DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Mage]

Man of Steel had much the same problem. Its Superman didn't think for himself; he just followed the instructions of whatever authority figure was on hand, whether it was The Worst Pa Kent Ever, Ghost Jor-El (the actual hero of the movie), some random priest, or even Zod himself. When Zod told him "You have to kill me," Superman didn't think of a better way, he just obeyed an older man's instructions like he'd been doing all movie. He won the physical fight, but he did so by letting Zod win the philosophical fight, because he lacked the moral strength to stand up for his own philosophy and find a better way. Which is, again, reducing Superman to physical force and forgetting his where real strength lies.

Fair enough, but considering

Its not about "instantly" killing their enemies, but a decision based on the act being the only choice. In Man of Steel,[/I] there was no way to talk Zod out of his attempt to incinerate a family in the second he was trying to. This was no Donner film, where the goofy villain could be plucked by the collar and deposited in jail like laundry delivery. Quite the opposite: Zod--a more experienced and arguably more powerful Kryptonian was not not going to be reasoned with (made clear by the plan he set in motion), which was a great mirror of real life, as anyone who had the misfortune of dealing with violent or murderous individuals knows there's going to be some who--under no cicumstances--going to listen to assumed "reason" or be talked down from committing violent acts. This is the why anyone who actually watched MoS (without their self-imposed cartoon expectations of superhero characters) understood Superman's last-second decision; he did not kill Zod because that's his habit or desire. He killed when there were no alternatives in-universe. It was a powerful, effective scene, that did not water down consequences in order to fit Superman into a selective cartoon box which would not fit with the nature of the story, with its serious subject matter.

The same applies to MCU Captain America (Rogers); despite some seeing him as the most "golly gee"/"milk drinking type of characters, he--like Superman--knew when killing was necessary. In The First Avenger, there was no negotiating, trapping or stopping the Red Skull. None. Millions were minutes away from death, and Rogers was dealing with a man Hell-bent on mass destruction. Rogers boarded the Valkyrie to kill the Red Skull, not negotiate with him, or go in with some psychobabble attempting to talk him down. The audience understood that beacuse they were mature enough not to expect cartoon solutions to grave problems. In The Winter Soldier, when it was time to stop the Hydra-controlled carriers, Rogers did not hesitate in killing any who got in his way, with one exception--Bucky--because he knew his friend had survived, but there's no doubt he would have killed the Winter Soldier if the man behind the mask was some unnamed assassin.

Superman in Man Of Steel was still learning, and part of learning is fucking up.
Yes, the 'years of experience' Superman from the comics might have thought of a way to end that situation without killing Zod. This one does not have that experience yet. And he hated what he did 0.5 seconds after he did it.
Which is literally the whole friggin point of this movie. Yes, Pa Kent was completely wrong in this movie. That's the point!! Clark needed to learn to move on and form his own point of view.
Now, I know some people on this forum grew up with a 'established Superman'. And I also know these people will now write essays on how wrong I am for having a opinion that does not suite them. But we all learn from mistakes. To think that Superman was infallible from the start is a near childlike approach to worshiping a deity.
Becoming the person Superman is, requires years of learning how to the right thing. I am now 42. I still fuck up things and learn from it. This 'Superman was born perfect' image is just silly.

 

[theenglish]

Which is why I hated The Death of Superman, because it reduced Superman to brute force. Doomsday may have surpassed his strength, but it was totally mindless, so Superman should've been able to think his way to a solution instead of just punching.

I agree with this. Of course, the in story logic is that Doomsday's rampage happened so fast that he didn't have time to figure another way to resolve the issue. And he lost. (tied?)

In the follow up Doomsday story, he did use a different solution. Of course, writers feel like they have to keep going back to Doomsday when it should have been a one-off character.

 

[JD]

Its not about "instantly" killing their enemies, but a decision based on the act being the only choice. In Man of Steel, there was no way to talk Zod out of his attempt to incinerate a family in the second he was trying to. This was no Donner film, where the goofy villain could be plucked by the collar and deposited in jail like laundry delivery. Quite the opposite: Zod--a more experienced and arguably more powerful Kryptonian was not not going to be reasoned with (made clear by the plan he set in motion), which was a great mirror of real life, as anyone who had the misfortune of dealing with violent or murderous individuals knows there's going to be some who--under no circumstances--are going to listen to assumed "reason" or be talked down from committing violent acts. This is the why anyone who actually watched MoS (without their self-imposed cartoon expectations of superhero characters) understood Superman's last-second decision; he did not kill Zod because that's his habit or desire. He killed when there were no alternatives in-universe. It was a powerful, effective scene, that did not water down consequences in order to fit Superman into a selective cartoon box which would not fit with the nature of the story, with its serious subject matter.

I can think of about 5 or 6 different ways he could handled the situation, that even someone who had had superpowers for 5 minutes should have been able to figure out.

The same applies to MCU Captain America (Rogers); despite some seeing him as the most "golly gee"/"milk drinking" type of characters, he--like Superman--knew when killing was necessary. In The First Avenger, there was no negotiating, trapping or stopping the Red Skull. None. Millions were minutes away from death, and Rogers was dealing with a man Hell-bent on mass destruction. Rogers boarded the Valkyrie to kill the Red Skull, not negotiate with him, or go in with some psychobabble attempting to talk him down. The audience understood that because they were mature enough not to expect cartoon solutions to grave problems. In The Winter Soldier, when it was time to stop the Hydra-controlled carriers, Rogers did not hesitate in killing any who got in his way, with one exception--Bucky--because he knew his friend had survived, but there's no doubt he would have killed the Winter Soldier if the man behind the mask was some unnamed assassin.

It's not really the same situation at all since Capt. America is a soldier whose limited barely even superhuman powers are most just based around brute strength, so it makes that's how he would handle situations like that. Characters like Spider-Man, Superman, and even Batman have plenty of other options at their disposal.
And I find it a lot more interesting and fun to see how characters like them deal with bad guys, compared to characters who just pull out a gun or sword or whatever to deal with them.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with this. Of course, the in story logic is that Doomsday's rampage happened so fast that he didn't have time to figure another way to resolve the issue.

Superman can think and react nearly as fast as the Flash. How could he not have time?

Of course, writers feel like they have to keep going back to Doomsday when it should have been a one-off character.

Yeah, I don't understand the desire to keep bringing back such a bad character idea. The only times Doomsday has been interesting have been when adaptations changed him, like Smallville and Krypton did. At the time, fans complained about how little Smallville's Davis Bloome resembled Doomsday in any way, but to me, that was a definite plus, because he was actually an interesting character with a motivation (though I do agree that the actual battle in the season finale was a bit too cursory). I don't remember much about Krypton's version of Doomsday, but they made him into an actual character with dimension as well. But S&L's Doomsday, despite being a transformed zombie Bizarro, is still mostly a mindless, one-note killing machine. Lois reaching some shred of Bizarro inside Doomsday was nice, but it still doesn't make him much of a character, just a problem to be solved.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Superman in Man Of Steel was still learning, and part of learning is fucking up.
Yes, the 'years of experience' Superman from the comics might have thought of a way to end that situation without killing Zod. This one does not have that experience yet. And he hated what he did 0.5 seconds after he did it.

I've pointed that out as well, but he had no choice. He killed because it was necessary, and he was not going to employ some cutesy cartoon trick, or psychobabble his way into stopping the Zod of Man of Steel. Yet some have consistently fabricated this notion that MoS Superman was the equivalent of the Punisher for one act, which altered not a thing about the character. Extremes do not support a position.

Which is literally the whole friggin point of this movie. Yes, Pa Kent was completely wrong in this movie. That's the point!! Clark needed to learn to move on and form his own point of view.

Exactly.

Now, I know some people on this forum grew up with a 'established Superman'. And I also know these people will now write essays on how wrong I am for having a opinion that does not suite them. But we all learn from mistakes. To think that Superman was infallible from the start is a near childlike approach to worshiping a deity.

Oh, I can imagine the body of those essays right now...

In any case, Its some desperately trying to keep Superman in his worst incarnation from the mid-Golden Age to late Silver Age, where he was some grinning circus strongman who spent most of his time flummoxed by Jimmy Olsen's antics, or making Lois jealous, or breaking the fourth wall with a wink at the reader (or audience) while sitting on a throne that should have the title "Superhero" etched in its side like some generic toy.

Becoming the person Superman is, requires years of learning how to the right thing. I am now 42. I still fuck up things and learn from it. This 'Superman was born perfect' image is just silly.

Indeed, but some need him to be Santa Daddy, instead of a character who deals with real challenges not ending with a wink and a grin.

I can think of about 5 or 6 different ways he could handled the situation, that even someone who had had superpowers for 5 minutes should have been able to figure out.

...and yet i'm not seeing any of these options presented--only a "Superman can't act that wayyyy!!" complaint which is inapplicable to the Zod situation.

It's not really the same situation at all since Capt. America is a soldier whose limited barely even superhuman powers are most just based around brute strength, so it makes that's how he would handle situations like that.

MCU Captain America's super soldier power has him on a level allowing him to fight and kill other super-powered characters, and he's killed or tried to kill a number of them, whether it was the enhanced Red Skull to Thanos and his various minions. It is patently illogical to suggest having superpowers means one would never find himself in a situation where lethal force is not necessary. If you believe that, then many superhero films would need to be re-written to suit that arbitrary handcuffing of a character's necessary action.

 

[theenglish]

Superman can think and react nearly as fast as the Flash. How could he not have time?

I agree--which is why it was a poorly written story, and really only a precursor to Funeral for a Friend and Reign of the Supermen.

 

[Christopher]

I agree--which is why it was a poorly written story, and really only a precursor to Funeral for a Friend and Reign of the Supermen.

Which is the whole problem. Instead of coming up with a worthy adversary to defeat Superman, they just tossed in a walking plot device to get the job done as crudely as possible so they could set up the stuff they were really interested in.

 

[theenglish]

Which is the whole problem. Instead of coming up with a worthy adversary to defeat Superman, they just tossed in a walking plot device to get the job done as crudely as possible so they could set up the stuff they were really interested in.

IIRC Doomsday didn't even get an origin/background until the follow up three-issue comic Hunter/Prey.

 

[JD]

...and yet i'm not seeing any of these options presented--only a "Superman can't act that wayyyy!!" complaint which is inapplicable to the Zod situation.

He could have covered his eyes, he could have turned his head, he could supersped in and blocked Zod's beam, or supersped in and moved the family out of the way. OK, that was 4 but my point still stands.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

^ Not an ounce of drama serving the specifics of the character moment in your suggestion. Its not the Super Friends.

 

[JD]

It might not have been as "dramatic", but it would have been a great opportunity to show him being heroic and saving people without having to kill to do it.

 

[The Realist]

One thing no one can dispute about Man of Steel: its success in creating over a decade's worth of repetitive debates.

 

[JD]

Sorry, I really need to work on my self control when it comes to these kind of conversation.

 

[The Realist]

Don't apologize, man. Didn't mean to shame. Besides, I put in more than enough hours myself arguing with fandom's bloodthirsty brigade, so I've got no room to talk.

 

[Anwar]

If they wanted Zod to die at the end, all they had to do was that "Cover the eyes" trick Superman used on Darkseid once: He claps his hands over his eyes and that made the heat vision backfire and blow up his head. And Clark didn't know it would happen like that.

There, Zod dead and Clark shaken but it's more manslaughter than deliberate "kill him".

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It might not have been as "dramatic", but it would have been a great opportunity to show him being heroic and saving people without having to kill to do it.

Being heroic is not divorced from taking life when absolutely necessary. You've created a patently false correlation between heroism and complete refusal to kill under any circumstances--one that argues such actions are not a foundational part of heroic fiction going back to the roots of storytelling. Again, your ideas lack emotional weight which would serve the specifics of the character moment and what Superman was forced to do an unstoppable menace..

...and yeah, its not the Super Friends.

 

[JD]

I have no problem with heroes who kill, I'm a huge fan of NCIS: LA and the characters in that have a pretty hefty body count, and I'm a huge James Bond fan, I just prefer it when superheroes like Superman and Spider-Man don't kill. And hell, that doesn't even a apply to every superhero since I also like Wolverine and the MCU Captain America, I just like the fact some characters make a point of not killing.
Part of the appeal to characters like that for me is that they're an ideal fantasy of a positive more optimistic kind of hero, and by having Superman kill right off the bat like that, it feels like you're taking that away from him when he's barely even started his heroic career.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I have no problem with heroes who kill, I'm a huge fan of NCIS: LA and the characters in that have a pretty hefty body count, and I'm a huge James Bond fan, I just prefer it when superheroes like Superman and Spider-Man don't kill. And hell, that doesn't even a apply to every superhero since I also like Wolverine and the MCU Captain America, I just like the fact some characters make a point of not killing.
Part of the appeal to characters like that for me is that they're an ideal fantasy of a positive more optimistic kind of hero, and by having Superman kill right off the bat like that, it feels like you're taking that away from him when he's barely even started his heroic career.

You're still operating from the belief that being a hero means one cannot kill. That stands in opposition to generations of the most celebrated fictional heroes ever created, shared, passed down, etc. Situations dictate how one needs to respond, and if the response means he has to take a life, it is no less heroic than any other action. For example, in 1977's Star Wars, Luke Skywalker was as noble and green to the Galactic Civil War as anyone could be (your "barely even started his heroic career"), yet he--presented as a savior analogue--was the most heroic of all as he fired the torpedoes which obliterated the estimated 1.6 - 2 million living beings aboard the first Death Star. Star Wars' Luke Skywalker was arguably far more heroic than any superhero, and yes, the situation demanded his attempt to--and success in destroying the battle station. It dis not color him in any negative manner. Just the opposite, and the same applies to the situation which demanded Man of Steel's Superman kill because it was necessary, not some take-it-or-leave-it choice.

 

[JD]

Again I don't have a problem with heroes killing in general, I just like the fact that some characters, like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, ect. don't kill. It's just that sometimes it's nice to have a hero who is optimistic and positive and find ways to resolve the situations without killing.

 

[theenglish]

I think the appeal of super-heroes vs. action movie vigilantes is that they appeal to our higher ideals. The role of the vigilante in the action movie is to kill the bad guy and win in the "eye for an eye" fashion. Super-heroes tend to be "New Testament" in that they believe in having mercy for the villains and believe that the higher good will always prevail. That's the ideal that super-heroes should strive for and why we call them heroes. In the modern more "grounded" movies, I don't have a problem with heroes killing when they have to but they should never kill when a different solution is possible.