I don't have a problem with Superman, or even Batman, killing if the it's an absolute last resort in an extreme situation, my issue with Man of Steel is just that I thought they jumped right to Superman killing Zod to quickly.
Once again, you seem to have missed the threat Zod posed. There was no time for debate or some non-violent solution.
Honestly, when it comes to the DC how characters like Batman, or Superman, or Wonder Woman are presented in new movies and shows, I really don't give a fuck about pretty much anything they did before the 1970s.
Then you've just trapped yourself, since post-1970 Superman has killed.
The characters have been retconned and rebooted so many times at this point, that they're really not even the same characters they were in those first couple decades. Now those comics can be a fun read, and interesting from a historical perspective, but when it comes to looking at how modern stories approach the characters they're pretty much useless.
Now we're getting down to it: for anyone to ever say history is
"useless" speaks
volumes, and--for example--if DC writers such as Frank Robbins and Denny O'Neill thought as you do, then Batman would not have been restored to his great dark beginnings, and remained some goofy, watered down sometimes "detective" the readers made clear was quite idiotic and not to their liking. The rest is history in how late 60s Batman returned to the tone and characterization of his early years.
New adaptations tend to go with the modern versions of the characters, so when you're trying to use the early issues as a way of showing how the characters to supposed to behave in adaptations, you might as well be using a Spider-Man comic to show how Batman is supposed to be acting.
Nonsense. Moreover, if anyone actually
read the first few years of Superman's published appearances, they would know just how violent he was, and divorced from the outlier / silly half of the Golden Age/Silver Age which had to be jettisoned in order to lift the character out of a state of irrelevancy.
He was not a Daddy, savior, angel, middle-aged uncle or camp counselor. Those who believe that are living for the worst years of the character where endless "Will he marry Lois / vs. circus strongmen / loses his powers / vs. tricksters, aliens, etc." pablum disguised as plots made the character pointless and repetitive.
That's nonsense. The older versions of Superman matter more than this week's, since every successive version is more fleeting and ephemeral.
True, but that does not matter to those who ignore history in favor of the Pollyanna-ish version of the character that came to define comics as wholly silly, disposable kiddie fare.
Whatever it is, I’ll see it in its proper context in a little over six hours. (Maybe repost the video in the spoiler thread I started?)
