The Double Standards Against Superman

[The Batman]

Sorry t:


Thanks, before i started it i had this as the image of what i thought the Doctor was like

The Doctor ended up being nothing like i was expecting Does Season 5 offer a kind of restart for the series besides just a new show runner?

Its the same continuity, but pretty much everything changed in series 5. Actor, supporting cast, etc.

The Doctor you posted is very likable.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Yes, I do realize that, but the way you phrased it sounded like you meant the scene happened before it in the movie. That is what I was correcting.

Ok.

I think the point I am trying to make is the values you attribute to Superman did not exist in Clark at that time. He did value life, which is obviously shown by him saving the kids and Pete when he was younger, but he also valued his father's advice. He believed what Jon told him when he said the world was not ready, and he did not act because of that, even though he really wanted to. I would also argue at that time he wasn't even emotionally ready for that sort of responsibility. The scene inside the car before the tornado is proof of this. He sounds and is acting like an immature man-child.

Two things:

If he valued life, and so you state, then it's not true that "the values you attribute to Superman did not exist in Clark at that time." He did value life before he became Superman, therefore the values I attributed to Superman did exist in Clark at that time.

Now if Clark "also valued his father's advice," how come he ignored it after Pa Kent died and went on to save people's lives showing his face and all, which was exactly what Pa Kent told him NOT to do and, in fact, died for?

Same for Clark believing the world was not ready for him. How come he went on saving people if he believed the world wasn't ready?

Another thing, let's say Clark wasn't "even emotionally ready for that sort of responsibility." Would that stop him from saving his very father's life? Would that stop you? 'I am too emotionally unprepared, so I'll let my father die'?

I see what you are saying, but up until that point every time he did save someone and put himself at risk of being exposed, he was always admonished by Jonathon NOT to do that. Clark, in fact, wanted to save him, but Jon didn't want him to because he would have exposed himself which was what he had been warning Clark against his whole life. Jonathon firmly believed one day the world would be ready (unfortunately it wasn't that day), but as he told Clark when he was younger. His secret was bigger then just him. It had global implications, and Clark respected and understood that.

It was obvious that Jonathan didn't prepare his death. It came to his mind when he saw the tornado (he couldn't have planned having a tornado). So it's hard to think - and the movie does nothing to support this - that Clark was so convinced of his father's idea that he "understood" what he was doing. Because, for one thing, nobody was paying attention as everyone was trying to save their life.

That said, okay let's agree that it's true that "the world wasn't ready." Sounds great and cool. How was the world not ready? Or, let me rephrase, when and how did the world get ready? Or Clark himself? What changed? The movie just shows that Clark got his suit. Other than that, nothing changed. He got his suit and suddenly he was ready and, somehow, the world was too.

Although I'd say that the world was as unprepared for him as it was before, but an alien invasion started and something had to be done (which is the exact same premise Clark had to save those kids when he was young, so - again - not much changed). It seems to me that the whole "the world is not ready" was more a bombastic sentence than something the movie actually developed. The world never got ready, they just had to accept Superman, as nothing could be done about it.

I understand you feel the execution of this was poorly done, and it didn't "sell" it enough for you to buy it, but it was all there in the movie.

Not all.

As I said, nothing about the world getting ready for Superman, nothing about how Pa Kent's death affected Clark and nothing as to how or why Clark started saving lives again when his father had died to stop him from doing exactly that.

Again, exposing his powers would have led to him being exposed as an alien. That's no small matter. Try to look at the consequences that would have occurred if he did reveal himself. Jonathon would have been alive, but likely he and Martha would have been interned, and Clark would have been hunted by the U.S. government and the world police. If Clark would have revealed himself then they all would have lost the lives in a way, so that is why Jon made the sacrifice he did. It was to protect Clark...which is what he had been doing since he found him in the corn field.

Yes, exposing his identity would have been terrible. And yet he did after Pa Kent died. So much so that Lois Lane got straight to him because of his life-saving career.

Now as for the tornado thing, it would have been easier to simply NOT save anyone. Because Pa Kent died and we saw nothing about how Smallville reacted to that, just to see if it worked or not. Next time we saw someone from Smallville, Lois was interviewing her and the lady was still talking about Clark's "miracle." That is, a Kent's death didn't prevent Clark from keep saving lives nor it stopped people from Smallville from thinking there was something weird about Clark.

Also, I don't think Clark put Jon's words or actions aside. He just continued to do what he had always did, which was try to help without getting caught, even though doing so put him at great risk and prevented him from forming meaningful relationships. He still tried to help, but he also still respected and believed in his father's words, which is basically what he was telling Lois at the graveyard.

That's exactly it. Jonathan told him that Clark should probably stop saving people. I wish Jonathan had had some brains to think of a simple reasonable way for Clark to go unseen instead of this overblown idea of killing himself in order to make people believe he was not super powered, which didn't even work. But there was nothing about that. Somehow this man thought that super speed was not an option, only killing himself was the way to go.

But you can't go both ways and saying that Clark did respect his father's opinion and yet did the complete opposite thing that he told him, and that's perfectly coherent.

 

[Batmannerism]

Ok.

But you can't go both ways and saying that Clark did respect his father's opinion and yet did the complete opposite thing that he told him, and that's perfectly coherent.

Intense, don't want to butt in to such a heavy discussion, but just a couple of thoughts that have no doubt occurred to you guys as well.

1) Ultimately, Clark's decision to reveal himself was a result of being outed by Zod.

This kind of makes the question of whose advice he followed a bit moot, as Clark is mostly just reacting to the actions of Zod and company ( the attack on Martha, and the battle of Smallville are beyond his control, I mean, when the bad guys go after his mom and show up in his town, what's he going to do, run away ? No, he's got no choice but to turn up and fight it out).

If he had gone public, before the Zod squad had shown up, then that would have conclusively been his rejection of Jonathan's view, and acceptance of Jor -El's.


2) Jor El's last words to Clark/Kal, "You can save all of them" (and the Jesus pose) I think that at that moment Clark decides that he's going to follow Jor El's advice, and try to save mankind,

Up until he meets Jor El, he doesn't know who he is or where he's from. As such, he's only got Jonathan's guidance to follow, which is at odds with his natural urge to pitch in and help out. The one bit of advice of Jonathan's he does follow is to try and find out why he was sent to Earth in the first place.

Once he meets Jor El, he not only has a new sense of identity, but also
a new sense of purpose - why he's here.

So, in that moment, on Zod's ship, Clark learns that he was also sent to Earth to try and re-establish Krypton, he still decides to do what Jor El is urging him to do and be his own man, and try to save mankind.


I know it's been argued in other threads, to death and back to life and then to death again, but I don't see Clark as not concerned with the death toll or the carnage of his final battle with Zod. What he's concerned with is the big picture, that if Zod isn't stopped, the human race will be wiped out.

Sorry, that was a digression. Anyway, ultimately Clark rejects Jonathan's view and accepts Jor El's view that he needs to operate publicly, as Superman anyway (again, this possibly could have been handled better).

So, I agree that while he rejects the advice of one father, he does so in order to follow the advice of another father. Ultimately, its about his choice between the two viewpoints, Jonathan and Jor El

Well, that's my take on it anyway.


The Tornado scene worked for me, but I haven't given it anywhere near as much thought or analysis as you guys have. It probably could have been done a little better - I think what might have worked is if Jonathan made Clark choose between saving him, and saving someone else -which would have forced him to reveal his amazing powers. Still not sure about that, anyway, like I said, it worked for me, but I can also see how it might have pissed people off.

Just a thought.

Peace out super fans. Happy new year !

 

[charl_huntress]

If he valued life, and so you state, then it's not true that "the values you attribute to Superman did not exist in Clark at that time." He did value life before he became Superman, therefore the values I attributed to Superman did exist in Clark at that time.

He valued life, but he wasn't "Superman" meaning mentally he was not that hero yet. Of course, Superman would have rushed into the fray, but Clark Kent at that time was not Superman. He was a young man still trying to "do something with his life" as evidenced by the conversation he was having with Jonathon in the car. For me that means he wasn't even mentally ready to be Superman. I'm making a distinction because I think it needs to be made.

Now if Clark "also valued his father's advice," how come he ignored it after Pa Kent died and went on to save people's lives showing his face and all, which was exactly what Pa Kent told him NOT to do and, in fact, died for?

Because even then he could not stop his compulsion to help. He was doing the same thing before Jonathon died even when told by him not to do it. He just couldn't help himself. This I see is part of his journey to becoming Superman. He has this compulsion to help people when he can, which was even referenced by Lois at the graveyard when she said "I sense stopping is not an option for you".

Same for Clark believing the world was not ready for him. How come he went on saving people if he believed the world wasn't ready?

In the graveyard scene Lois references the fact up until that point no one had gotten a picture of Clark. So it's probable he saved people and then left so he was never identified. But again, he could not help himself when it came to helping. I think it was almost like a compulsion, but he wasn't doing this openly.

Another thing, let's say Clark wasn't "even emotionally ready for that sort of responsibility." Would that stop him from saving his very father's life? Would that stop you? 'I am too emotionally unprepared, so I'll let my father die'?

There was no telling how many people were under that overpass, but it wasn't just a few. If Clark would have saved Jonathon at that point then the cat would have been out of the bag for sure. This was also the reason I believe Jonathan prevented him from helping in the first place.

You ask why that would stop him, but Clark literally says why when he's talking to Lois in the next scene. He trusted Jonathon and believed he was right, so he resisted what you could call his natural impulse. It's a sacrifice that for me is hard to watch because you know Clark wants to and CAN save his father, but Jonathon is saying NO don't do it. Again, I harken back to Jonathon's words when he told Clark that his secret was bigger than just "their lives or the lives of those around us". Those are Jonathon's exact words. Revealing the secret had larger implications for the ENTIRE world...for humanity! It wasn't just about him.

Unfortunately the execution of this was off a bit, so the sacrifice didn't resonate as completely as it should. I understand why some have a problem with it.

It was obvious that Jonathan didn't prepare his death. It came to his mind when he saw the tornado (he couldn't have planned having a tornado). So it's hard to think - and the movie does nothing to support this - that Clark was so convinced of his father's idea that he "understood" what he was doing. Because, for one thing, nobody was paying attention as everyone was trying to save their life.

In the movie EVERYONE is paying attention to Jon trying to save that dog. All eyes are on him. Everyone was paying attention. If Clark would have revealed himself then lots and lots of people would have saw.

That said, okay let's agree that it's true that "the world wasn't ready." Sounds great and cool. How was the world not ready? Or, let me rephrase, when and how did the world get ready? Or Clark himself? What changed? The movie just shows that Clark got his suit. Other than that, nothing changed. He got his suit and suddenly he was ready and, somehow, the world was too.

The world got ready when aliens revealed themselves. Clark got ready when it was either not reveal himself and watch humanity suffer, or reveal himself and try to save the world. What changed was an alien invasion. At that point...lol...Clark knew it was time to come out of the closet.

I'm not really sure how much time passed after Clark and Lois met. It's really unclear. That is probably one of my biggest gripes with the film. Yet some time did pass because Clark got the suit from Jor and then went to Kansas, and Lois went back to Metropolis. So some time did pass. How much is really unclear.

Although I'd say that the world was as unprepared for him as it was before, but an alien invasion started and something had to be done (which is the exact same premise Clark had to save those kids when he was young, so - again - not much changed). It seems to me that the whole "the world is not ready" was more a bombastic sentence than something the movie actually developed. The world never got ready, they just had to accept Superman, as nothing could be done about it.

I think there's a fine argument to be made the world's still not ready for Superman even after he went to bat for them, but everyone had to "jimmy" up real quick once Zod arrived, including Clark/Superman. Also, I would add...there's a big difference between planetary annihilation and a crashed school bus. As Perry said "the entire world" was being threatened. If he didn't reveal himself then there were going to be consequences. There would have always been consequences to revealing himself, but the catch this time was if didn't reveal himself then there would Zod to pay...literally.

As I said, nothing about the world getting ready for Superman, nothing about how Pa Kent's death affected Clark and nothing as to how or why Clark started saving lives again when his father had died to stop him from doing exactly that.

I'm not really sure I understand what you are saying here, but I think I've probably addressed this above.

Yes, exposing his identity would have been terrible. And yet he did after Pa Kent died. So much so that Lois Lane got straight to him because of his life-saving career

He did not expose himself. She says up until then no one had gotten a picture of him. That scene also established that Clark was pretty good at disappearing when needed, so if people were looking then they didn't find him. Lois did and we are supposed to buy this because she's a Pulitzer winner. For my two cents, I wish the movie would have given us more than just snippets of her investigation because it does come off like she found him in a week; yet, I don't think it was as simple as that.

Now as for the tornado thing, it would have been easier to simply NOT save anyone. Because Pa Kent died and we saw nothing about how Smallville reacted to that, just to see if it worked or not. Next time we saw someone from Smallville, Lois was interviewing her and the lady was still talking about Clark's "miracle." That is, a Kent's death didn't prevent Clark from keep saving lives nor it stopped people from Smallville from thinking there was something weird about Clark.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. The woman Lois was interviewing was not in Smallville and I don't remember her saying anything about a miracle. That woman she was interviewing was somewhere in Nova Scotia. The only person Lois is shown talking to in Smallville are Pete Ross and Martha. That's it.

Again, I wish they would have showed more than just snippets, but you can kind of view the investigation as working backwards. It started in Nova Scotia where he first saved her and ended in SV when she found him.

Jonathan told him that Clark should probably stop saving people. I wish Jonathan had had some brains to think of a simple reasonable way for Clark to go unseen instead of this overblown idea of killing himself in order to make people believe he was not super powered, which didn't even work. But there was nothing about that. Somehow this man thought that super speed was not an option, only killing himself was the way to go.

I see you don't like the choice that was made and that probably rolls back to blaming Goyer and Snyder. Obviously this didn't work for you, but I like the theme of both of Clark's/Kal's father's sacrificing their lives to save him and/or protect him. I wish it would have been structured a bit differently, but I liked the theme. It resonated with me, but I had to mull it over for a bit, so I do understand it didn't work for everyone.

But you can't go both ways and saying that Clark did respect his father's opinion and yet did the complete opposite thing that he told him, and that's perfectly coherent.

Clark absolutely respected his fathers wishes at that time. He did not always follow his father's wishes, but at that particular time he did. He believed in what Jonathon was preaching, but it was hard for him to follow it at all times. It's just as simple as that and as inconsistent as that may seem it's not all that hard to buy.

PHEW!!! Now...let's promise each other we'll only have a couple of these long debates once or twice a week. You wear me out Senator Pleasury...and not in a good way!

 

[Lord]

There's no double-standard against Superman, Marvel characters like Iron Man and Wolverine have allways been shown to have a "kill without remorse!" ideal when needed, hell, wasn't Wolverine a mercenary for a while? Some writers even write him as a stabing junky. Captain America doesn't kill as much, but he still doesn't hold a "no kill rule", he fought during WWII so of course he is accostumed to killing.

Superman's no-kill rule is sacred, some forget but in the 90s when he killed Zod, there was a fan outcry, this rule for Superman is not different than Batman's, Supes killing naturally would be like Batman picking guns and killing criminals. That said, that event in the film didn't really bother me, problem is that Zack doesn't know how to handle these elements and they end up feeling like they're just for shock value.

 

[smallville fan]

I really don't know why some people tend to forget that Superman has killed Doomsday with intention:

 

[BH/HHH]

I really don't know why some people tend to forget that Superman has killed Doomsday with intention:

And the pocket dimension Kryptonian's

Spoiler

 

[InJustice]

Two things:

If he valued life, and so you state, then it's not true that "the values you attribute to Superman did not exist in Clark at that time." He did value life before he became Superman, therefore the values I attributed to Superman did exist in Clark at that time.

Except the point about valuing life requires him to use his powers in order to do so, which clashes with the other fundamental thought that he must remain secret in order to prevent being ostracized.

Now if Clark "also valued his father's advice," how come he ignored it after Pa Kent died and went on to save people's lives showing his face and all, which was exactly what Pa Kent told him NOT to do and, in fact, died for?

You do realize the film implies that Clark lied about his identity? There were a couple of instances where IIRC, he was called something like John or Bill. So in actuality, no one knows who he really is aside from his facial features. Therefore, the whole point of being shown his face is not a huge concern at all.

Same for Clark believing the world was not ready for him. How come he went on saving people if he believed the world wasn't ready?

It's symbolic of the clash between Jor-El and Pa Kent. Clark had this natural instinct to do good, while Pa Kent was the artificial suppressant for that natural instinct. His actions imply that he feels his purpose to be greater and yet he knows of the drama it will bring. Hence the nomadic lifestyle.

Another thing, let's say Clark wasn't "even emotionally ready for that sort of responsibility." Would that stop him from saving his very father's life? Would that stop you? 'I am too emotionally unprepared, so I'll let my father die'?

If you're being told continually that you have to keep yourself a secret for a number of years, and all of a sudden you were faced with such a decision, I'd imagine it wouldn't be easy. In fact, it's almost hegemonic.

It was obvious that Jonathan didn't prepare his death. It came to his mind when he saw the tornado (he couldn't have planned having a tornado). So it's hard to think - and the movie does nothing to support this - that Clark was so convinced of his father's idea that he "understood" what he was doing. Because, for one thing, nobody was paying attention as everyone was trying to save their life.

You do realize that Pa Kent's teachings regarding fear and being secretive stem as far back as Clark's adolescence? That's an ample amount of time between that and young adulthood to internalize your parents' teachings. The film, at the very least, implies that Clark began to accept his father's viewpoints after the bus miracle. As for no one was paying attention...

That said, okay let's agree that it's true that "the world wasn't ready." Sounds great and cool. How was the world not ready? Or, let me rephrase, when and how did the world get ready? Or Clark himself? What changed? The movie just shows that Clark got his suit. Other than that, nothing changed. He got his suit and suddenly he was ready and, somehow, the world was too.

The world was never ready, but before I continue, I'd like to preface with the following, we have to make two distinctions: the alien invasion was a game-changer in terms of forcing Clark's hand, and it was Zod who outed Clark rather than Clark outing himself. If Clark had revealed himself to world, then that would've made him appear as a hypocrite (and I mean in a large scale, not simply a small scale X amount of people knew who he was because of his odd jobs/Smallville debacle...the world would be extremely cynical and question the validity of their statements. Almost an urban legend so to speak).

I think the movie makes it quite clear that it's still not ready with the aftermath of Superman's arrival in public discourses, as well as Metropolis's and Smallville's battle. The problem here is trying to grasp for an absolute answer to the question when there isn't one. This isn't to say the movie fails because of that, but rather, it's a question that we'll continually revisit as the people of Earth witness the creation of the Justice League (or in simpler terms: the creation of the DC Universe).

Anyways, when we're deconstructing what it means to be ready, I'm not sure how you would interpret it, but I think it starts with acceptance and tolerance, how well can we accept someone who is essentially a god from another planet? I don't mean to be philosophical, but I think the natural reaction is to ostracize and be fearful of him. Thus, when you have events such as kids making rumours about Clark's quirks, and the military's quick reaction to bear arms at and arrest Clark, it's the classic fear of the unknown at work. And that works to show the way in which Earth may not come to accept him. However, the film also shows instances where people began to trust Clark after they witnessed what he was doing for them. It may not be absolute, but it echoes Jor-El's teachings in that Superman will help them. This is humanity going one small step at a time in preparation of being "ready."

By doing a future analysis, you also have to consider the context of world politics, what does it mean to have a superpowered being essentially working alone but for the interests of America and humanity in general? And knowing Snyder, that no doubt also echoes Dr. Manhattan's issues with being a quasi-political figure serving America's interests. So to expect an absolute answer to a question like "when did the world become ready" is too hasty right now.

Although I'd say that the world was as unprepared for him as it was before, but an alien invasion started and something had to be done (which is the exact same premise Clark had to save those kids when he was young, so - again - not much changed). It seems to me that the whole "the world is not ready" was more a bombastic sentence than something the movie actually developed. The world never got ready, they just had to accept Superman, as nothing could be done about it.

In this block of your argument, I'm mixed between agreeing and disagreeing. On one hand, the last block I wrote shows the ways in which the world wasn't ready, but it also showed that they were willing to trust him, which is a huge step forward. At the same time, I also disagree with the notions that 1) it wasn't developed and 2) People had to accept Superman. I disagree with it being well-developed because the film shows details that I think offers a perspective into answering that question, not absolutely, but the point is that it's slow-burning, because the question affects other significant variables as I pointed out. I also disagree with 2) although it sounds oxymoronic. What I mean is that yes, you have figures like Lois, and U.S. Army who had the build up their trust before complete accepting Clark. At the same time, you also have the citizens of Smallville and Metropolis to account for, who may condemn Superman for his actions in their cities. With that in mind, I wouldn't say it's bombastic, inasmuch as it is a question that will underpin the narrative framework for future sequels.

Not all.

As I said, nothing about the world getting ready for Superman, nothing about how Pa Kent's death affected Clark and nothing as to how or why Clark started saving lives again when his father had died to stop him from doing exactly that.

I think I went in depth with that, so I'll leave it to you to respond.

Yes, exposing his identity would have been terrible. And yet he did after Pa Kent died. So much so that Lois Lane got straight to him because of his life-saving career.

No, he doesn't just flat out expose his identity. The film implies he falsified it while he was a nomad working odd jobs.

Now as for the tornado thing, it would have been easier to simply NOT save anyone. Because Pa Kent died and we saw nothing about how Smallville reacted to that, just to see if it worked or not. Next time we saw someone from Smallville, Lois was interviewing her and the lady was still talking about Clark's "miracle." That is, a Kent's death didn't prevent Clark from keep saving lives nor it stopped people from Smallville from thinking there was something weird about Clark.

It could easily have been the case that there were more casualties and Pa Kent was just one of those unlucky ones that died (not to appear insensitive, but I mean those types of deaths where you hear about it in the news and newspapers and forget about it the next day). The fact that the mom could only talk about that miracle should be pretty damning that Clark didn't do anything after Pa Kent's death, at least in Smallville.

That's exactly it. Jonathan told him that Clark should probably stop saving people. I wish Jonathan had had some brains to think of a simple reasonable way for Clark to go unseen instead of this overblown idea of killing himself in order to make people believe he was not super powered, which didn't even work. But there was nothing about that. Somehow this man thought that super speed was not an option, only killing himself was the way to go.

But you can't go both ways and saying that Clark did respect his father's opinion and yet did the complete opposite thing that he told him, and that's perfectly coherent.

The problem I have with the narrative of your argument is that, it seems you want Clark to embody one absolute side of the debate between Jor-El and Pa Kent (that's essentially what this film is). That isn't the ideal way to deconstruct Clark's actions in Man of Steel. I mean, I've seen you only engage with Pa Kent, rather than Jor-El's side or even the conflict between Jor-El and Pa Kent's teachings. The film reconciles both sides of the equation by showing how Clark adapts to both of their teachings. Jor-El wants him to be a symbol of hope to humanity? Okay, we'll build Superman so that he becomes that ideal. Need to keep yourself a secret? People are afraid of what they don't understand? Fine, we'll create a false identity to protect ourselves from being ostracized. Clark's character is not simply an affinity for one side of the debate, but rather an assemblage of both fathers' expectations. It's Clark trying to find a balance between the two (albeit, they may clash).

There's no double-standard against Superman, Marvel characters like Iron Man and Wolverine have allways been shown to have a "kill without remorse!" ideal when needed, hell, wasn't Wolverine a mercenary for a while? Some writers even write him as a stabing junky. Captain America doesn't kill as much, but he still doesn't hold a "no kill rule", he fought during WWII so of course he is accostumed to killing.

Superman's no-kill rule is sacred, some forget but in the 90s when he killed Zod, there was a fan outcry, this rule for Superman is not different than Batman's, Supes killing naturally would be like Batman picking guns and killing criminals. That said, that event in the film didn't really bother me, problem is that Zack doesn't know how to handle these elements and they end up feeling like they're just for shock value.

No, Superman's no-kill isn't some traditional sacred ground that can never be touched. For anyone to say that shows that they do not have any understanding of Superman's rich comic history. I'm not trying to come off as a holier than thou comic fanatic, but Superman's comic history shows instances where he either killed a villain, or accepted murder as a possible option for stopping a villain. Fan outcry doesn't negate the need to kill when the situation calls for it.

Spoiler

There's nothing more infuriating than fans who misplace their ideal Superman for the character's actual trait. What this shows is how completely arbitrary the majority of fans's perception of Superman killing really is, because if they believe Superman shouldn't kill, then why wasn't there a massive outcry when he killed Doomsday?

 

[Lord]

There are also various instances where Batman kills, you even put an instance from the Golden age, where Batman used guns too, now the character not using them is part of his mythos due to it being what killed him parents. There wasn't any outcry for Superman killing Doomsday because it was a soulless space monster whose only purpose was to destroy things, Superman will have to kill things like that if needed, a sentient being is a completelly different story, and as i said that scene in the film didn't mind me so much, so there's no need starting to generalise and insult fans with oposing views to your oun.

And the pocket dimension Kryptonian's

Spoiler

I'm glad to see that you didn't even read my post where it said that a lot of fans had an outcry due to Superman killing in that story. And it was a major outcry, if i remember correctly Superman even left the planet for a while after that story.

 

[BH/HHH]

There are also various instances where Batman kills, you even put an instance from the Golden age, where Batman used guns too, now the character not using them is part of his mythos due to it being what killed him parents. There wasn't any outcry for Superman killing Doomsday because it was a soulless space monster whose only purpose was to destroy things, Superman will have to kill things like that if needed, a sentient being is a completelly different story, and as i said that scene in the film didn't mind me so much, so there's no need starting to generalise and insult fans with oposing views to your oun.


I'm glad to see that you didn't even read my post where it said that a lot of fans had an outcry due to Superman killing in that story. And it was a major outcry, if i remember correctly Superman even left the planet for a while after that story.

Admittedly I didn't read your post, I was responding to the other poster thats all.

 

[InJustice]

There are also various instances where Batman kills, you even put an instance from the Golden age, where Batman used guns too, now the character not using them is part of his mythos due to it being what killed him parents. There wasn't any outcry for Superman killing Doomsday because it was a soulless space monster whose only purpose was to destroy things, Superman will have to kill things like that if needed, a sentient being is a completelly different story, and as i said that scene in the film didn't mind me so much, so there's no need starting to generalise and insult fans with oposing views to your own.

I'm not insulting the fanbase, that's actually they're doing. They're misplacing what they find ideal in a Superman, and treating it as if it's the only sacred trait that cannot be undermined. It's one thing to have your Superman, fair enough, but it's another thing entirely to treat it as if it's infallible. The problem is that Superman's killing is also a part of the mythos, whether someone wants to admit that or not. In fact, if I recall correctly, the whole reason for Superman being the boy scout is because of the Golden Age's concept of the character, prior to CCA's intervention (IIRC, they didn't even enforce censorship). There's even logic (eerily similar to Golden Age>Silver Age transition) behind what Snyder's doing, that I think many forget:

"In the original version of the script, Zod just got zapped into the Phantom Zone. But David, Chris and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him. The 'Why?' of it for me was that if was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained… I wanted to create a scenario where Superman, either he's going to see [Metropolis' citizens] chopped in half, or he's gotta do what he's gotta do."

As for the sentient argument, it falls apart when you realize the kinds of crimes that Zod and co, and Mxyzptlk committed that got them killed by Superman. Zod and co literally committed genocide, would that not warrant a death sentence? The fact that Mxyzptlk was going to literally screw up the space-time continuum and get people killed, does that not warrant a death sentence? Instead of being outraged by the killing, people need to see the context of these issues. If you can justify Doomsday's killing, then you can justify other villains' death sentences.

 

[Lord]

I gotta ask though, what's up with this sudden urge to have Superman as a killer? Is it influence of The Man of Steel?

 

[charl_huntress]

I don't think this is a sudden urge. Writers have been challenging this premise for a while. I also count SA Superman as a killer because he killed many a robot/alien and what not, and they did all this to circumvent the no-kill rule. So again, I don't think it's a sudden urge just because of MOS.

 

[Lord]

Yes, but before his no-kill rule was generally accepted, that he would not kill a human being (or aliens who look like human beings), after The Man of Steel we now have entire threads dedicating to disregarding that rule, hell, Wonder Woman also used to be about peace, love and redeeming criminals, now when somebody mention her they talk about her asskicking and killing things with her sword.

Suddenly Batman is the reasonable one who also doesn't kill, it's just getting weird.

 

[charl_huntress]

Yes, but before his no-kill rule was generally accepted, that he would not kill a human being (or aliens who look like human beings), after The Man of Steel we now have entire threads dedicating to disregarding that rule, hell, Wonder Woman also used to be about peace, love and redeeming criminals, now when somebody mention her they talk about her asskicking and killing things with her sword.

Suddenly Batman is the reasonable one who also doesn't kill, it's just getting weird.

I'm not sure I really understand what you're talking about. It sounds as though you are questioning why people are having these conversations, but these conversations are not really new for Superman. I'm not sure about Diana/Wonder Woman, but what I think you're sensing for Superman is a bit more intensity because the killing was "brutal". He snapped Zod's neck. There was no allusion to death like in SII.

Also, there is plenty of talk about Batman killing people. There are entire discussion threads about Nolan's Batman disregarding that rule, though he didn't actually kill anyone. He just didn't save them. So again...I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.

 

[Lord]

I am not finding any intensity because Superman breaking Zod's neck didn't bother me, i'm sensing intensity because people are talking about Superman's no-kill rule as if it wasn't needed at all.

Batman did kill some people in Nolan's Batman, even if by accident due to his actions with the batmobille and other things he did, though i don't remember concret examples i remember seeing some talking about it.

About Wonder Woman, the character was created as wanting peace and even creating places for criminals to be redeemed, However now her writting varies from person to person and it seems like an "angry Amazon" is the favorite type of character writers write her as, even the latest fan-films portrayed her as violent, though it's probably because most only know her as an icon, and the interpretation of his personality varies from person to person.

 

[charl_huntress]

I am not finding any intensity because Superman breaking Zod's neck didn't bother me, i'm sensing intensity because people are talking about Superman's no-kill rule as if it wasn't needed at all.

I think people are talking about the no-kill rule because there's question if there really is a "no-kill" rule since Superman has killed more than a few times. lol...It's almost like an internal debate amongst fans. People prefer Superman have the "no-kill" rule, but often overlook when he has killed. Other fans point this out...and the debate keeps rolling. This is a fandom that likes to argue, so we find **** to argue it about. Again, there is nothing new about this debate. It's been raging for a while.

Batman did kill some people in Nolan's Batman, even if by accident due to his actions with the batmobille and other things he did, though i don't remember concret examples i remember seeing some talking about it.

I would suggest venturing into the Bat boards if you dare because it's there. There's been quite a lot of talk about it.

About Wonder Woman, the character was created as wanting peace and even creating places for criminals to be redeemed, However now her writting varies from person to person and it seems like an "angry Amazon" is the favorite type of character writers write her as, even the latest fan-films portrayed her as violent, though it's probably because most only know her as an icon, and the interpretation of his personality varies from person to person.

I can't really speak on Wonder Woman. I've never followed much of her comics, though I have read some here and there. I researched her for a paper in college once, and I watched her in cartoons. That's about it. I will say she has never seemed more violent than any other character.

 

[InJustice]

I think people are talking about the no-kill rule because there's question if there really is a "no-kill" rule since Superman has killed more than a few times. lol...It's almost like an internal debate amongst fans. People prefer Superman have the "no-kill" rule, but often overlook when he has killed. Other fans point this out...and the debate keeps rolling. This is a fandom that likes to argue, so we find **** to argue it about. Again, there is nothing new about this debate. It's been raging for a while.

This.

Prior to Man of Steel, Superman has been written in situations where killing is the only way to achieve any form of "victory" over evil (in quotations because it's also not a victory in that he had to contradict his fundamental ideology in order to protect people). I can't fault the writers for doing that because it really is interesting to write a superhuman into a scenario where he has to kill to achieve his goals, and the result can be amazing to witness. For instance:

JLU: Superman kills Luthor as part of a time travel story. In this canon, we see that because Superman has killed, he has adopted a harsher ideology of justice. Hence, the creation of the Justice Lords.
WHTTMoT: Superman kills Mxyzpltk and realizes that he can no longer live on as Superman.
John Byrne's comic: Superman kills Zod, Ursa and Non for their actions, in which they literally commit genocide against the human race.
Final Crisis: Darkseid literally ceases to exist after Superman sings a high note.

However, I think part of that whole debate amongst the fans is that most fail to really contextualize the situation that Superman is in. For instance, one can accept that Doomsday had to die because he was causing death and destruction, whereas it's suddenly not ok for Superman to kill Zod and co, who destroyed the human race. From a moral standpoint, their crimes aren't all that different, yet the punishment has to be different? It's very arbitrary and simply doesn't add up.

At least, it's not as bad as Batman, where Nolan accepts the no-kill rule and yet keeps contradicting it throughout his trilogy.

 

[Lord]

Since when Superman broke Zod's neck he pushed his head even more into the direction of the family, shouldn't they have been killed right before Zod was? Why did he stop using his ray powers when Kal-El moved his head?

 

[Dr.]

The world was never ready, but... we have to make two distinctions: the alien invasion was a game-changer in terms of forcing Clark's hand, and it was Zod who outed Clark rather than Clark outing himself.

As a narrative device, the Zod invasion had a functionally useful influence on Clark’s destiny. (Under the Joseph Cambell/“hero’s journey” paradigm, the protagonist (in his early years) is typically ready but reluctant - and it takes some external factor to propel his story forward.) But I think we can also ascribe significance to Clark’s discovery of the “FOS.” Prior to this - and even as a young adult performing clandestine super rescues - nothing much had changed for Clark; he still didn’t know his true purpose. Holo-Jor-El and the revelation of Kal’s true heritage supplied the requisite epiphany.

Also: I think some folks might be projecting their knowledge of how the mythology eventually turns out into the origin context. With that subconscious bias, it almost seems as if Jonathan and Clark should be able to anticipate the costume, the secret identity and how the public will embrace the iconic figure of “Superman.” Thus, it’s frustrating that they would reject the “obvious,” clearly defined path. Of course, in terms of narrative chronology, none of that exists yet; there’s no prior “superhero template” that anyone would be aware of or might follow. So neither Jonathan nor Clark is rejecting anything obvious.

 

[charl_huntress]

Since when Superman broke Zod's neck he pushed his head even more into the direction of the family, shouldn't they have been killed right before Zod was? Why did he stop using his ray powers when Kal-El moved his head?

He snapped his neck in the other direction. He didn't turn it toward the family.

 

[InJustice]

Since when Superman broke Zod's neck he pushed his head even more into the direction of the family, shouldn't they have been killed right before Zod was? Why did he stop using his ray powers when Kal-El moved his head?

Actually, Zod's head turned the opposite direction. The difference is that Zod's beams disintegrated before he was killed, which gives the impression that he valued his own death over the death of Superman's fellow humans. If you think about it, it falls in line with the internal logic of the film: Krypton's Council denied him a warrior's greatest honor, death, to the point where he witnessed the death of his planet. As a result, he has no purpose as Krypton has died (until he plans to terraform). On Earth, Superman denied Zod the wish for Krypton to be reborn. Even worse, his fellow mates have died or been sent back to the Phantom Zone while Zod remains alive and purposeless.

 

[doobie]

That is how it is with all long running characters, be it Holmes, Bond, Tarzan whatever. There are people who want it to stay classic and people who love the books but want something modern and fresh. Usually the books are more violent and dark than the most loved films anyway (in all those characters including Superman) so going back to the roots makes it more modern. Like Miller in DKR, he went back to the 30s and was hailed for being modern and gritty.

 

[Lord]

[YT]l4u-HLm8maE[/YT]

 

[Batmannerism]

Actually, Zod's head turned the opposite direction. The difference is that Zod's beams disintegrated before he was killed, which gives the impression that he valued his own death over the death of Superman's fellow humans. If you think about it, it falls in line with the internal logic of the film: Krypton's Council denied him a warrior's greatest honor, death, to the point where he witnessed the death of his planet. As a result, he has no purpose as Krypton has died (until he plans to terraform). On Earth, Superman denied Zod the wish for Krypton to be reborn. Even worse, his fellow mates have died or been sent back to the Phantom Zone while Zod remains alive and purposeless.

Totally with you on that one. That whole "Either you die, or I do" was
Zod asking Superman to kill him, clearly he had a death wish.
He'd come to the inescapable conclusion ( due to his genetic programming and Kryptonian social engineering) that he could not live without his purpose - the only thing that had sustained him for 3 decades after Krypton's destruction, was the hope of finding the codex and re-starting
Kryptonian civilization.

I think your comment is supported by Faora's reaction when she sees Krypton's ruins. This is Faora who has no qualms about slaughtering humans, she's a merciless killer.....who cries, when she sees her home has been destroyed.

What happens next, Zod puts a reassuring hand on her shoulder, and they go on, looking for the colonies, fuelled by the hope that they can resurrect Krypton, somehow.

When that hope was crushed, he couldn't face life.

I think this obsession of Zod's made him a much scarier and more understandable character than Zod in Superman II. Terence Stamp did a wonderful job in that role, which was quite camp, but Shannon's Zod is a much more frightening concept - a fanatic who thinks nothing of genocide to accomplish his aims, he doesn't even get emotional about it, it's just part of the plan.
On that note, I think Stamp would have been pretty damn scary if he'd played Zod in MOS. Shannon was good, but Stamp's such a class act.

Think I'll go start a general Zod thread !

Anyway, great comment, kudos to you. Cheers : super: