The Double Standards Against Superman

[Comics N' Toons]

Completelly nailed it, to me that would be the perfect tone and visual for a Superman movie


Agree about Metropolis, but like what Bruce Timm did with his show the city would be vastly more bright and look like a positive progression, unlike Gotham which looks like the oposite. And once again, like the tv show did, instead of the Daily as the biggest building, Lex Corp would be the talest one and in the middle of the city, with Lex Luthor having built half of Metropolis and using his building as a way to sign his work.

I can agree with that sentiment, I guess. And yes Metropolis should be bright, but the architecture should be very German expressionist, IMO, as it was in the 1989 Batman film.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

I liked some of the colored Kryptonite(Don't tell me none of you thought Clark on Red K in Smallville wasn't entertaining at all), but I don't see that used in future movies.

Do you mean Superboy as in Conner Kent?

I also think Super-pets did also ruin the character as well as introducing other Kryptonians like Kara and a bottled city full of them too. At least the movie rectified that by deciding Kal-El's a natural Kryptonian while all the others were programmable test tube babies.

Well, just the idea of Clark Kent as a young boy wearing Superman's suit with his powers and causing Luthor to go bald.

Conner Kent (as a side-kick) is kind of unnecessary and is kind of unnecessary as a character, IMO. There should be Superman as a "sole survivor."

 

[smallville fan]

Well, just the idea of Clark Kent as a young boy wearing Superman's suit with his powers and causing Luthor to go bald.

Conner Kent (as a side-kick) is kind of unnecessary and is kind of unnecessary as a character, IMO. There should be Superman as a "sole survivor."

I can agree with the first point. The second's a bit debatable. Conner Kent's hardly written as a side-kick the way in which Robin is towards Batman. Conner is more of a kid who just wants to stand out as his own person you know, he doesn't really go on saving people alongside Superman. Most of the time he hangs around the Teen Titans trying to be his own hero. There' a fan-film which kind of sums up what kind of character he is:

[YT]g_6tgZj0qsI[/YT]

As for his character, like I said earlier, he's hardly around Superman, so he doesn't really cramp his style and he could never truly be like Clark in the whole "sole survivor aspect". By being with Clark, he feels it interferes in his journey of being human and not human.

Superman will always be a sole survivor, the movie at least fixes that aspect.

 

[Batmannerism]

Just a thought.

Many people hated the Superman killing Zod scene. Personally, I went in thinking it would ruin the film, but surprisingly, in the context of the story I thought it worked. What made it work was his reaction afterwards -deep remorse.


Superman's just killed the only other member of his race, to save humanity from Zod's unstoppable fury and madness. How did Iron Man react, after throwing a nuclear weapon at the Chitauri mothership, which killed all the Chitauri on-board, and all the Chitauri invaders on Earth ? He went and had some shwarma. I find it odd that no one criticizes that as callous, yet Superman kills one individual to save the entire Earth, and he's a terrible person.

Odd double standard indeed.

 

[charl_huntress]

Just a thought.

Many people hated the Superman killing Zod scene. Personally, I went in thinking it would ruin the film, but surprisingly, in the context of the story I thought it worked. What made it work was his reaction afterwards -deep remorse.


Superman's just killed the only other member of his race, to save humanity from Zod's unstoppable fury and madness. How did Iron Man react, after throwing a nuclear weapon at the Chitauri mothership, which killed all the Chitauri on-board, and all the Chitauri invaders on Earth ? He went and had some shwarma. I find it odd that no one criticizes that as callous, yet Superman kills one individual to save the entire Earth, and he's a terrible person.

Odd double standard indeed.

Yeah...it is an odd double standard. I watched The Wolverine after watching MOS. I didn't see either movie in the theater, but I was surprised that I didn't even blink at how many people Logan slaughtered.

I do think we as Superman fans have to evaluate the double standards we hold our hero to. Though I wonder if this is just restricted to Superman. I know several Batman fans who would be heated if Batman picked up a gun and killed someone.

 

[Lord]

Yeah...it is an odd double standard. I watched The Wolverine after watching MOS. I didn't see either movie in the theater, but I was surprised that I didn't even blink at how many people Logan slaughtered.

But that's Wolverine, it was great so see him going loose like that after the first spin-off which had completelly downplayed the brutality of his life, let's hope the day never comes when Superman has to be compared to Wolverine when it comes to killing, because either one of them is going to be being very badly represented if that happens.

Tony is also a much more dangerous individual, he has allways been like that, he's not afraid of murdering his oponente at all, unlike Superman, if i'm not mistaken there are even some stories dealing with Tony being trobled by his life due to things like that. The Chiaturi also seem to be hive minded, so they weren't really individuals.

 

[charl_huntress]

But that's Wolverine, it was great so see him going loose like that after the first spin-off which had completelly downplayed the brutality of his life, let's hope the day never comes when Superman has to be compared to Wolverine when it comes to killing, because either one of them is going to be being very badly represented if that happens.

Tony is also a much more dangerous individual, he has allways been like that, he's not afraid of murdering his oponente at all, unlike Superman, if i'm not mistaken there are even some stories dealing with Tony being trobled by his life due to things like that. The Chiaturi also seem to be hive minded, so they weren't really individuals.

The point is it's a double standard that I think fans might need to evaluate...on a case by case basis if needed. We hold Superman to a different standard for reasons that may not be relevant any longer. I'm not really sure, but considering the discussions I've had with longer and older fans... I'm thinking things have changed enough where all Superman fans may have to evaluate this black and white philosophy as no longer something that should be applied to Superman. Of course, he's still a hero and all heroes should seek to treat villains better than they themselves treated their victims...but the ultimate "no kill" rule is gone...I think.

 

[Herolee10]

Just a thought.

Many people hated the Superman killing Zod scene. Personally, I went in thinking it would ruin the film, but surprisingly, in the context of the story I thought it worked. What made it work was his reaction afterwards -deep remorse.


Superman's just killed the only other member of his race, to save humanity from Zod's unstoppable fury and madness. How did Iron Man react, after throwing a nuclear weapon at the Chitauri mothership, which killed all the Chitauri on-board, and all the Chitauri invaders on Earth ? He went and had some shwarma. I find it odd that no one criticizes that as callous, yet Superman kills one individual to save the entire Earth, and he's a terrible person.

Odd double standard indeed.

Heck, let's not forget these scenarios that have been given more leniency than Superman killing Zod in "Man of Steel":


1. Batman pushing Harvey Dent to his death in order to save Gordon's son.

2. Captain America mercilessly throwing an mercenary off of the Hellcarrier, and thus to his death. I just found it funny that they would establish early in the film that Rogers doesn't have an innate desire to kill people in general, and yet there were so many times where we've seen him kill off his foes when he could have easily just subdued them.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The point is it's a double standard that I think fans might need to evaluate...on a case by case basis if needed. We hold Superman to a different standard for reasons that may not be relevant any longer. I'm not really sure, but considering the discussions I've had with longer and older fans... I'm thinking things have changed enough where all Superman fans may have to evaluate this black and white philosophy as no longer something that should be applied to Superman. Of course, he's still a hero and all heroes should seek to treat villains better than they themselves treated their victims...but the ultimate "no kill" rule is gone...I think.

I think case by case has a stronger... Um... case for it. I think that the no kill rule has been broken in the past and it will be broken in the future, but the idea that in general, Superman leaves the act of killing off the table is still the Platonic Ideal Superman. Golden Age Superman having some kills to his name has not stopped this being the general impression, Donner/Lester having a film that's theatrical edit gives the sense that Superman killed Zod and Co. did not change it, Earth 2 Superman ending the Anti-Monitor did not change it, as the battle against Doomsday did not change it either. Man Of Steel's ending will not affect Superman's generally accepted moral stances either. It did challenge them, even break them to a degree, but Superman will survive and endure as a moral icon despite it, hell, maybe even because of it. Who knows what the creative counter reaction will be or when it comes? I guess what I mean is, keep calm everybody and trust in the man from Krypton.

 

[charl_huntress]

I think case by case has a stronger... Um... case for it. I think that the no kill rule has been broken in the past and it will be broken in the future, but the idea that in general, Superman leaves the act of killing off the table is still the Platonic Ideal Superman. Golden Age Superman having some kills to his name has not stopped this being the general impression, Donner/Lester having a film that's theatrical edit gives the sense that Superman killed Zod and Co. did not change it, Earth 2 Superman ending the Anti-Monitor did not change it, as the battle against Doomsday did not change it either. Man Of Steel's ending will not affect Superman's generally accepted moral stances either. It did challenge them, even break them to a degree, but Superman will survive and endure as a moral icon despite it, hell, maybe even because of it. Who knows what the creative counter reaction will be or when it comes? I guess what I mean is, keep calm everybody and trust in the man from Krypton.

Haha...lol. You bring up good points as usual K Inc, and everyone I think acknowledges on some level that a version of Superman has killed. That's never really the issue. It's more the ideal of the character, what many consider to be his core philosophy, is he does not kill. It's funny. I recently watched JLU: A Better Word Again. The whole Superman does not kill came up and when Newbern uttered that line with such passion I started laughing my ass off.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Haha...lol. You bring up good points as usual K Inc, and everyone I think acknowledges on some level that a version of Superman has killed. That's never really the issue. It's more the ideal of the character, what many consider to be his core philosophy, is he does not kill. It's funny. I recently watched JLU: A Better Word Again. The whole Superman does not kill came up and when Newbern uttered that line with such passion I started laughing my ass off.

Is A BETTER WORLD the Justice Lord's two parter or the end of the Brainiac/Luthor team up with Flash going speed force at the end?


Look I would not have written a story where Superman chooses to kill under ANY circumstances. That does not mean that I can't appreciate a story that does have him do that, and I think the only way I would reject such a story would be to have Superman have no regrets about using his power to kill or perhaps enjoying it. MOS did neither and simple tried to come up with a more relatable reason why such a person would even come up with a self imposed code against killing.

 

[charl_huntress]

Is A BETTER WORLD the Justice Lord's two parter or the end of the Brainiac/Luthor team up with Flash going speed force at the end?


Look I would not have written a story where Superman chooses to kill under ANY circumstances. That does not mean that I can't appreciate a story that does have him do that, and I think the only way I would reject such a story would be to have Superman have no regrets about using his power to kill or perhaps enjoying it. MOS did neither and simple tried to come up with a more relatable reason why such a person would even come up with a self imposed code against killing.

Justice Lords.

Again, it didn't bother me. I internalized it and moved on, but I know others who haven't. I would also venture the killing in some way highlighted the other aspect of them movie that gets a lot of hate...aka the wanton destruction.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Justice Lords.

Again, it didn't bother me. I internalized it and moved on, but I know others who haven't. I would also venture the killing in some way highlighted the other aspect of them movie that gets a lot of hate...aka the wanton destruction.

You are correct I think. Man... 7 minutes with some of the most amazing VFX and a truly imposing level of power for Superman, something I think the character needed to thrive in a post Dragon Ball Z world and it's caused as big a knife fight amongst fans as The Dark Knight Returns final issue back in the day.

 

[charl_huntress]

You are correct I think. Man... 7 minutes with some of the most amazing VFX and a truly imposing level of power for Superman, something I think the character needed to thrive in a post Dragon Ball Z world and it's caused as big a knife fight amongst fans as The Dark Knight Returns final issue back in the day.

I truly do wonder if Superman didn't snap Zod's neck if we would hear one complaint about the destruction? No offense to any who feel this way, but I find it the most ridiculous complaint made about a superhero film. Talk to me about something else, but if you are truly complaining about destruction in a superhero film then I can't talk about that.

 

[Lord]

The point is it's a double standard that I think fans might need to evaluate...on a case by case basis if needed. We hold Superman to a different standard for reasons that may not be relevant any longer. I'm not really sure, but considering the discussions I've had with longer and older fans... I'm thinking things have changed enough where all Superman fans may have to evaluate this black and white philosophy as no longer something that should be applied to Superman. Of course, he's still a hero and all heroes should seek to treat villains better than they themselves treated their victims...but the ultimate "no kill" rule is gone...I think.

It's not a double standard really, Superman's main theme has been a persistente "no kill" rule, it's not gone because of just a single movie, or wasn't before just because the modern age is different from the past ages. Multiple stories have featured Superman killing, like in the Golden Age, or in the Doomsday movie where he blows a part of the city to defeat Doomsday.

All these weird events don't change the fact that Superman will allways be regarded as following a strict "no killing" rule, that is why Lex Luthor can still be his nemesis, if he completelly dropped the rule he would be just like Rob Liefeld's Supreme and many other "Xtreme" Superman copies.

 

[charl_huntress]

It's not a double standard really, Superman's main theme has been a persistente "no kill" rule, it's not gone because of just a single movie, or wasn't before just because the modern age is different from the past ages. Multiple stories have featured Superman killing, like in the Golden Age, or in the Doomsday movie where he blows a part of the city to defeat Doomsday.

All these weird events don't change the fact that Superman will allways be regarded as following a strict "no killing" rule, that is why Lex Luthor can still be his nemesis, if he completelly dropped the rule he would be just like Rob Liefeld's Supreme and many other "Xtreme" Superman copies.

Again, I think all fans recognize Superman has killed in some version. It's that most believe a "no kill" rule actually exist. How did that actually happen if in fact Superman has been killing all the time? Even though we've all seen it happen or alluded to in some version, there is still a persistent belief Superman should have a "no kill" rule. This is perhaps a double standard, along with many others, that may need to be evaluated by Superman fans IMO.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Again, I think all fans recognize Superman has killed in some version. It's that most believe a "no kill" rule actually exist. How did that actually happen if in fact Superman has been killing all the time? Even though we've all seen it happen or alluded to in some version, there is still a persistent belief Superman should have a "no kill" rule. This is perhaps a double standard, along with many others, that may need to be evaluated by Superman fans IMO.

(Tenth Doctor voice) Well...

Is that the double standard? Or is it that people think that Superman is too powerful, too omnipotent and too Gary Stu to be a truly interesting character or have mass appeal in the modern world but, when you attempt to do anything about those impressions and do stories that challenge the character or his world view or have the character Zig when it is expected he always Zags that you are then accused of "ruining" a character that you just don't "get"?

 

[charl_huntress]

(Tenth Doctor voice) Well...

Is that the double standard? Or is it that people think that Superman is too powerful, too omnipotent and too Gary Stu to be a truly interesting character or have mass appeal in the modern world but, when you attempt to do anything about those impressions and do stories that challenge the character or his world view or have the character Zig when it is expected he always Zags that you are then accused of "ruining" a character that you just don't "get"?

Haha...this could be applied to many parts of his character and not just the "no kill". I remember reading a post years ago that said Superman should be a straight player. He was a Lois Lane hater, but he believed one dude as powerful as Superman would not be faithful. It would be like...impossible to do so...lol. Yet that also persists because should the most powerful man in the world also be a world class a-hole playboy too? I guess the question is how much power should one man have eh...

 

[Visualiza]

I truly do wonder if Superman didn't snap Zod's neck if we would hear one complaint about the destruction? No offense to any who feel this way, but I find it the most ridiculous complaint made about a superhero film. Talk to me about something else, but if you are truly complaining about destruction in a superhero film then I can't talk about that.

And if you truly believe that any particular aspect of a genre movie is beyond criticism, then that's equally ridiculous. You can't just take circumstance for granted because it's a genre film or a character you happen to like; there is context to everything, and that's what people conveniently continue to ignore when they throw out their silly, ill-conceived logic to refute certain criticisms.

Take a look at some of the things people have said, and think to yourselves if any of this nonsense is in any way reasonable, let alone impartial:

"Wolverine kills people all the time!" Double standard!
"Iron Man killed a bunch of aliens!" Double standard!
"Batman pushed Harvey Dent to his death!" Double standard!
"Captain America threw a guy off the helicarrier!" Double standard!
"This hero in some other movie under these situations killed that villain" ....Double standard?

If it's not painfully obvious how these characters, scenarios, and respective movies are vastly different from that of MoS, then you(and I'm not saying you specifically, huntress; I'm generalizing here) probably want to believe that there's a double standard against Superman.

My take on it is that while neither the killing of Zod nor the devastation bothered me one way or the other, I still found them to be poorly executed(and written) creative decisions, thus they had a negative impact on the movie. One need not have ulterior motives for criticizing this movieas the header would suggest.

The neurotic aversion that this fan base has towards criticism is just staggering. This very thread is 7 pages deep, and dedicated to the idea that people need to stop picking on poor little Superman. Talk about ridiculous; the header ought to read "The Defensive Fans of Superman".

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

And if you truly believe that any particular aspect of a genre movie is beyond criticism, then that's equally ridiculous. You can't just take circumstance for granted because it's a genre film or a character you happen to like; there is context to everything, and that's what people conveniently continue to ignore when they throw out their silly, ill-conceived logic to refute certain criticisms.

Take a look at some of the things people have said, and think to yourselves if any of this nonsense is in any way reasonable, let alone impartial:

"Wolverine kills people all the time!" Double standard!
"Iron Man killed a bunch of aliens!" Double standard!
"Batman pushed Harvey Dent to his death!" Double standard!
"Captain America threw a guy off the helicarrier!" Double standard!
"This hero in some other movie under these situations killed that villain" ....Double standard?

If it's not painfully obvious how these characters, scenarios, and respective movies are vastly different from that of MoS, then you(and I'm not saying you specifically, huntress; I'm generalizing here) probably want to believe that there's a double standard against Superman.

My take on it is that while neither the killing of Zod nor the devastation bothered me one way or the other, I still found them to be poorly executed(and written) creative decisions, thus they had a negative impact on the movie. One need not have ulterior motives for criticizing this movieas the header would suggest.

The neurotic aversion that this fan base has towards criticism is just staggering. This very thread is 7 pages deep, and dedicated to the idea that people need to stop picking on poor little Superman. Talk about ridiculous; the header ought to read "The Defensive Fans of Superman".

Umm... The debate here is not about trying to "defend" Superman or MOS for that matter. This is a very touchy debate WITHIN the Superman fanbase. I would very proudly called myself a "Traditionalist/Donner fan", at least in the past. I disliked SMALLVILLE, LOIS AND CLARK and the Timm/Dini show. So I am not just some fan that always eats up what ever the character is showcased in. I was actually surprised at how much I LOVED MOS despite it being, on paper let's say, not even close to my ideal Superman project. But I actually felt that the execution was world class in MOS. That being put out there, I am also very aware of a lot of other fans' reaction to the film and that it centers on the supposed dark/somber tone and on Superman being written into a situation where he "wins" yet also "loses".

Again, I think the double standard is more about how if you do stories that are less than totally idealized in all ways that somehow this will always make for a poor Superman story, yet the totally idealized nature of the character and his stories is also blamed for his lack of popularity in the wider entertainment culture for the past few decades, especially after the Super-Mania of the late 70's/early 80's.

 

[charl_huntress]

And if you truly believe that any particular aspect of a genre movie is beyond criticism, then that's equally ridiculous. You can't just take circumstance for granted because it's a genre film or a character you happen to like; there is context to everything, and that's what people conveniently continue to ignore when they throw out their silly, ill-conceived logic to refute certain criticisms.

The neurotic aversion that this fan base has towards criticism is just staggering. This very thread is 7 pages deep, and dedicated to the idea that people need to stop picking on poor little Superman. Talk about ridiculous; the header ought to read "The Defensive Fans of Superman".

lol...Well...I have not heard one actual complaint about the FX or any other part of the destruction. It's the character's actions during the destruction that seem to draw so much ire. Either Supes should have saved someone while fighting to the death, or he shouldn't have kissed Lois while the ashes of Metropolis were raining down after a fight to the death. This is a characterization issue that some Supes fans are finding hard to reconcile. I get that, but what does that have to do with destruction in a superhero film? I have seriously heard people saying it was too much destruction and I just can't get on board with that.

 

[Lord]

Or superman should have been more careful when he pushed Zod, since he was constantly causing tons of destruction in Smallville and later Metropolis.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Or superman should have been more careful when he pushed Zod, since he was constantly causing tons of destruction in Smallville and later Metropolis.

Got it. When someone who is threatening your mom... Be reasonable.

 

[Lord]

But didn't that anger make the factory and gasoline station that were on the way? How many must have died when that happened? The mil was very big, and the gasoline station, while it didn't have any car there, most likelly had people inside, in least those who work there.

 

[charl_huntress]

So Superman can't get upset?