And, of course, these are all made-up stories and situations anyway. Bottom line, your hero never "has" to kill unless you want them to, and you deliberately craft the narrative to that end.
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Correct.
Part of the problem with adapting superheroes to movies is that filmmakers have historically tended to adapt them to standard action-movie conventions and plot drivers, such as revenge or self-defense, rather than embracing what makes them superheroes. That manifests not only in their greater willingness to kill compared to their comics counterparts, but in the reduced emphasis on the role of superheroes as rescuers and protectors. Batman '89 became a story about the title character avenging the murderer of his parents, and The Fantastic Four (2005) was mainly a story about the Four protecting their own lives rather than saving the world; indeed, in the climax they literally endangered the entire world to save only themselves, which is the reverse of how a superhero story is supposed to work and made them look unforgivably selfish and irresponsible. (There was lip service to Doom being a potential future threat to the world, but we never saw him pursuing any specific goals that endangered anyone but the Four.)
In the case of Man of Steel, as I've said before, the problem is not only that Superman kills Zod, but that he kills Zod because Zod told him he had to. The hero surrendered to the villain's worldview and morals, which means the villain won the argument and the battle of wills, even though he lost the physical fight. This was supposed to be Superman's origin story, but it ended in a moral and personal defeat for Superman, making him seem ineffectual. Even in a non-superhero movie, the climax should usually show the triumph of the hero's worldview and beliefs over the villain's, whether that's manifested through the villain's death or not. There's room for pessimistic and deconstructive stories where the protagonists fail on a personal and moral level, but it was a poor choice to do that in a movie that was supposed to establish its protagonist as the heroic lead of an ongoing franchise.
Well, I think, it has something to do with the whole Snyder-Verse in and on itself. I'm not a big fan of it and tbh, minus the whole behind-the-scenes-nightmarish reasons for the change, I enjoyed everything DCEU with the release of Wonder Woman and of the Whedon-cut and was glad, that there was this change, that they were starting to move away from the worldview of Snyder, Goyer and Ayer.
And it's like you say, Mr. Bennett, Superman killing Zod in the end, was not a wise choice - at least not in the debut-movie. If they wanted to be all dark, broody and edgy - okay, but the whole "Superman kills Zod" should've been the beginning of another movie with Superman then having to deal with the fact, that he just killed.
And it's like you say, Mr. Bennett, Superman killing Zod in the end, was not a wise choice - at least not in the debut-movie. If they wanted to be all dark, broody and edgy - okay, but the whole "Superman kills Zod" should've been the beginning of another movie with Superman then having to deal with the fact, that he just killed.
The problem was that Snyder wanted to deconstruct the narrative before he'd even constructed it, which is just hollow. He assumed all comics had to be Watchmen or The Dark Knight Returns, two works that were meant to be satirical responses to decades of superhero comics, not templates for how to tell superhero stories in general. (Although, sadly, he's far from alone in that assumption; the writers of DC Comics in general spent decades after the '80s trying to copy Watchmen and TDKR, and to this day they're still revisiting them in comics and onscreen.)
Although personally I think Superman is the wrong character to deconstruct. If you want to tell a dark, cynical story like that, pick someone else. You can challenge Superman's ideals, but in a way that lets him stand up and reassert them, like in the classic "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" Similarly to how Captain America has often had storylines that forced him to confront the darker side of American politics and the fact that it isn't always pure and noble, but Cap himself has always retained his principles even if it meant being at odds with a government that fell short of them. Superman and Cap should be the characters who don't break, who have the strength to keep their convictions against all pressure and remain beacons of hope.
You post that you do not have a problem with heroes killing in general, yet you immediately contradicted this position by handcuffing certain characters to an arbitrary "no kill" desire. Once again, you ignore situations which demand the taking of life. It is not a routine, habit or desire, contrary to the pearl-clutching of some people regarding Superman.
Wanting Superman to have that "no kill" mandate all the time is an unrealistic desire, as it divorces him (a character who consciously places himself in the most dangerous situations for the purpose of stopping something/one) from any relatable emotional situation (observed or experienced) and behavior common to people throughout history.
As a member of a population of a heroic fiction universe, where the very essence of the genre develops and includes threats beyond the capabilities of regular people to address, having a character act (or writers force him to act) as if the threats will always stop short of challenging his unsought, but occasionally necessary solution (as in the case of Man of Steel's Zod) renders the character as being the equivalent of someone represented on a coin: it may look like the person, but its a nothing more than a symbol--an idol in relief bearing no resemblance to the real person born with real heart & reactions, all to lock him into some Mickey Mouse-esque personality (which Superman did not have in his early published life either--a fact habitually ignored by those who want to deceive themselves into believing he was some Boy Scout from the start, as posted in another thread on this board).
Back to the Star Wars example, how was textbook hero Luke Skywalker going to be "optimistic" and avoid killing while fighting his way through the Death Star, or while joining the Rebels' attack against it? What would you have him do, since the only logical option--the actual mission--was to destroy the station, knowing over a million lives were serving there. He did not need to find alternate solutions as he was racing in the trench, other than to trust in / using the Force in order to make certain he would succeed. What would you have this textbook hero do as an option?
Okay, which situations could that be? I mean, it's not like these characters are real, so... one can always choose not to write such a story.
"unrealistic", yes? Well, it's a comic-book, not a biography, nor is it grounded in the real world, so one can always have this "unrealistic" desire - in especially, when one is writing a story about a dude, who can fly (or jump really high, as he could, before he could fly), bend steel with his bare hands and is immune to everything, except kryptonite and magic.
So, why would one want to write Superman as "realistic"?
Yeah, but - again: Supes is not real. He is closer to Mickey Mouse, as he is to you or me.
Well, the logical solution would've been: Stop the Death Star from blowing up Yavin 4. Maybe without destroying it and killing the people aboard that station? Maybe one could've taken them prisoner and showing them the error of their ways?
People who favor heroes who kill and try to argue that doing otherwise is "unrealistic" tend to ignore that heroes who kill casually without consequence are equally unrealistic, if not more so. Unless someone has the legal authority of a police or military officer, they can't just go around killing people without facing legal consequences, whether prosecution or wrongful-death suits. Even if they can justify it as self-defense, having to justify it in court could seriously impair their heroing efforts, whether by bankrupting them with the court costs or requiring them to expose their secret identities. If they refused to submit to their day in court, then the police would hunt them down. And a self-defense argument would be tricky to make if the hero actively pursued the criminals they killed, since self-defense only applies if you couldn't have avoided the fight.
So for a superhero who isn't a state actor, it's actually very much in their pragmatic interest to avoid killing if at all possible, even aside from the moral argument (though the moral argument really should be enough by itself). People who prefer fictional vigilantes who rack up high body counts with impunity have no business pretending they're arguing for realism.
As for Superman, he's surrounded by people who are as fragile to him as soap bubbles. He has to control his strength at every moment to avoid killing people by accident. So nobody on Earth would be as experienced at figuring out ways to handle people without killing them.
So for a superhero who isn't a state actor, it's actually very much in their pragmatic interest to avoid killing if at all possible, even aside from the moral argument (though the moral argument really should be enough by itself). People who prefer fictional vigilantes who rack up high body counts with impunity have no business pretending they're arguing for realism.
As for Superman, he's surrounded by people who are as fragile to him as soap bubbles. He has to control his strength at every moment to avoid killing people by accident. So nobody on Earth would be as experienced at figuring out ways to handle people without killing them.
To quote the wise Jaffa, Mr. Bennett: "Indeed".
Fucking Zod learned to master his super-abilities in this movie faster than Kal-El did. Maybe Kal-El realized he couldn't stop him with speed, or strength or what ever. I dunno.
All I know is, Superman killed in Man Of Steel. It's also my favorite Superman movie, together with Superman Returns. I literally have no reason to justify this to anyone (we all know who we mean here) on a forum.
Sorry for stepping on precious childhood memories of people who grew up with the '78 Superman (I actually did, I'm 42 years old) but dear lord that movie is outdated and boring.
@TREK_GOD_1 You and I have different opinions about many things, and we share opinions. How about we just let this entire topic rest and the both of us enjoy Man Of Steel and not bring it up here anymore? We'll both get more satisfaction out of it and tired old topics don't need to be rehashed.
All I know is, Superman killed in Man Of Steel. It's also my favorite Superman movie, together with Superman Returns. I literally have no reason to justify this to anyone (we all know who we mean here) on a forum.
Sorry for stepping on precious childhood memories of people who grew up with the '78 Superman (I actually did, I'm 42 years old) but dear lord that movie is outdated and boring.
@TREK_GOD_1 You and I have different opinions about many things, and we share opinions. How about we just let this entire topic rest and the both of us enjoy Man Of Steel and not bring it up here anymore? We'll both get more satisfaction out of it and tired old topics don't need to be rehashed.
*giggles* I'm a year younger than you, Mage, and I remember, when I watched the first Superman-Movie with Christopher Reeve being shown in the early 90s on German TV. It was an awesome movie and to me Chris Reeve will be Superman, same goes for Dean Cain (political views don't matter in that case) and Tyler H. And Henry Cavill is an awesome Supes, too - but for me, that's just the case in the later movies.
Call me Thomas. And it's cool. None of us need to explain to anyone what we like and why. We just do. Unless it's illegal. That's something else.
Moin, Thomas, you can call me Cal, if you want. ^^
No, but I like that word. ^^
Honestly, I never thought Dean Cain made a great Superman. He was cast more as Clark than as Superman; the original intent behind the show was to keep Superman's presence to a minimum and focus more on the workplace/romantic comedy element. I think that's why Cain beat out the runner-up for the part, Kevin Sorbo, who would've made a better Superman, but probably not as good a Clark. (Again ignoring the actors' politics, of course. Weird that both finalists for the same role in the '90s ended up on such parallel paths personally and politically decades later.)
Funny, I thought Cavill was best in Man of Steel. Even though the script actively worked against letting him be a good Superman, I felt he was the most convincing screen Superman I'd seen since Reeve. But in BvS, I didn't think he was good at all, because he had so little to work with. I'm more neutral about him in JL, either version.
These days I'd say Hoechlin is probably the best Superman since Reeve, except for Rao's sake, get that man a sharper razor.
Kevin Sorbo as Supes... huh, I never had that on my list, but - yeah, why not? He is built like that, but I agree, I cannot imagine him as Clark. But he was great as Herc, although personally, I'm more a Xena-Fan. That being said: I like - and still do - K.S. as Dylan Hunt, ignoring his political worldview.
I hold the view, that Cavill is a great Superman, when given the right material. I just never thought, that MoS would be said material - I found him more convincing in the Whedon-Cut. However, he was great in "The man from uncle" and I'm sure, he'd be a kickass James Bond.
I agree concerning the razor. He looks a bit like the unshaven Superman-Version in Superman III. ^^
I'm really sorry if I'm not being as clear in the text as I am in my head, but what I'm trying to say is that I'm okay with some heroes killing in certain situations where it's necessary, but I like that we also have positive more optimistic characters who can save people and deal with the bad guys without having to kill them. There's so much death and killing in the real world, and in so much of our media, and some time it's nice to read a story about a hero who goes out of their way to avoid it as much as they possibly can.
And you always go on about "realism", but honestly, I don't want too much realism in these kind of stories. I read these stories to get away from the real world, and you completely ruin that if you put to much realism in them.
I'm really struggling here because you seem to really be having a hard time understanding what I'm trying to say, and I'm not really sure what I can do to make my point clearer.