBoxer]

My thoughts on Supes killing Zod is that he simply made a mistake, but really Zod gave him no choice. Clark will learn from this event and grow from it, the same is said about the death toll in metropolis. He honestly couldn't save every human with the world machine active so it really wasn't his fault.

It shocks me that critics and some fans hated this movie and prefer a bore fest like Superman Returns. Not only is Superman a stalker who spends most of the movie mopping about Lois , he is also a dead beat dad, and gets easily beaten by Lex and his henchmen. And there is literally no action in the entire movie...

 

[Senator Pleasury]

My thoughts on Supes killing Zod is that he simply made a mistake, but really Zod gave him no choice. Clark will learn from this event and grow from it, the same is said about the death toll in metropolis. He honestly couldn't save every human with the world machine active so it really wasn't his fault.

It shocks me that critics and some fans hated this movie and prefer a bore fest like Superman Returns. Not only is Superman a stalker who spends most of the movie mopping about Lois , he is also a dead beat dad, and gets easily beaten by Lex and his henchmen. And there is literally no action in the entire movie...

Somehow... yes... the more you bash Superman Returns... the better movie MOS becomes!

 

[GremlinZilla89]

You guys still using the whole "He killed Ra's/Harvey" argument after eight whole years? If I had a cent for every single time that was brought up and refuted in Bat-boards, I would be stinkin' rich by now. And even now, there still are many Batman fans that are upset with that and that are even more upset with Batman killing in the Burton films + killing Talia in TDKR (weird how you excluded the most controversial "murder" of Nolan's Batman in your post).

Because, he ugh, did kill Ras and Harvey. How did he not?

 

[Metropolis_Man]

My thoughts on Supes killing Zod is that he simply made a mistake, but really Zod gave him no choice. Clark will learn from this event and grow from it, the same is said about the death toll in metropolis. He honestly couldn't save every human with the world machine active so it really wasn't his fault.

It can't be summed up any better than this and I feel like if others could view in this way, then it wouldn't be such a problem. Well said.

 

[Smashlilman]

I would. I would instantly hate on it. Batman's no-kill rule has formed Batman as a character more than it has any other superhero, including Superman (though not by a huge margin).

It's not the same though. Batman can indirectly kill villains and not be expected to save them. lets say there was a plane with a nuke (Captain America: The First Avenger scenario) in it and it was head for a major city. Batman could beat up the crew and sabotage the plane to keep it from reaching it destination causing it to crash and people wouldn't blame Batman for the deaths of any of the crew members. Superman's no kill rule is absolute in the public mind. In a lot of people minds Superman is expected to go out of his way to save people. Batman is allowed to leave you for dead.

My thoughts on Supes killing Zod is that he simply made a mistake, but really Zod gave him no choice. Clark will learn from this event and grow from it, the same is said about the death toll in metropolis. He honestly couldn't save every human with the world machine active so it really wasn't his fault.