Ah, so it was only revealed later that he said goodbye? Thats funny because in Exile Ma and Pa act like he left without telling them.
Haven't read it since it's first run, have to go back, back, back....
Also a few times in Exile he mentions regretting not saying bye to Lois.
Regret? I can see that. But since there was no relationship, there was no moral obligation.
I know he broke his code, but he killed those evil people to protect innocent people, i dont see how that makes him a danger personally. He knew what he was wrong, and it was very unlikely he would do the same again.
Killing for Superman was always a no no until this story. CHeck out what happens in the end of Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?
The point is that Superman's code is based on his morals and values and belief in the sanctity of life and that it is wrong to kill. Period. In the Phantom Zone Villain story he is pushed to a point where it is the ONLY choice as he sees it to stop them. Just b/c he does it knowing he's saving countless live doesn't mean it isn't a big shock to his system. He's always believed he would never kill and suddenly he found a reason to do it. It's a life changing moment. It seems understandable that he would be concerned that he might do it again or that it might be easier to do it again since he's already done it once.
Think about Superman's reaction to Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord in Sacrifice, or what happens when he doesn't kill Khyber in the future shown in "Camelot Falls."
But Superman had no proof that he was right, and he still endangered the planet, this fact remains. The Whole Justice League dissagreed with him.
Superman had no proof. But it turned out he was right. It turned out that he was right b/c he was relentless and determined to the point that no matter what it cost him, he was going to make it right for everyone that was harmed by his experiment. That's Superman. He had faith in his ability to rectify the situation despite what everyone else said. That is what Superman is all about.
I'm surprised you havent already, it comes just after sacrifice and ties into the OMAC storyline, which i still havent read the conclusion of.
Yeah, I got off Superman for a while and just haven't gone back and gotten all the trades leading up to Infinite Crisis.
Sorry i disagree, Superman would never abandon humanity like that for what is, at best, a flimsy reason. If anything it would make Superman more determined to "show the way" for humanity. I love KC, but i dont him abandoning humanity at ALL. He lost a lot in SR as well until the end of the movie, but did you see him abandoning his responsiblities towards mankind? no he embraced them.
And after losing EVERYTHING in KC- he came back with a renewed vigor. He abandonned his responsibilities in SR before the movie began in order to check on Krypton- a worthy mission, but he abandonned the woman he loved and his responsibilities to her instead.
Actually, the point of SR is that Superman needed was a connection to Earth/ humanity- and Singer provided that in his son. Ma, Lois aren't enough. IMO, that characterization is wrong. Superman doesn't need his own flesh and blood to feel connected to humanity- he needs to feel human. That has always been depicted in his love for the Kents and the values they instilled in him and his love for Lois, his anchor.
In KC, Superman has already lost his connection to humanity- Ma, Pa, Lois, friends etc.... It takes Superman being able to reconnect in a new way to bring him back. As is shown in KC, his old methods aren't working and he admitadely is out of touch- hence he lets Billy make the decision b/c he feels he can't. It isn't until he sees a 'mortal' make the decision that he is able to see that a new partnership must be formed for the future of mankind between the superhumans and the humans.
So putting the ones you love first is acceptable? Did you find it acceptable in Batman Begins when Batman endangered countless police officers to save Rachel?
Sometimes you have to save the ones you love first. It's part of being human. Alfred chastised him for being reckless, and I think he saw it, but I think it is understandable in the context.
Or when Spiderman abandoned New York just because he wanted to be with MJ?
WHat part are you talking about? In SM2 when he had the mental breakdown?
Those things are understandable, dont get me wrong, but not really the acts of a true hero IMO.
What you are saying is that a true hero cannot ever have personal feelings. At any point a 'hero' chooses what's best for his loved one's over what's best for the masses that he's not a hero. Is that right?
When Superman was given the choice of putting his loved ones first in SR, he chose to save metropolis instead, he chose the greater good. That was the opposite of selfish.
You'll have to walk me through the sequence of the events that you're talking about. I think I know what you're getting at, but don't recall the exact sequence in order to respond intelligently.
But to extrapolate that further- wasn't it selfish of him to put his own feelings first instead of Lois's when he was unable to say goodbye? Wasn't it utterly un-heroic and cowardly when he failed to say goodbye?
Erm.......Sevtuple period!!!!!!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...cough......ha ha ha ha ha
.
Octuple period!!!!
t:
