The Double Standards Against Superman

[blumatic]

Dude, I'm sorry, but your argument took a tumble once you said Bruce pushed Harvey to his death. Frankly, the issue with MoS comes down to the film itself not being very good. If there's a perceived double standard it's because the execution of the character was off.

The issue of whether the film was good is not necessarily the issue. Some people don't think Thor 2 was a good movie but no one questions Thor himself.

The problem most people have with the film is the decision Superman makes. Had it been not Superman but instead Rambo, I don't think we would question his decisions as harshly.

Superman has had an identity crisis for couple of decades. This thread addresses who Superman is. Not necessarily how bad or good the film was. There's a relation but not the source of the topic.

 

[elgaz]

Dude, I'm sorry, but your argument took a tumble once you said Bruce pushed Harvey to his death. Frankly, the issue with MoS comes down to the film itself not being very good. If there's a perceived double standard it's because the execution of the character was off.

In fairness, Batman did charge Harvey and take him over the edge.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

The problem most people have with the film is the decision Superman makes. Had it been not Superman but instead Rambo, I don't think we would question his decisions as harshly.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with Superman making that decision.

I just have a problem with how it was presented within the context of the movie, and on a personal level, that they decided to write it that he had to make that decision at all.

And that is all nothing to do with holding Superman himself to a double standard.

It's just expecting a higher quality of storytelling, especially when dealing with something I consider such a huge deal.

 

[jmc]

In fairness, Batman did charge Harvey and take him over the edge.

No, that's not fair. People seem to conveniently forget that there was a 10 year old child involved and that if Batman did intend to 'kill' Dent like so many believe he was doing so at the risk of that young boys life - which is exact opposite of what happened. Dent death was collateral, Bruce's intention was to save the kid not worry about whether Dent would fall or not. Frankly how people can interpret it any other way, even after 5 years astounds me.

 

[jmc]

The issue of whether the film was good is not necessarily the issue. Some people don't think Thor 2 was a good movie but no one questions Thor himself.

The problem most people have with the film is the decision Superman makes. Had it been not Superman but instead Rambo, I don't think we would question his decisions as harshly.

Superman has had an identity crisis for couple of decades. This thread addresses who Superman is. Not necessarily how bad or good the film was. There's a relation but not the source of the topic.

Well it is about whether the film is good or not, it comes back to poor execution on Snyder's part, focusing too much on the wrong areas which is probably the best way to describe the film in general. The character journey is all over the place which doesn't help. The thing if the story and film in general was overall better then I'd argue there wouldn't have been the outcry that there has been.

 

[elgaz]

No, that's not fair. People seem to conveniently forget that there was a 10 year old child involved and that if Batman did intend to 'kill' Dent like so many believe he was doing so at the risk of that young boys life - which is exact opposite of what happened. Dent death was collateral, Bruce's intention was to save the kid not worry about whether Dent would fall or not. Frankly how people can interpret it any other way, even after 5 years astounds me.

Whoa, calm your horses. I never said anything about Batman's 'intention'.

I merely stated that he did indeed tackle Harvey, which caused Harvey to go over the edge, and which ultimately led to his death. That's a fact, it's what happened.

His reasoning for doing so in another argument entirely. It was totally justified IMO, but it doesn't change the fact that Batman did do it.

 

[Krumm]

Just to be clear, I have no problem with Superman making that decision.

I just have a problem with how it was presented within the context of the movie, and on a personal level, that they decided to write it that he had to make that decision at all.

And that is all nothing to do with holding Superman himself to a double standard.

It's just expecting a higher quality of storytelling, especially when dealing with something I consider such a huge deal.

I find this a little confusing. Are you saying that you would've been okay if Superman had choices and still killed Zod (if that's what we're talking about)?

For me, it was the fact he didn't have a choice that made it okay.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I find this a little confusing. Are you saying that you would've been okay if Superman had choices and still killed Zod (if that's what we're talking about)?

For me, it was the fact he didn't have a choice that made it okay.

No i'm saying I would have preferred it if the creative team had not DECIDED to go with a plot that ended with Superman having to make that decision.

But I would have been 'okay' with Goyer/Snyders CHOICE to have Superman kill, if the final product had been quality, and the matter handled respectfully instead of dismissively and unneccesarily brutal.

I don't understand why people keep argueing the 'he didn't have a choice' arguement at all.

As though people think it's Superman himselfs fault for what happened at the end of the movie.

It's obviously not his fault It's Goyer/Snyder's fault. They made the decision.

What Superman did as a result of their choice is something that cannot be changed.

 

[The Batman]

In TDK Batman didnt win. His goal throughout the film was to support, protect, and help Harvey replace himself as the person to save Gotham. And the Joker destroyed that. He corrupted the white knight. Batman kept the Joker alive but in never wanting to end his life (he had his chance to run the Joker over with the bat pod) it resulted in the destruction of Harvey Dent.

Batman did win in TDK.

His goal throughout the film was to support, protect, and help Gotham City. Supporting Harvey was a means to that end. Joker corrupting Harvey was not about turning Harvey, but about breaking Gotham's spirit. As Batman prevented that by taking blame for Harvey's crimes, He saves Gotham's soul and therefore did not lose in TDK. At worst, Batman suffered a pyrrhic victory.

No, that's not fair. People seem to conveniently forget that there was a 10 year old child involved and that if Batman did intend to 'kill' Dent like so many believe he was doing so at the risk of that young boys life - which is exact opposite of what happened. Dent death was collateral, Bruce's intention was to save the kid not worry about whether Dent would fall or not. Frankly how people can interpret it any other way, even after 5 years astounds me.

Not only that, but in TDKR Gordon plainly states in his letter "Batman did'nt murder Harvey Dent, he saved my boy."

 

[Krumm]

No i'm saying I would have preferred it if the creative team had not DECIDED to go with a plot that ended with Superman having to make that decision.

But I would have been 'okay' with Goyer/Snyders CHOICE to have Superman kill, if the final product had been quality, and the matter handled respectfully instead of dismissively and unneccesarily brutal.

I don't understand why people keep argueing the 'he didn't have a choice' arguement at all.

As though people think it's Superman himselfs fault for what happened at the end of the movie.

It's obviously not his fault It's Goyer/Snyder's fault. They made the decision.

What Superman did as a result of their choice is something that cannot be changed.

Gotcha.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Man, if I ever meet Snyder, I am going to yell that in his face

 

[blumatic]

Just to be clear, I have no problem with Superman making that decision.

I just have a problem with how it was presented within the context of the movie, and on a personal level, that they decided to write it that he had to make that decision at all.

And that is all nothing to do with holding Superman himself to a double standard.

It's just expecting a higher quality of storytelling, especially when dealing with something I consider such a huge deal.

I'm not just talking about the killing. I'm talking the destruction he caused in Smallville and Metropolis.

I find it nearly impossible to was any kind of Superman motion picture without any preconceived notions.

We don't go into a CBM film saying "This looks interesting let's take a look". It's more "I can't wait to see what I know of the character on screen".

And I understand if people may not like the film because of taste. I just don't like it when people say "That's not Superman"

Why can't Superman go through what that character went through in MOS.

I'm not calling MOS a perfect film. I have a big problem on how they killed off Jonathan Kent. Because in any movie and any situation a person with the ability to save his father would do it. Other than that anything else that Kal did, you can see anyone else doing.

The most thing you can ask for a character is that their heart is in the right place.

For me personally, I don't expect much from origins. I look for them to find their calling and move on from their. It's th the second film where my expectations heighten because I expect growth of the character.

But that may not matter with WB forcing this quasi justice League film and leaving the growth of Kal stunted.

 

[blumatic]

Batman did win in TDK.

His goal throughout the film was to support, protect, and help Gotham City. Supporting Harvey was a means to that end. Joker corrupting Harvey was not about turning Harvey, but about breaking Gotham's spirit. As Batman prevented that by taking blame for Harvey's crimes, He saves Gotham's soul and therefore did not lose in TDK. At worst, Batman suffered a pyrrhic victory.




Not only that, but in TDKR Gordon plainly states in his letter "Batman did'nt murder Harvey Dent, he saved my boy."

That's true I misspoke. He won. But it cost himself a chance to free himself. The Joker at the end took a victory. Batman suffered a loss of sort. Batman won by dragging a boulder chained to his back. But TDk did a better (especially with it being a sequel) allowing Bats to go out with honor.

In MOS he won but it was not a clean fashion. I see it to be a pyrrhic victory as well. It cost him to win. It agony to win like that. And he did not fly off to victory.

 

[elgaz]

I can understand why a lot of Superman purists wanted to see the writers craft a different storyline where he didn't have to kill Zod.

But why? Why take the easy route? I know Superman has killed before, but the vast majority of writers over the years always put him in a situation where he finds some way to outwit the enemy without resorting to killing them.

I thought it was actually a bit of a ballsy move by Snyder to have Superman being forced into an no-win situation where ultimately, someone was going to die. And he had to make the difficult choice of whether that was going to be an innocent human(s), or Zod.

Is it against his moral code? Yes - you can see how he struggled with it.
Is it against our almost messianic image of Superman? Yes, to a certain extent.

But that messianic image has only been formed because decades of writers decided that when push came to shove, it was much easier to have Zod suddenly be dispatched to the phantom zone, or have Superman come up with a Plan B at the end, or for a third party to intervene so that he would never have to kill whoever he was fighting.

In this situation in MOS, there was no other way out, no other options, and no Plan B for Superman. A film isn't like the comics, where characters appear, disappear, die and come back to life many times over in the course of 5, 10 , 20 years. A film has to have a certain finality. He had to make a horrible decision, and I applaud the writers for actually going through with it for once.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I appreciate the the provocation of a dialogue on the morality on such an action. And, it's not like he did it the way Batman had in B89 or Batman Returns, where he was a cold dude who just dropped on bomb in the middle of a chemical plant. There was a real weight to his decision, there. It felt right to the character, that if needed to...that's how he would react to doing it.

I've never quite understood the complaints about all the destruction. Superman not reflecting on it all, yeah I understand that. But, all the complaints I've read about all the death and destruction as if it were Superman's fault. It's an alien invasion. There's always alot of death and destruction during those. Why would this universe get to have a "clean and death free" alien invasion? What kind of alien invasion would that even be?

 

[blumatic]

No i'm saying I would have preferred it if the creative team had not DECIDED to go with a plot that ended with Superman having to make that decision.

But I would have been 'okay' with Goyer/Snyders CHOICE to have Superman kill, if the final product had been quality, and the matter handled respectfully instead of dismissively and unneccesarily brutal.

I don't understand why people keep argueing the 'he didn't have a choice' arguement at all.

As though people think it's Superman himselfs fault for what happened at the end of the movie.

It's obviously not his fault It's Goyer/Snyder's fault. They made the decision.

What Superman did as a result of their choice is something that cannot be changed.

Im not sure is this post is serious. This is not disrespect to you, cause I think you're sincere.

But this post......

Isnt always the writers choice as to what happens to character.

MOS is a superhero film. Not a biopic.

Too handle the killing of Zod would need to be in another film. If Kal were to even start addressing the killing of Zod in MOS the film would need another hour for it to be addressed properly.

The Zod killing, the conversation with Swannick, and the Daily Planet scene was all done for a sequel. The topics brought up in those three things would take on another 2 hours.

 

[The Batman]

I think Superman breaking Zod's neck would've been even more powerful if the Superman we got in this film were the George Reeves/Christopher Reeve/Fleischer esque Superman.

 

[blumatic]

I think Superman breaking Zod's neck would've been even more powerful if the Superman we got in this film were the George Reeves/Christopher Reeve/Fleischer esque Superman.

Hmmmm interesting. I think that would have broken more hearts.

I would love it if you would expound on this view.

 

[The Batman]

Hmmmm interesting. I think that would have broken more hearts.

I would love it if you would expound on this view.

Will do. Its not necessarily that I wanted classic Supes, but I think that Supes breaking Zod's neck would've been more tragic and interesting had the Superman in this film been the "Classic" version instead of an untested, 21st century version.

Like when Superman killed Mxy in "Whatever Happened to The Man of Tommorow?"

As you said, it would've broken more hearts. We know "Classic" Supes wouldn't try to cross that line. But, what if he were forced to? With MOS Supes, he learned his boundaries by killing Zod. For "Classic" Supes, directly killing someone could open a can of worms, IMO.

 

[Skrilla31]

I can understand why a lot of Superman purists wanted to see the writers craft a different storyline where he didn't have to kill Zod.

But why? Why take the easy route? I know Superman has killed before, but the vast majority of writers over the years always put him in a situation where he finds some way to outwit the enemy without resorting to killing them.

I thought it was actually a bit of a ballsy move by Snyder to have Superman being forced into an no-win situation where ultimately, someone was going to die. And he had to make the difficult choice of whether that was going to be an innocent human(s), or Zod.

Is it against his moral code? Yes - you can see how he struggled with it.
Is it against our almost messianic image of Superman? Yes, to a certain extent.

But that messianic image has only been formed because decades of writers decided that when push came to shove, it was much easier to have Zod suddenly be dispatched to the phantom zone, or have Superman come up with a Plan B at the end, or for a third party to intervene so that he would never have to kill whoever he was fighting.

In this situation in MOS, there was no other way out, no other options, and no Plan B for Superman. A film isn't like the comics, where characters appear, disappear, die and come back to life many times over in the course of 5, 10 , 20 years. A film has to have a certain finality. He had to make a horrible decision, and I applaud the writers for actually going through with it for once.

The problem is that it came out of left field. We know that Kal El was a genuinely good person who wanted to help but the movie never went out of it's way to show how much he valued human life.

And come on I hate to beat a dead horse but look at how many lives were lost during his fight with Zod. Measures could have been taken to save more lives but for whatever reason they weren't. Poor writing, poor characterization, poor whatever... the fact is the movie never hammered home the message that Kal El was more interested in saving lives than he was with engaging Zod. If anything he showed more remorse over Zod's death than he did any of the hundreds of thousands of people in Metropolis who had died over the course of the movie.

And not to mention, he didn't really even have to kill Zod right then and there. He had him in a headlock. He could have flown the both of them away for the time being. So it's not like Superman was backed into a corner. He broke Zod's neck because the filmmakers wanted to force a discussion topic, that's pretty much it. It didn't really arise organically from story or character.

I think Superman breaking Zod's neck would've been even more powerful if the Superman we got in this film were the George Reeves/Christopher Reeve/Fleischer esque Superman.

Exactly.

 

[blumatic]

Will do. Its not necessarily that I wanted classic Supes, but I think that Supes breaking Zod's neck would've been more tragic and interesting had the Superman in this film been the "Classic" version instead of an untested, 21st century version.

Like when Superman killed Mxy in "Whatever Happened to The Man of Tommorow?"

As you said, it would've broken more hearts. We know "Classic" Supes wouldn't try to cross that line. But, what if he were forced to? With MOS Supes, he learned his boundaries by killing Zod. For "Classic" Supes, directly killing someone could open a can of worms, IMO.

I totally agree. Its already crazy here. Can you imagine the outrage if Donner Superman killed today?

 

[Dr.]

And not to mention, he didn't really even have to kill Zod right then and there. He had him in a headlock. He could have flown the both of them away for the time being. So it's not like Superman was backed into a corner.

You can argue that Superman isn’t the sort of character that you write no-win-scenarios for. So - bad Snyder for not understanding this. But as structured, the scene is fairly airtight; as structured, Supes took the morally correct action.

 

[blumatic]

The problem is that it came out of left field. We know that Kal El was a genuinely good person who wanted to help but the movie never went out of it's way to show how much he valued human life.

And come on I hate to beat a dead horse but look at how many lives were lost during his fight with Zod. Measures could have been taken to save more lives but for whatever reason they weren't. Poor writing, poor characterization, poor whatever... the fact is the movie never hammered home the message that Kal El was more interested in saving lives than he was with engaging Zod. If anything he showed more remorse over Zod's death than he did any of the hundreds of thousands of people in Metropolis who had died over the course of the movie.

And not to mention, he didn't really even have to kill Zod right then and there. He had him in a headlock. He could have flown the both of them away for the time being. So it's not like Superman was backed into a corner. He broke Zod's neck because the filmmakers wanted to force a discussion topic, that's pretty much it. It didn't really arise organically from story or character.



Exactly.

But when will it end. They made Zod hellbent. He either would have dies there or died later. Kal pleaded with Zod. He pleaded. He said stop. He said dont do it. Kal did not come up behind Zod and Steven Segal his arse.

Kal begged, pleaded, "DONT DO IT" What did Zod say? "NEVER"

I dont think its ever organic for a good guy superhero to kill someone. Whether you build up to it or not. Its shocking.

In a way there was building. Zod spoke clearly saying the he will kill everyone, and that one of us will die.

There was a plan. Kal was working with the military. To send the kryptonians back in the Phanton Zone. It worked but Zod was no where near the zone to be sucked in. Kal almost got sucked in but he had to fly hard with Lois in his arms to get out of there. Measure were taken but acting quickly was imperative. People died in the Avengers but not one Avengers felt bad about. They just did a collage.

He values human life. He was doing that the whole movie. In Smallville he saved the soldiers in danger. He was in India to destroy the world engine to save lives. He saved Lois. LOL.

But when Superman is being attacked, people just need to get out the way save themselves.

 

[blumatic]

You can argue that Superman isn’t the sort of character that you write no-win-scenarios for. So - bad Snyder for not understanding this. But as structured, the scene is fairly airtight; as structured, Supes took the morally correct action.

The most reasonable post ever.

 

[J.Howlett]

The problem is that it came out of left field. We know that Kal El was a genuinely good person who wanted to help but the movie never went out of it's way to show how much he valued human life

So saving people from impossible situations since you were 13 years old doesn't show how he values human life?

What?

Being relentlessly attacked by Kryptionians but taking a moment to save a helpless solider who falls out of a helicopter doesn't show how he values human life?

Did we watch the same film?