Batman vs. Superman: Killing and Expectations

[Nikkolas]

I was talking about how good Man of Steel was elsewhere and someone commented that....

Before MOS, the general public, nerd culture and people outside the hardcore Superman fandom could have cared less about Superman. Now, after MOS and BvS, everyone and their mother has an opinion on the character and how he should be portrayed. All the while, Supes movies have been making more money than they ever have in the past. Guess it's like Stan Lee said; "Never give the audience what they think they want. Give them what they really want.". The audience didn't want a Reeve Redux (Superman Returns). They wanted a go get'em action movie in line with The Dark Knight and Snyder, Nolan and Goyer gave it to them.

Click to shrink...

Why are these movies popular I wondered. Well, I like them because they delve into what it means to be a hero. I can't say if that is the appeal to everyone.

More relevant to this thread, I started to contrast the movies. The main thematic difference should be obvious. It's something people have been talking about for years.

Batman refuses to kill. Ever. I echo what others have said - "shooting the Joker in the back of the head from miles away with a sniper rifle should still count as self-defense." There are many online who feel Batman is the world's biggest hypocrite for his refusal to kill. I'm inclined to agree but I feel like this is an intentional character flaw and thus I can excuse it. The Dark Knight though presents it as one of his best traits. Batman is somehow nobler for his refusal to ever kill under any circumstance.

Then we get to Man of Steel. We all know what happened. Crack. And the Internet exploded with complaints. Those same people advocating Joker's brutal end at the hands of Batman now are up-in-arms because Superman killed Zod. Yes, let's just go over that one more time. The Joker - a completely normal, if capable, human being - is deserving of death but the godlike Zod should be spared. No force on Earth can stop Zod and the only thing on his mind is killing every last human being out of spite. That is a level of brutality even The Joker doesn't typically indulge in. But Superman killing him was "wrong."

And then it hit me. Batman vs. Superman dealt heavily with this. Man vs. God. It's not about the Joker or Zod at all. People can accept failings from a man but they can't accept failings from their god. Superman is the god in this equation. An ideal that just wasn't realized when he was forced to kill Zod. It was the right thing to do according to most every standard you can name but people just could not accept their super-man being backed into a corner where he had to compromise.

I think it's interesting to consider how two of the most interesting superhero movies deal with the concept of killing and why some people are okay with one but not the other.

 

[Sublink]

Well, Batman kills people in most of his movies. He's just got really good marketing, and people believe it because he's mentally ill.

The expectation for both Batman and Superman seems to be that they'll get contrived plots that give easy access to morally acceptable outcomes. Superman getting his ass kicked by a peer enemy in MoS and destroying a city by accident in his failure to protect people is great drama and great scale, but many are left with the idea that he should have had some convenient setup to defuse the situation, rather than being forced to make a difficult choice. Comic characters probably have this sort of expectation because that's exactly how comics work.

 

[thesevenwielder]

It's also how the portrayal works. In Superman to you had Superman kill Zod, but it was... not exactly played for laughs but was very light-hearted in tone. Superman didn't show an ounce of remorse when he threw Zod down that bottomless pit. And no one complained at all or said it was out of character for Superman.

Contrasting Man of Steel, where it's a very emotional choice, and Superman is forced to choose to kill, and is very remorseful. He agonizes over it and hate himself for what he's done.

 

[Q99]

The thing that got me wasn't so much that Superman didn't find another way, but that the movie didn't really show him trying other approaches. He fought for awhile then he reached his breaking point.

Superman should be someone who always tries to find another way, to reach for the best resolution whether or not he succeeds. The famous Doomsday fight had Superman try and get DD away and get punished for it and Doomsday reaching Metropolis despite clear heavy effort to the contrary. It's not about whether it works, but intent and what it shows of the character. MoS didn't really show enough of that.


People who think Superman always gets a contrived good resolution don't read enough of the comics, but regardless that's not the point of most of the complaints.


Also, I find the killing thing (which, btw, has happened in comics before) secondary to the visual storytelling of the fight, which did not show Superman actively minimizing the damage as much as he could. It was much more 'straight superbrawl' rather than 'I am actively doing what I can to try and stop all this damage I'm just not succeeding.' Again, intent matters, and the Marvel films have been more active and more successful at portraying characters as trying to stop casualties.

 

[Tricia]

Then we get to Man of Steel. We all know what happened. Crack. And the Internet exploded with complaints. Those same people advocating Joker's brutal end at the hands of Batman now are up-in-arms because Superman killed Zod. Yes, let's just go over that one more time. The Joker - a completely normal, if capable, human being - is deserving of death but the godlike Zod should be spared. No force on Earth can stop Zod and the only thing on his mind is killing every last human being out of spite. That is a level of brutality even The Joker doesn't typically indulge in. But Superman killing him was "wrong."

Click to shrink...

Superman has choices Batman doesn't. Infinitely more. And he's not Superman if he makes that one choice.

 

[Tricia]

If you want a more substantial argument:

Superman functions under the Categorical Imperative. He does not kill. That's as intrinsic to his being as the fact that he's solar-powered. Does that come back to bite him? Of course. But he's always searching for a better way and he's in the unique position of being able to find that better way. It's like the Prisoner's Dilemma; someone has to be the good guy, even if it hurts you. Even if it kills you. Because, maybe, the world will look at him and realize that's the way we should go about things.

 

[Castor]

Superman has choices Batman doesn't. Infinitely more. And he's not Superman if he makes that one choice.

Click to shrink...

You know what, I'm not a fan of that moral. Superman kills someone when he has EVERY reason to think it's necessary, and then decides to punish himself my making sure that he can never help people as superman again?

 

[Mister Bad Guy]

The thing that got me wasn't so much that Superman didn't find another way, but that the movie didn't really show him trying other approaches. He fought for awhile then he reached his breaking point.

Click to shrink...

Well, of course not. This would require Man of Steel's Superman to possess agency or self-determination, as opposed to being dragged by the nose inexorably to increasingly worse fates. It would also require that Jor-El's stated philosophy that everyone is worth saving and Superman represents the best of both Krypton and Earth to be correct, as opposed to laughably unrealistic optimism in the face of filmmakers who quoted All-Star Superman but didn't absorb a single one of its points.

Oh, and if he had no choice but to not kill Zod and he never would have done it otherwise, then that African warlord at the start of BvS must have secretly been invulnerable.

 

[MysticKnightJoe]

My thinking on the subject is...Batman knows that if he starts killing people and using firearms, he really stops being a hero and just becomes a psychopath with a gun, which really is the thing he most desperately doesn't want to be. Batman's goal is to stop children having their parents taken away by a maniac with a gun who stalks out of the shadows, it makes no sense for him to become what he hates the most.

As for Superman...Superman doesn't kill, it is simple convention. MoS was, in my opinion, a miserable slog that really stopped being a Superman Movie when Superman misused his powers on the Trucker Asshole, much less when he killed Zod. Superman is a character who is all about how he should use his Powers. He is a man who can do almost anything, he can destroy planets, Move faster then the speed of light, his power is theoretically infinite. Superman doesn't kill people, and he doesn't bully or use his powers for petty revenge and pleasure, he uses his powers to help who he can when he can. He is a man taught to have responsibility for his powers, and needs to be a role model, him killing Zod...understandable given the contrived circumstances I suppose...but...that ain't Superman, that's bad writing.

 

[Q99]

"I don't have a code or limit or rules, I just do what I think is right," -Adventures of Superman 41, to the Joker



MoS/BvS doesn't work too well from the rules-based perspective- when did Superman set this rule on himself? Why? Did the movie establish it? It's treated as a big line to cross, and it is, but word has it is that Snyder intended this movie to set up why he has a don't-kill rule... which doesn't exactly work either, because it also set it up as pretty necessary at that point, not-killing wouldn't have helped anyone, unless it was replaced with much better skills at not-killing, more lateral thinking and such... which BvS does not run with.

There's kinda the points of poking at Superman's codes there, but these codes were not firmly established, and this Superman has also never been established as someone who can 'find a way.' Point in fact, he's had zero fights where he's managed to, via grit, cleverness, or so on, produce a result particularly out of line from what one would expect from a simple clash. That's not part of his character, it hasn't been established, and to treat it like it is would be relying on meta knowledge of other versions of him, and even though I believe this is the intent it really doesn't fit because this Superman is a different one without those aspects to begin with.

So, MoS/BvS Superman, you can definitely like him for what he is if that's to your taste, but he's not really useful commentary on Superman and killing as a whole. He's a relatively rookie flying brick who doesn't have these aspects- nor does it look like they're being built either- and... that still leaves him a hero and such, he's saved lives and it's better he's there than not, but I don't think he really says anything useful on Superman and killing except for 'this isn't that Superman.'

Superman and killing is a scenario that has been played with many times before, in comics and cartoons, it's been played with where the results are both 'yes' and 'no' in different situations, but a rookie who doesn't have the code, doesn't have the history of lateral problem solving to avoid it, and who while honestly trying to evoke the tropes really is just a version where those built-up aspects don't apply, probably shouldn't have had that moment hung on him as a super-weighty thing to begin with.

 

[Nikkolas]

Oh god we've already degenerated into #notmysuperman

There is no "right" Superman. There is no "right" Batman. There is only the character the writers want to make .The Batman we know was crated by Frank Miller decades after Batman was actually thought up.

The point of MoS is no different than, say Red Son. What if there was a guy with godlike me power who could change the world? What are his responsibilities?

He had no choice but to kill Zod. End of story. Zod was stronger than him. A better fighter than him. He was bent on nothing short of murdering every last human being. There was absolutely 100% no way to deal with Zod except killing him and no, Superman had no alternatives whatsoever. That's the goddam point. He is not a god and he does not possess infinite power. He's just a person with all the pathetic limitations you or I have.

 

[Tricia]

He had no choice but to kill Zod. End of story. Zod was stronger than him. A better fighter than him. He was bent on nothing short of murdering every last human being. There was absolutely 100% no way to deal with Zod except killing him and no, Superman had no alternatives whatsoever. That's the goddam point. He is not a god and he does not possess infinite power. He's just a person with all the pathetic limitations you or I have.

Click to shrink...

So what's the point of making a thread if you've already made up your mind and refuse to consider any other position?

 

[Tricia]

There was absolutely 100% no way to deal with Zod except killing him and no, Superman had no alternatives whatsoever.

Click to shrink...

Break his back. Lock him up in the literal giant superfortress of godlike technology. Done.

 

[Mister Bad Guy]

Oh god we've already degenerated into #notmysuperman

There is no "right" Superman. There is no "right" Batman. There is only the character the writers want to make .The Batman we know was crated by Frank Miller decades after Batman was actually thought up.

The point of MoS is no different than, say Red Son. What if there was a guy with supreme power who could change the world? What are his responsibilities?

He had no choice but to kill Zod. End of story. Zod was stronger than him. A better fighter than him. He was bent on nothing short of murdering every last human being. There was absolutely 100% no way to deal with Zod except killing him and no, Superman had no alternatives whatsoever. That's the goddam point. He is not a god and he does not possess infinite power. The fanboys in here and elsewhere don't seem to understand that. He's just a person with all the pathetic limitations you or I have.

Click to shrink...

Problem is, what does that say? I'll tell you what it says: nothing whatsoever. As you yourself admitted, he had no other option, and nobody else would have done different. So... we are saying absolutely nothing about him, as a character.

And I don't believe that this means MoS Superman is a bad person. I believe this means that Zack Snyder was determined to have a scene where Superman was forced to kill someone, and he wanted to remove any and all culpability from him for doing so. And to be frank? I think that's kind of fucked up.

Still, there is a way for Superman being forced to kill something to say something about the character: show the aftermath. How's he react to killing someone? Well, in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, he is forced to kill, and retires in disgust. In the post-Byrne 90s comics, he is forced to kill, and nearly went insane before exiling himself to space for about a year as he tried to work out his guilt. In Man of Steel... he's fine, one scene later. Boy, I can see why this was a story that needed telling.

Oh, and:

"The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief the potential of every person to be a force for good. "

That's the byline of the movie. It was so important to its writing that they put the S-symbol everywhere in marketing, and made "on my world it means hope" the cheesiest line of the summer. And it's complete bullshit, as the movie itself proves, because Zod is unmitigatedly evil, has no chance of being redeemed, has no positive characteristics, and the world is unambiguously better off without him. The literal symbol Superman lives by and plants on his chest was fundamentally disproven and destroyed on his first day of wearing it.

Do I think this was intentional? No. I think that Snyder, as he has stated in interviews, added the scene in fairly late in development to try to justify why Superman doesn't kill, and then didn't realize he had disproved his own thesis.

 

[Nikkolas]

So what's the point of making a thread if you've already made up your mind and refuse to consider any other position?

Click to shrink...

I thought my OP made it pretty clear what my opinion was. I didn't make this thread to get my mind changed, I made it as my own little editorial.

Problem is, what does that say? I'll tell you what it says: nothing whatsoever. As you yourself admitted, he had no other option, and nobody else would have done different. So... we are saying absolutely nothing about him, as a character.

And I don't believe that this means MoS Superman is a bad person. I believe this means that Zack Snyder was determined to have a scene where Superman was forced to kill someone, and he wanted to remove any and all culpability from him for doing so. And to be frank? I think that's kind of fucked up.

Still, there is a way for Superman being forced to kill something to say something about the character: show the aftermath. How's he react to killing someone? Well, in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, he is forced to kill, and retires in disgust. In the post-Byrne 90s comics, he is forced to kill, and nearly went insane before exiling himself to space for about a year as he tried to work out his guilt. In Man of Steel... he's fine, one scene later.

Oh, and:

"The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief the potential of every person to be a force for good. "

That's the byline of the movie. It was so important to its writing that they put the S-symbol everywhere in marketing, and made "on my world it means hope" the cheesiest line of the summer. And it's complete bullshit, as the movie itself proves, because Zod is unmitigatedly evil, has no chance of being redeemed, has no positive characteristics, and the world is unambiguously better off without him.

Do I think this was intentional? No. I think that Snyder, as he has stated in interviews, added the scene in fairly late in development to try to justify why Superman doesn't kill, and then didn't realize he had disproved his own thesis.

Click to shrink...

Zod has positive qualifies. It's just none of them are amenable to helping anyone who isn't Kryptonian. That's a very common thing, sadly.

And I thought the movie was pretty explicit about Krypton being shit. Superman is the hope of humankind, not his "actual" race, who were a bunch of jerks and idiots. (which is an idea from the comics I've read)

Isn't the big complaint about BvS that Superman spent so much time brooding? Zod being killed came at the climax of the movie and I've already been told a lot of people found the movie "joyless" or "depressing." In spite of how it ends on the very sweet scene of him coming to work with Lois.

So...which is it? Do we have Superman mope about his rather shitty existence or not? Doesn't seem to be any agreement here, even among critics.

 

[Ugolino]

I'm just going to leave my contribution to this thread at this: if your character is written in such a way that he isn't heroic and doing genuinely good things for the sake of others, then you're not actually writing Superman. That's the point of Superman. He's supposed to be about hope and being better than "pathetic"- and he'd be the first to disagree with that assessment of that as somehow normal or acceptable from people- and showing us that, no, we're better than that. Superman isn't amazing because of his powers. He's amazing because of how he uses those powers and how he sees humanity.

I thought my OP made it pretty clear what my opinion was. I didn't make this thread to get my mind changed, I made it as my own little editorial.



Zod has positive qualifies. It's just none of them are amenable to helping anyone who isn't Kryptonian. That's a very common thing, sadly.

And I thought the movie was pretty explicit about Krypton being shit. Superman is the hope of humankind, not his "actual" race, who were a bunch of jerks and idiots. (which is an idea from the comics I've read)

Isn't the big complaint about BvS that Superman spent so much time brooding? Zod being killed came at the climax of the movie and I've already been told a lot of people found the movie "joyless" or "depressing." In spite of how it ends on the very sweet scene of him coming to work with Lois.

So...which is it? Do we have Superman mope about his rather shitty existence or not? Doesn't seem to be any agreement here, even among critics.

Click to shrink...

If you're not amenable to having your opinion corrected, then the kindest thing to do would be to let the thread die or sideline you so people can actually discuss the question.

 

[Tricia]

The forum is literally titled "Fiction DISCUSSION". If it's your "own little editorial" then why are you still talking?

This is a discussion forum. If you want to just talk and not have your ideas challenged, make a damn WordPress account.

 

[The Bird]

I didn't make this thread to get my mind changed, I made it as my own little editorial.

Click to shrink...

Then post it on a blog or whatever, not in the fiction debate subforum. Or SV in general, really.

We are not your tumblr. We are not here for your editorials. This is not a website for editorials. This is a website for discussion. Which is pretty clear something you don't want to have, so why the heck are you here to begin with?

 

[Nikkolas]

I'm just going to leave my contribution to this thread at this: if your character is written in such a way that he isn't heroic and doing genuinely good things for the sake of others, then you're not actually writing Superman. That's the point of Superman. He's supposed to be about hope and being better than "pathetic"- and he'd be the first to disagree with that assessment of that as somehow normal or acceptable from people- and showing us that, no, we're better than that. Superman isn't amazing because of his powers. He's amazing because of how he uses those powers and how he sees humanity.

Click to shrink...

But the point of the movie was that Clark is innately good and heroic. He can't stop thinking about helping others. BvS was all about can he be happy or can he be Superman? You can't be both. In the end, he chose to be a hero rather than be happy.

Then post it on a blog or whatever, not in the fiction debate subforum. Or SV in general, really.

We are not your tumblr. We are not here for your editorials. This is not a website for editorials. This is a website for discussion. Which is pretty clear something you don't want to have, so why the heck are you here to begin with?

Click to shrink...

Do you honestly think the people who came in here to disagree with me are any more open-minded? Do you think they will drop their 4-year-long grudge against Man of Steel and say "ya know, that was an awesome movie that made a lot of sense"? Or how about any of the discussions in Current Affairs? Lots of arguments going on there, how many opinions are being swayed?

It's a discussion and an argument. But I admit it probably won't result in anything - just like most arguments. I made this thread to give my opinion and others are free to challenge it and people can agree with them or me.

 

[The Bird]

Do you think they will drop their 4-year-long grudge against Man of Steel and say "ya know, that was an awesome movie that made a lot of sense"?

Click to shrink...

If you actually offered any valid reason MoS was 'awesome', maybe. So far, you've just offered arguments (kinda weak ones at that compared to other arguments made, at that) that the neck snap scene isn't that bad. And I agree, the neck scene isn't that bad!

It's aggressively mediocre and doesn't fit with the tone that superman is supposed to have, but I can see it being done well. There are much worse aspects of MoS, like the fact that Henry Cavil, a really good actor, is totally wasted. The Hayden Christenson problem, if you will.

...I'm responding, aren't I? I'm specifically not talking to the wind.

Click to shrink...

Except you've already said you weren't interested in having any sort of discussion. Meanwhile, everyone else IS willing to discuss things. And yeah, they aren't likely to get their mind changed, but at least they were open to the idea.

But the point of the movie was that Clark is innately good and heroic. He can't stop thinking about helping others. BvS was all about can he be happy or can he be Superman? You can't be both. In the end, he chose to be a hero rather than be happy.

Click to shrink...

This misses the point of Superman, however.

And yes, you can abloo bloo about how Superman doesn't have a point or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that the point of superman, the thing that makes him him, is that doing good and being happy isn't mutually exclusive. He's meant to be an optimistic character that represents that people can do good WITHOUT compromising.

Making a Superman story that's depressing and cynical(And make no mistake, the idea that you have to choose between doing good and being happy IS cynical as fuck) is like making a Watchman story with Rorschach acting like a goofy silver age crimefighter. Sure you could do it, but it isn't really a watchman story anymore is it?

So, tl;dr the point of BvS was to miss the point of one half of it's characters. Now, if it had been Batman instead, it would have worked, because one of the potential points behind Batman is that doing good isn't necessarily gonna make you happy or fulfilled, and that being a hero is a massively uphill battle that never actually ends. Most incarnations of Superman that I see as being good, I can also see retiring to a farm house in Kansas and raising his own kids/grandkids. Meanwhile there's basically only one version of Batman I can see retiring permanently, and thats the DCAU one who only did so because he had to use a gun to defend himself once.

 

[Ugolino]

But the point of the movie was that Clark is innately good and heroic. He can't stop thinking about helping others. BvS was all about can he be happy or can he be Superman? You can't be both. In the end, he chose to be a hero rather than be happy.



Do you honestly think the people who came in here to disagree with me are any more open-minded? Do you think they will drop their 4-year-long grudge against Man of Steel and say "ya know, that was an awesome movie that made a lot of sense"? Or how about any of the discussions in Current Affairs? Lots of arguments going on there, how many opinions are being swayed?

It's a discussion and an argument. But I'm honest enough to admit it probably won't result in anything - just like most arguments.



...I'm responding, aren't I? I'm specifically not talking to the wind.

Click to shrink...

The movie was a sour, unpleasant slog through grimderp angst that aped the story and cast of Superman while completely missing the point. Its message is an unpleasant one, it's characters are cutouts or just plain unlikeable, and the only thing super about it is its superficial understanding of the characters whose names and faces it stole for the cast.

The core idea of Superman is that doing the right thing is working to make things better for others (and no, neck-snapping in a ridiculous contrivance followed by smiles all around doesn't qualify so don't even bother), to stick to principles (Truth, justice, and the American way ring a bell?)- and that life isn't a grim pointless angstfest- it's a work in progress. There's always hope, people are generally inherently good and worth helping- and in their own way, everyone has something that makes them every bit the hero superman is. All that cape flapping and punching giant robots? That's window dressing. A cape does not Superman make, nor does laser vision. It's his attitude. Superman only matters because he's the best of us- the man of tomorrow, the person each of us can live up to be- not because he's a flying brick with laser eyes.

If you want Superman in a sentence, he's the kind of hero who'd unironically rescue a cat out of a tree with a smile. Just for the sake of making things better. This "hard man making hard decisions while hard" nonsense isn't just wrong, it's a non sequitur for a genuine Superman story. Superman is about rejecting that as defeatism. Finding another way. Not settling for the bare minimum or not even trying to help, but doing the best you can and being content in doing it because it IS the right thing to do.

The Snyder superman isn't a hero. He isn't even a good person. He isn't even particularly brave- he's an apathetic, reactionary, callous mess- hell, I'd say Shinji Ikari would have made a better Superman than the character we saw presented as such because Shinji Ikari actually cares about something or someone and has some measure of principles and genuine compassion!

MoS's message is that there's no way to make things better. People given a chance to make things better won't care enough to want to. Doing good doesn't feel good. It's okay to take the easy way out and kill people rather than finding a better way. Saying MoS's actual contents is about hope is false advertising. And frankly, MoS's whole message is bullshit.

The Synder films are running around wearing the flayed hide of stories and characters they clearly don't understand, and their replacement storyline and themes replaced hope and optimism with pointless cinematic masturbation over contrived, sulky grimderp and pseudo-"realism" that's less realistic in terms of its characters than the actual cartoons.

The only reason talking with you will amount to nothing is that you're not listening to anything anyone has to say.

 

[Nikkolas]

I
Except you've already said you weren't interested in having any sort of discussion.

Click to shrink...

If that was what you thought I meant by calling my post an editorial, that's my bad for phrasing it wrongly. But I am more than willing to argue and discuss things with anyone who posts in here.

This misses the point of Superman, however.

And yes, you can abloo bloo about how Superman doesn't have a point or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that the point of superman, the thing that makes him him, is that doing good and being happy isn't mutually exclusive. He's meant to be an optimistic character that represents that people can do good WITHOUT compromising.

Making a Superman story that's depressing and cynical(And make no mistake, the idea that you have to choose between doing good and being happy IS cynical as fuck) is like making a Watchman story with Rorschach acting like a goofy silver age crimefighter. Sure you could do it, but it isn't really a watchman story anymore is it?

So, tl;dr the point of BvS was to miss the point of one half of it's characters. Now, if it had been Batman instead, it would have worked, because one of the potential points behind Batman is that doing good isn't necessarily gonna make you happy or fulfilled, and that being a hero is a massively uphill battle that never actually ends. Most incarnations of Superman that I see as being good, I can also see retiring to a farm house in Kansas and raising his own kids/grandkids. Meanwhile there's basically only one version of Batman I can see retiring permanently, and thats the DCAU one who only did so because he had to use a gun to defend himself once.

Click to shrink...

What keeps you or me from doing good all over the world? Our mere human existence. Superman doesn't have that problem. He could actually solve an untold number of issues across the globe. But would that leave him time for Lois? People are murdered, disasters happen, children starve - all these things happen nonstop. If you had the power of a god and a conscience, wouldn't you try to do something about all this? But since these unpleasant things happen perpetually, how then do you find time to just...relax? To kiss your loved one or go on a date with them?

I find this very intriguing. Is it cynical? Perhaps. No different than Red Son or Marvel's Supreme Power. (which uses a Superman analogue where he was taken in and used by the US government all his life) But since you brought up Watchmen, I think of Superman as being like Dr. Manhattan. They have all the power in the world to make the world as they see fit...only Clark cares for humanity.

The movie was a sour, unpleasant slog through grimderp angst that aped the story and cast of Superman while completely missing the point. Its message is an unpleasant one, it's characters are cutouts or just plain unlikeable, and the only thing super about it is its superficial understanding of the characters whose names and faces it stole for the cast.

The core idea of Superman is that doing the right thing is working to make things better for others (and no, neck-snapping in a ridiculous contrivance followed by smiles all around doesn't qualify so don't even bother), to stick to principles (Truth, justice, and the American way ring a bell?)- and that life isn't a grim pointless angstfest- it's a work in progress. There's always hope, people are generally inherently good and worth helping- and in their own way, everyone has something that makes them every bit the hero superman is. All that cape flapping and punching giant robots? That's window dressing. A cape does not Superman make, nor does laser vision. It's his attitude. Superman only matters because he's the best of us- the man of tomorrow, the person each of us can live up to be- not because he's a flying brick with laser eyes.

If you want Superman in a sentence, he's the kind of hero who'd unironically rescue a cat out of a tree with a smile. Just for the sake of making things better. This "hard man making hard decisions while hard" nonsense isn't just wrong, it's a non sequitur for a genuine Superman story. Superman is about rejecting that as defeatism. Finding another way. Not settling for the bare minimum or not even trying to help, but doing the best you can and being content in doing it because it IS the right thing to do.

The Snyder superman isn't a hero. He isn't even a good person. He isn't even particularly brave- he's an apathetic, reactionary, callous mess- hell, I'd say Shinji Ikari would have made a better Superman than the character we saw presented as such because Shinji Ikari actually cares about something or someone and has some measure of principles and genuine compassion!

MoS's message is that there's no way to make things better. People given a chance to make things better won't care enough to want to. Doing good doesn't feel good. It's okay to take the easy way out and kill people rather than finding a better way. Saying MoS's actual contents is about hope is false advertising. And frankly, MoS's whole message is bullshit.

The Synder films are running around wearing the flayed hide of stories and characters they clearly don't understand, and their replacement storyline and themes replaced hope and optimism with pointless cinematic masturbation over contrived, sulky grimderp and pseudo-"realism" that's less realistic in terms of its characters than the actual cartoons.

The only reason talking with you will amount to nothing is that you're not listening to anything anyone has to say.

Click to shrink...

Because you say nonsense like "Superman doesn't care about people." That is so objectively false you might as well have said Superman is a black woman.

How am I supposed to respond to something so obviously false? Do you want me to show you the scene of Superman carrying Doomsday into space to get him away from people? Or maybe all the other times he saved people because he wanted to help?

 

[Ugolino]

If that was what you thought I meant by calling my post an editorial, that's my bad for phrasing it wrongly. But I am more than willing to argue and discuss things with anyone who posts in here.



What keeps you or me from doing good all over the world? Our mere human existence. Superman doesn't have that problem. He could actually solve an untold number of issues across the globe. But would that leave him time for Lois? People are murdered, disasters happen, children starve - all these things happen nonstop. If you had the power of a god and a conscience, wouldn't you try to do something about all this? But since these unpleasant things happen perpetually, how then do you find time to just...relax? To kiss your loved one or go on a date with them?

I find this very intriguing. Is it cynical? Perhaps. No different than Red Son or Marvel's Supreme Power. (which uses a Superman analogue where he was taken in and used by the US government all his life) But since you brought up Watchmen, I think of Superman as being like Dr. Manhattan. They have all the power in the world to make the world as they see fit...only Clark cares for humanity.




Because you say nonsense like "Superman doesn't care about people." That is so objectively false you might as well have said Superman is a black woman.

How am I supposed to respond to something so obviously false? Do you want me to show you the scene of Superman carrying Doomsday into space to get him away from people? Or maybe all the other times he saved people because he wanted to help?

Click to shrink...

You're absolutely right! Superman does care about people.

That's a large part of why MoS's character of the same name isn't actually Superman.

Superman punches Doomsday because Doomsday is there. He doesn't give a shit about those people, he doesn't consider helping those people a thing worth doing for its own sake- the movie goes out of its way to show just how little these people's lives and well-being means to him emotionally. He's not a hero, he's someone who clearly feels like he may as well be doing an office job for all the point saving lives has to him.

That isn't a hero. That's an asshole who's only not let the world burn because he's vaguely expected by people he knows to do good. That isn't a Superman story, that's garbage that think it's mature and somehow meaningful by populating its fictional world with assholes all the way down.

MoSman isn't shown to care, emotionally, about anything but hurting people who touch his property. He's a vicious, callous thug who resorts to violence at the drop of a hat. And he does effectively treat his "loved ones" as property for all the emotional connection we see him form with them. And that makes the whole movie ring very hollow.

Hell, this movie makes a tolerable approximation of what the real Lex Luthor's worldview might be, because he's a sour, twisted man with a very warped understanding of how other people are and why they act. But it's a terrible Superman movie and not terribly interesting or well made even without the brand it's ripping off for recognition.

 

[The Bird]

I find this very intriguing. Is it cynical? Perhaps. No different than Red Son or Marvel's Supreme Power. (which uses a Superman analogue where he was taken in and used by the US government all his life) But since you brought up Watchmen, I think of Superman as being like Dr. Manhattan. They have all the power in the world to make the world as they see fit...only Clark cares for humanity.

Click to shrink...

Okay, but the thing is...

Red Son Superman isn't Superman. Or at least, he's not THE Superman. He's an elseworlds. Thats one of the reasons the fact that the series is kinda cynical is, for lack of a better word, tolerated, as it doesn't have to cleave closely to the themes and the concept upon which superman is based, while a movie does unless you want to wind up with Live Action GitS garbage. The other examples you mentioned aren't even elseworlds supermen, but completely different characters. Sure, they might have the whole 'superhuman power' thing, they might have vaguely similar aesthetics, but they aren't the same. They don't have the same point at all behind them.

The point behind Dr. Manhattan is to imagine how a godlike posthuman entity would interact with humanity. That's the point behind him, and trying to use the point behind him for Superman, a completely separate character, is, to be blunt, dumb. Same goes for your other listed characters.

Again. Superman is meant to be optimistic. Making a superman story that isn't optimistic is missing the point of Superman, just like making a spiderman movie where spiderman is a selfish jackass throughout who only helps people out of self interest is missing the point of spiderman.

I feel like yer trying to grasp at straws here for an argument, man, considering all you did in that post was literally list of characters who are only comparable to superman on the shallowest level and try and insinuate that they happen to be similar on a deeper level.

 

[Mister Bad Guy]

Zod has positive qualifies. It's just none of them are amenable to helping anyone who isn't Kryptonian. That's a very common thing, sadly.

And I thought the movie was pretty explicit about Krypton being shit. Superman is the hope of humankind, not his "actual" race, who were a bunch of jerks and idiots. (which is an idea from the comics I've read)

Isn't the big complaint about BvS that Superman spent so much time brooding? Zod being killed came at the climax of the movie and I've already been told a lot of people found the movie "joyless" or "depressing." In spite of how it ends on the very sweet scene of him coming to work with Lois.

So...which is it? Do we have Superman mope about his rather shitty existence or not? Doesn't seem to be any agreement here, even among critics.

Click to shrink...

Zod is genocidal, hate-filled, vindictive, racist, underhanded, dishonorable, loveless, petty, murderous, and really not all that bright. His only redeeming feature is his devotion to resurrecting a regime that was also, by all appearances, genocidal, hate-filled, vindictive, racist, underhanded, dishonorable, loveless, petty, murderous, and really not all that bright.

Fuck's sake, Xa-Du was more sympathetic, and he was an evil space mummy who wanted to turn Kandor into an army of microscopic zombies.

As for Krypton all being jerks, it's true - that was written into the Byrne run, to a degree, that Krypton was an emotionless society with a lot of skeletons in its closet (even if that's, what, four reboots ago?). But even then, what? Are Kryptonians not people? Do they not have and deserve the capacity for redemption? Or are they just born evil? How does Zod being from Krypton render him exempt from this?

And even then, the idea that Krypton was a fundamentally bad society with nothing to offer... well, first off, there's a reason it's been retconned four times; it's not very interesting. Making Krypton a shithole harms the immigrant narrative in his appeal, removes one of the biggest weights hanging over the character, and cuts out interesting representations of a benign Krypton (the Bottle City, Kara). It was largely a case of Byrne trying to resolve complaints about how Superman was an ambassador from an awesome perfect culture and completely overshooting.

But putting that aside, it also goes against another Jor-El speech, that Superman is "the best of both worlds." This is stated to be why Superman is important; he can be the best of what Krypton represented and use that to guide humanity. But the only thing he takes from Krypton is his outfit and his powers - even from his birth, he was not a representative of Krypton's culture. At best, you could say he carries on some of Jor-El's (wrong) philosophies, but the movie makes a point of declaring Jor-El to be hugely aberrant.

And as for moping... well, to be honest, I don't think him moping is the problem. I find it more wrong that Man of Steel, as a film, seems to take pleasure in trying to make Superman mope as much as possible. What happens in Man of Steel is that Clark is feared and/or rejected by everyone around him bar Lois, the only moral philosophies he tries to stick to turn out to be sweet nothings, he finds out that his culture is inherently evil, thousands of people die as a result of his actions, and at the end of it all, he kills a man. Of course he's moping. And that doesn't mean that a Superman story can't include tragic elements - hell, one of the most widely-regarded moments for him involved an attempted suicide. But there's no balance to Man of Steel. It's all muted tones and sad dramatic music and people dying, and then it has the balls to try to end on a smile and a hug. And you know what? That rings hollow. It rings hollow even more when it comes right after the most traumatic scene in the movie. Did he reset his score to zero?

What keeps you or me from doing good all over the world? Our mere human existence. Superman doesn't have that problem. He could actually solve an untold number of issues across the globe. But would that leave him time for Lois? People are murdered, disasters happen, children starve - all these things happen nonstop. If you had the power of a god and a conscience, wouldn't you try to do something about all this? But since these unpleasant things happen perpetually, how then do you find time to just...relax? To kiss your loved one or go on a date with them?

I find this very intriguing. Is it cynical? Perhaps. No different than Red Son or Marvel's Supreme Power. (which uses a Superman analogue where he was taken in and used by the US government all his life) But since you brought up Watchmen, I think of Superman as being like Dr. Manhattan. They have all the power in the world to make the world as they see fit...only Clark cares for humanity.

Because you say nonsense like "Superman doesn't care about people." That is so objectively false you might as well have said Superman is a black woman.

How am I supposed to respond to something so obviously false? Do you want me to show you the scene of Superman carrying Doomsday into space to get him away from people? Or maybe all the other times he saved people because he wanted to help?

Click to shrink...

Hey, isn't it funny how your two examples of Superman stories are a) a non-canon Elseworlds that explicitly ends in Superman realizing that what he has been doing is wrong and retiring, and whose entire point is how massively different he is from the traditional Superman take, and b) not a Superman story at all? (Yes, Hyperion's an analogue. So's Superduperman, and I wouldn't bring that in to justify depicting Clark Kent as a tobacco-chewing sexual harasser.)

Not, you know, the first big-budget Superman movie in years, the hopeful springboard for an entire cinematic universe, and what will, for many people, be their first serious experience with the character? Can you, perhaps, understand why most people were looking forward to a straightforward take, and not a half-assed deconstruction?

Hell, even a deconstruction would have had the common courtesy to admit its identity, and that it's about a miserable world where every fear turns out to be, if anything, optimistic. And there's nothing wrong with that. But Man of Steel spackles that story with hope will triumph (it won't) and people are good (they mostly aren't) and Superman will show us the way (he doesn't).