Superman V.S The Elite

[BlackoutCreature2]

I loved this movie, but I always thought it was kinda disingenuous to portray this movie as a legitimate criticism on why super-heroes shouldn't kill. Not once were the Elite ever portrayed as heroes who killed because they thought it was best for the world. They were portrayed as sociopath's who killed because they liked killing and just happened to stumble across a few acceptable targets. They were strawmen through and through.

[Antiboyscout]

I loved this movie, but I always thought it was kinda disingenuous to portray this movie as a legitimate criticism on why super-heroes shouldn't kill. Not once were the Elite ever portrayed as heroes who killed because they thought it was best for the world. They were portrayed as sociopath's who killed because they liked killing and just happened to stumble across a few acceptable targets. They were strawmen through and through.

Comics have been moving away from objectivist heroes like the original Shadow for quite a while now. I don't think they have many heroes left to make the argument or writers willing to give the argument any credence. Batman used to kill people until one of his writers who was anti-deathpenalty decided to use the character for that end.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

Thing about Superman that everyone who argues how he should kill tends to ignore is that that he is supposed to bring hope and inspire people to be better, not be judge, jury and executioner. When you want Superman who kills and rules over humanity you get one from Injustice video games were he brutally murders people over things like not agreeing with him like he did to Shazam who let me remind everyone is actually just a kid in adult body when he transforms.

In this though, there's a conundrum in that the people he's trying to inspire are unilaterally deciding that they want him to be more effective as they see from The Elite.. I think it comes more down to Superman's own code as far as how he's trying to handle the situation.

Truth, justice and the American way. The Anerican way being the idealised America that embodies democracy, liberation, free speech etc rather than the America you may otherwise wish it to be.

Superman written well is essentially the US constitution in humanoid form.

The constitution with that very much allows executions and has the second amendment

First off, I'm British, I come from the country with some of the strictest gun laws pretty much in human history. Gun laws that I wholeheartedly back. I point this out because if I can sit here and say that there is nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment, and that its not guns that kill people its human fingers, and that Superman himself recognises that he cannot be everywhere at once and thus its reasonable for some people to carry a gun for protection, then I feel as if that carries some weight. (And if you are wondering how I can back my gun laws and the 2nd at the same time, I am a human being. Only the simple-minded see in black and white, good and bad. This is a multi-layered discussion).

And as for executions, even Superman has executed people. Rarely, and it depends on the version of Superman, but sometimes even he recognises that some people are just too dangerous to let live. And again, depending on the version, he has been in starships that have blown up other ships with people on board, he has destroyed robots that displayed thought and feeling, he often has no real concern for collateral damage (and that was very true of Cavil Superman). How many has have died due to his indirect actions? I bet Superman has a pretty damn large body count.
Point is, its not as simple as ''DEATH PENALTY BAD'', once this is a multi-layered discussion and even [[insert version here]] Superman knows it.

if Superman has exacuted people before then how come he keeps going on and on about how he can never kill for any reason, even self defence?

and I will repeat everything I said on the disagreement thread.

Just watched Chuck's Superman vs The Elite review, at least up to the part I was expecting and wanted to respond to. his words are true for real life but people who agree with these kinds of stories seem to forget that comic book universes' situations have different contexts. that's why(at least for this particular issue) I think it is dumb to apply anything a superhero story says to real life.

I'm sure the average citizen does want the Joker dead but the government is either to corrupt or incompetent to execute him, it is not, as Chuck says, on society. and his words can also be true for a one shot story or an alternate continuity that has a definitive end where there is no Status Quo but in the normal comics universes, it is clear that normal humans really can't take care of themselves and really do need superheroes to run the world for them because supervillains that are a danger to society just by exixting keep getting out and the shit legal system they have wil never ever, ever, ever change. the writers of superhero stories are contradicting their own message constantly by being to afraid to permenently get rid of their most popular villains, who are also the most dangerous and psychopathic.

and that leads to another point. Chuck says after we get rid of desperation, are more empathetic and rational sides can guide our decition making but what about people who don't have those aspects to their nature? some people are just psycopaths who do horrible things for shits and giggles. even if everyone else in the world became more compassionate and reasonable, there are still gonna be serial killers who were just born wrong.

and besides jokingly, Chuck never addressed the "Why not, your government does it all the time" bit. yes, legally there would be a difference but what is the difference morally?

and as I said before, one alternate Earth in DC Comics became a utopia BECAUSE the no killing rule was thown out. and it wasn't a Big Brother type false utopia Like the Justice Lords' Earth either. which makes me wonder why the Justice Lords universe or the Injustice Universe turned out bad because of the same nessesary mesure.

and it's hypocritical. Superman killed Doomsday and never angsted about it. but all other times in comics, the storry acts as if even killing in self defence makes you just as bad as Hitler. it's the absolutism of the no killing rule I hate, not the general concept.

also, how come no one complains about heroes killing in the MCU or when Superman killed Zod in Superman 2?

at least in both animated adaptations of that storyline, Superman very much killed Doomsday on purpose. in the latest adaptation, he was flat out told by Wonder Woman that he had to abandon his no killing principal for Doomsday and Superman twisted Doomsday's neck all the way around with a really hard punch.

and how come Wonder Woman can get away with being willing to kill in pretty much all versions of her story but not Superman or Batman? and that's more hypocrisy, Superman associates with heroes who are willing to kill when it's necessary but will treat other heroes he is not friends with who are willing to kill as assholes.

again, it's the absolutism I hate, if Superman and Batman acknowledged there is such a thing as justified homicide(key word being "justified"), I wouldn't have a problem.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Just watched Chuck's Superman vs The Elite review, at least up to the part I was expecting and wanted to respond to. his words are true for real life but people who agree with these kinds of stories seem to forget that comic book universes' situations have different contexts. that's why(at least for this particular issue) I think it is dumb to apply anything a superhero story says to real life.

It's not really supposed to be a direct comparison to real life. It's a logical assessment of the moral values that shape the characters in terms of heroism and that are iconic to the character. Such considerations are fruitful introspections on philosophical examination of ethics and morals, not only on a personal level, but on a collective normative level. They're supposed to be the rules and systems that influence and guide our justice system, not particular manners in how to interpret the way justice is carried out in real life. He's a superhero for christ sake, this is very speculative stuff.

It can be considered meta justice in the way that meta draws on the introspective workings of justice, but as DC distinctively puts it, a pinnacle distinction. That follows with their use of metahumans to mean humans that are characterized with pinnacle traits of humanity in a somewhat metaphysical sense.

[phantom000]

Thing about Superman that everyone who argues how he should kill tends to ignore is that that he is supposed to bring hope and inspire people to be better, not be judge, jury and executioner. When you want Superman who kills and rules over humanity you get one from Injustice video games were he brutally murders people over things like not agreeing with him like he did to Shazam who let me remind everyone is actually just a kid in adult body when he transforms.

In this though, there's a conundrum in that the people he's trying to inspire are unilaterally deciding that they want him to be more effective as they see from The Elite.. I think it comes more down to Superman's own code as far as how he's trying to handle the situation.

Truth, justice and the American way. The Anerican way being the idealised America that embodies democracy, liberation, free speech etc rather than the America you may otherwise wish it to be.

Superman written well is essentially the US constitution in humanoid form.

The constitution with that very much allows executions and has the second amendment

First off, I'm British, I come from the country with some of the strictest gun laws pretty much in human history. Gun laws that I wholeheartedly back. I point this out because if I can sit here and say that there is nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment, and that its not guns that kill people its human fingers, and that Superman himself recognises that he cannot be everywhere at once and thus its reasonable for some people to carry a gun for protection, then I feel as if that carries some weight. (And if you are wondering how I can back my gun laws and the 2nd at the same time, I am a human being. Only the simple-minded see in black and white, good and bad. This is a multi-layered discussion).

Yeah, as an American I can i support the 2nd amendment but i also support 'Right To Carry Laws,' also know as 'Concealed Carry.' I also have no problem have no problem with laws dealing with the kinds of guns you can and cannot own, provided they don't get excessive.

I can understand someone wanting to have a gun for home defense but you don't need an assault rifle to protect your home anymore than you need a machine gun for hunting deer.

[Wargriffin]

The Hypocrisy isn't Superman's 'Batman, Wonder woman WHO THE FUCK' Code is Flawed.

Its the FUCKING Masses Don't want to give up their Moral "Highground" so they Bitch that the Heroes aren't just getting Rid of the Problem.

I mean Sups has the Easiest answer to the UN's Why didn't he kill Atomic Skull a Repeat offender.

The Answer "Why didn't You?" Sups obeys the Law, thus the Villains are subject to that law. If Treating SuperVillains like Normal Criminals is failing. Clearly you need to up the punishment... Namely War crimes level of punishment. Where the trial is more a formality.

Now granted if the problem is actaully figuring out how to properly execute some of these motherfuckers thats a different arguement.

It gets patronizing after a while... Yall agree The threat needs to be dealt with... Yet they never want to fucking STEP UP



"Cause that would fix the Problem, if the normals pulled thier heads out of thier collective asses"

I mean Seriously

[Garro]

Apologies about this, you might be left with something of an essay in this post. I typically just watch the reviews and read the forum threads for a few general ideas. However, Nobody700's filibuster on the first page made me decide to get involved, if only to offer a differing opinion.

In my opinion, as someone who read the comic and watched the film, this is half of a great story.

As mentioned previously, the Elite themselves were inspired by a group called the Authority from the Wildstorm universe, a group of extremists. In a vacuum, I can see why this story worked, but when you account for this element there is a flaw which begins to emerge.

The Superman side of things works perfectly. It's one of the two major arguments in favour of his morality and nature that I always bring up to help justify his existence, and why he doesn't simply murder people on sight. It helps to emphasise his role beyond simply being the world's strongest man and why he always draws the line at murder or darker acts, for enough reasons that the review itself cites in detail.

However, when you account for the fact that the Elite were intended to be a glorified criticism of the Authority things become problematic. You see, in a world with Superman, the Authority never would have been founded. Why? It never would have needed to be founded. Their world was one from the dark age of comics incarnate, one without a Superman, a Justice League, or anything which could fight the monsters so effectively.

Their best hope in decades had been Stormwatch, a U.N. backed metahuman law enforcement organisation which worked within the law after its insane chairman was ousted from power. The Authority worked with them, right up to the point where Stormwatch was annihilated by an alien invasion. After Stormwatch's destruction and it was dissolved, there was no major organized force left. The few remaining teams either worked on small-scale operations, were on the run, or had been disbanded. Even the closest thing that the world had to their Superman, the High, went into self-imposed exile for decades only to be killed shortly after he returned.

You see, the Authority wasn't simply a group who got their jollies from killing others. They were the last best chance to fix things by using whoever could be convinced to join them: Former Stormwatch members, reformed brainwashed supersoldiers, former villains and others. They weren't the best people for the job, they were the only people for it, and working with whatever they could get their hands on. Even their writer, Warren Ellis, admitted that they were villains who just had a higher cause that they were aiming for. They weren't the Justice League, they were the necessary evil acting when it was required.

What's more, while they did kill en mass, it was typically against targets which were global threats. In their opening arc this consisted of: A cloned superhuman army which destroyed Moscow before the Authority got involved, preventing the same thing from happening to London and Los Angeles. An invading force from a parallel reality which intended to strip the Earth bare and turn it into an utter hellhole. And the entity which had unintentionally founded all life on Earth, and was hell-bent upon wiping out every living thing there upon its return.

Contrary to Nobody700's statement, the Authority's leader, Jenny Sparks, sacrificed herself to bring down that last threat in the final moments of her life. All because she knew the world needed to be fixed and required a second chance.

They were also typically shown taking their broader actions into account. More often than not they stuck around to help with refugee efforts, minimalized civillian casualties however possible and (with one glaring exception aside) tried to limit collateral damage. They also acted more as a paramilitary organisation and largely avoided getting into fights with other heroes. Plus, when advanced tech did show up which might help uplift humanity, they made sure that it could get into U.N. hands so no single country would end up having a massive advantage over all others.

Again, none of this is to say that the Authority were good people like Superman. And if it was criticising Mark Millar's run, which the Elite's behaviour does more closely resemble, then it is a well-deserved criticism. However, the point is that if Superman had existed on their world, most of their members would have just given him the thumbs up and moved on. There would have been no need for them to become a necessary evil.

Apologies again for this, but after a scathing overly opinionating verbal flaying about how terrible they were, I felt it worth giving an alternative opinion on why this didn't work from that angle.

Oh, and as someone who read the wider Wildstorm universe, Captain Atom: Armageddon was terrible. Honestly, it was brimming with character derailment and seemed to come from someone who loved Captain Atom but either didn't care about the Wildstorm characters beyond being a punching bag for him, or openly hated them.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

Because when the Elite start killing bad people is... who says who’s a bad person? What if the Elite are wrong? What if they kill a famous public figure because he was accused to be a rapist or pedophile, but he was actually innocent?

innocent people get executed even with due process.

and again, how come Wonder Woman can get away with killing or no one ever, ever, ever, ever, ever complains about the heroes in the Marvel Movies killing but bitched about Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel even though he had no choice?

and also again, how come that one alternate Earth in the comics was a utopia specifically because of the abandonment of the no killing rule but other universes, like Injustice turn out wrong?

[iwfan53]

also, how come no one complains about heroes killing in the MCU or when Superman killed Zod in Superman 2?

Okay you posted a lot, but I'm going to try and break it into smaller chunks/deal with one bit at a time and let me know if that is not acceptable.

First lets do a quick comparison between Superman 2 and Man of Steel for why people had a problem with one but not the other.

As for Superman 2, it is what I like to call the Batman "Arkham X' Effect" (Arkham Asylum, Arkham City, Arkham Origins, Arkham Knight...) for a given superhero who is normally assumed not to kill, no matter what the superhero does to someone, unless we have direct on screen commentary on the fact that a hero has killed someone, then there is no reason to believe that the hero actually has killed someone, and that the villain has just suffered some painful but not actually life threatening injury.

No one in this scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Rq1TlbFWY

Ever actually states that Zod and the others are dead, they just fall off screen into a pit of unkown depth. I doubt Superman would have pits of a depth that would be fatal to any random person who fell into them in his Fortress of Solitude (after all what if Lois fell into one?) so we can assume Zod and the others are actually alive and Superman will cart them off to prison afterwards.

It is a offshoot of suspension of disbelief, we as the audience don't find it in Superman's character to have killed Zod and the others, so we don't believe they did.

Now as for Man of Steel versus the MCU....

I think it is safe to argue that the most "Superman" like figure in the MCU is Steve "America's Ass" Rogers, in that both of them can be argued to be the "Boy Scout" with superpowers.

Steve kills a TON of people in his first movie. The reason nobody complains about this is because of the societal framework in which the killings take place, he's doing them as a soldier and as a soldier it is his job to kill people for the US army, with the US army providing oversight, as seen with how he willingly turns himself in for a Court Martial trial after directly disobeying orders in order to rescue Bucky and the other prisoners. He's preforming more or less exactly as we expect a soldier to preform, to kill people as part of the army he belongs to.


In the second movie though when he's working as effectively a global police officer then a wronged man trying to clear his name, who does he kill?

In the third movie where he's become effectively a vigilante whose entire philosophical argument is that human governments are so flawed that it is better for superhumans to come together and as a group police themselves (Christ that's sorta depressing to say but still pretty accurate I think), he doesn't kill anybody.

Killing people without correct social authority as part of a governing body is still seen as a bad thing in the MCU, it is why when Tony says "I don't care he killed my mom" and is about to try and kill Bucky because of actions that he had no control over, we as the audience cry out in horror and whimper in pain to see Iron Man doing the wrong thing, and Tony himself knows it is the wrong thing morally, he simply cannot control the rage he feels at that moment over how Bucky's actions killed his parents.


Now, lets look at the scene that I think is closest to compare to Superman's killing of Zod which so horrified audiences and the closest MCU equivalent I can think of.

Superman Killing Zod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpod4qQzO7Q


Ant Man Killing Yellowjacket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQzlEimV4mo


So why does one of these scenes make us dislike Superman and not show the same dislike for Ant-Man?

Well for one thing Superman has effectively won his fight with Zod already he has Zod in a headlock with Zod showing no signs of breaking free, Zod is simply showing sour grapes and trying to make Superman suffer by killing off one human family.

Yellowjacket on the other hand is clearly winning/has won his fight with Ant-Man. Ant-Man has been trying everything he can think of but he just isn't strong enough/his suit isn't powerful enough for him to be able to stop Yellowjacket. So at that moment, with the life of his own daughter on the line, he decides to do something that he has every reason to believe will end up killing him as well, but it doesn't matter because he'll save his daughter's life in the process.

Also Ant-Man (as far as I remember) doesn't have perfect knowledge of exactly what will happen when he breaks Yellowjacket's suit, all he knows is that it is the best, the only option that he has right at that moment, if it simply shorts out Yellowjacket's suit and reduces him to a normal guy who can then be arrested by the police, that'd be fine with him, its just about stopping Yellowjacket.

It feels like Ant-Man has been pushed to the very limits of his powers (indeed that's why he's in danger of shrinking away to nothingness) when breaks Yellowjacket's suit. It doesn't feel that way (to some viewers like me) for Superman. He didn't try using freeze breath on Zod's neck so that he couldn't keep turning it, he didn't try just flying straight up into the air, or back into one of those ships with the Kryptonian atmosphere where Zod would be powerless. Those viewers like me don't believe that Superman has been fully pushed to his limits, and so in turn we don't believe that he is justified in killing Zod.

The audience is willing to accept a superhero killing if there is literally no other option, but Clark's scene with Zod just doesn't feel that way (at least to some like me), there are too many unexplored possibilities that make it that version of Superman feel less like a hero pushed to his absolute limits (like he was in the fight with Doomsday which is part of why nobody complains about Superman killing him) and more like he/the script writer was too lazy to think of a better solution, or even worse the script writer wanted Superman to kill Zod because they wanted to effect the tone of the movie/character rather than having it be an organic result of what the characters would do in that situation.

Sorry that I'm straying so far from Superman versus the Elite.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

also, how come no one complains about heroes killing in the MCU or when Superman killed Zod in Superman 2?

Okay you posted a lot, but I'm going to try and break it into smaller chunks/deal with one bit at a time and let me know if that is not acceptable.

I think it is safe to argue that the most "Superman" like figure in the MCU is Steve "America's Ass" Rogers, in that both of them can be argued to be the "Boy Scout" with superpowers.

Steve kills a TON of people in his first movie. The reason nobody complains about this is because of the societal framework in which the killings take place, he's doing them as a soldier and as a soldier it is his job to kill people for the US army, with the US army providing oversight, as seen with how he willingly turns himself in for a Court Martial trial after directly disobeying orders in order to rescue Bucky and the other prisoners. He's preforming more or less exactly as we expect a soldier to preform, to kill people as part of the army he belongs to.


In the second movie though when he's working as effectively a global police officer then a wronged man trying to clear his name, who does he kill?

In the third movie where he's become effectively a vigilante whose entire philosophical argument is that human governments are so flawed that it is better for superhumans to come together and as a group police themselves (Christ that's sorta depressing to say but still pretty accurate I think), he doesn't kill anybody.

Killing people without correct social authority as part of a governing body is still seen as a bad thing in the MCU, it is why when Tony says "I don't care he killed my mom" and is about to try and kill Bucky because of actions that he had no control over, we as the audience cry out in horror and whimper in pain to see Iron Man doing the wrong thing, and Tony himself knows it is the wrong thing morally, he simply cannot control the rage he feels at that moment over how Bucky's actions killed his parents.


Now, lets look at the scene that I think is closest to compare to Superman's killing of Zod which so horrified audiences and the closest MCU equivalent I can think of.

Superman Killing Zod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpod4qQzO7Q


Ant Man Killing Yellowjacket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQzlEimV4mo


So why does one of these scenes make us dislike Superman and not show the same dislike for Ant-Man?

Well for one thing Superman has effectively won his fight with Zod already he has Zod in a headlock with Zod showing no signs of breaking free, Zod is simply showing sour grapes and trying to make Superman suffer by killing off one human family.

Yellowjacket on the other hand is clearly winning/has won his fight with Ant-Man. Ant-Man has been trying everything he can think of but he just isn't strong enough/his suit isn't powerful enough for him to be able to stop Yellowjacket. So at that moment, with the life of his own daughter on the line, he decides to do something that he has every reason to believe will end up killing him as well, but it doesn't matter because he'll save his daughter's life in the process.

Also Ant-Man (as far as I remember) doesn't have perfect knowledge of exactly what will happen when he breaks Yellowjacket's suit, all he knows is that it is the best, the only option that he has right at that moment, if it simply shorts out Yellowjacket's suit and reduces him to a normal guy who can then be arrested by the police, that'd be fine with him, its just about stopping Yellowjacket.

It feels like Ant-Man has been pushed to the very limits of his powers (indeed that's why he's in danger of shrinking away to nothingness) when breaks Yellowjacket's suit. It doesn't feel that way for Superman. He didn't try using freeze breath on Zod's neck so that he couldn't keep turning it. He didn't try just flying straight up into the air, or back into one of those ships with the Kryptonian atmosphere where Zod would be powerless.

The audience is willing to accept a superhero killing if there is literally no other option, but Clark's scene with Zod just doesn't feel that way, there are too many unexplored possibilities that make it that version of Superman feel less like a hero pushed to his absolute limits (like he was in the fight with Doomsday which is part of why nobody complains about Superman killing him) and more like he/the script writer was too lazy to think of a better solution, or even worse the script writer wanted Superman to kill Zod because they wanted to effect the tone of the movie/character rather than having it be an organic result of what the characters would do in that situation.

Sorry that I'm straying so far from Superman versus the Elite.


As for Superman 2, it is what I like to call the Batman "Arkham X' Effect" (Arkham Asylum, Arkham City, Arkham Origins, Arkham Knight...) for a given superhero who is normally assumed not to kill, no matter what the superhero does to someone, unless we have direct on screen commentary on the fact that a hero has killed someone, then there is no reason to believe that the hero actually has killed someone, and that the villain has just suffered some painful but not actually life threatening injury.

No one in this scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Rq1TlbFWY

Ever actually states that Zod and the others are dead, they just fall off screen into a pit of unkown depth. I doubt Superman would have pits of a depth that would be fatal to any random person who fell into them in his Fortress of Solitude (after all what if Lois fell into one?) so we can assume Zod and the others are actually alive and Superman will cart them off to prison afterwards.

It is a offshoot of suspension of disbelief.

every time I see or hear about that scene from Superman 2 talked about, the assumption always is that Zod and his crew were killed, so, your argument doesn't work.

and I haven't seen all the MCU movies but even if what you say about Captain America is true, there are still examples in the other movies in that series. Iron Man and Pepper killed Iron Monger, the Guardians of the Galaxy killed Ronan and Ego and this is one of the ones I haven't seen yet still but didn't they kill all the henchmen aliens in the first Avengers?

and back to DC, there is the Wonder Woman animated movie from ten years back, no one ever complained about her killing there, and not just Ares but random members of his cult too.