Superman V.S The Elite

[iwfan53]

In Superman 2, Supes didn't kill Zodd or his lieutenants. (Nor did Lois.) There's footage that didn't make it to the theatrical cut but shows on tv all the time that shows them being carted off by the arctic police after its all said and done.

https://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/chris-reeve-movies/ric21.jpg

I don't know how much deleted scenes "count", but it was clearly the filmmaker's intent that they be alive at the end, and instead of that footage hiding in a bin it made it to the longer tv cuts pretty much immediately.

Of course the Donner cut reuses the "travel through time" ending so who knows how that works, but Donner has been pretty clear he would have done *something* else for the ending had he actually finished the film, since it did after all get moved up to the first film.

Deleted Scenes aren't Canon, no one knew about that scene till years later, Reeve's Superman killed Zod with a smile on his face, live with it.

And you are one who determines what is canon and what is not instead of DC, WB or Donner while arrogantly telling others to live it? No it's not up to you and fact that that scene is in TV version makes it valid to be canon even if you don't agree with that.

It was not even included in the Donner Cut. Also it's just plain stupid to suggest that Could survive that, he probably died when he hit the wall.

The Donner Cut ends with Superman going back in time again so that the three never escape from the Phantom Zone in the first place, which begs the question does it really count as killing someone (and to even get that far we have to once again assume that their off screen fall kills them, when the Joker an equal superpowerless villain has survived several off screen falls into situations that should have been 100% lethal) if you then go back and time and make sure that you don't do it?

Also Zod can still be heard moaning as he falls so there's now way his impact with the wall was fatal.

[MithrandirOlorin]

In 1980 our modern "if there ins't a Body" sensibilities hadn't been codified for non Comic Reader yet. I have family who were in the theater in 1980, they all assumed he was dead.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Christ now we're arguing who shot JR.

[Ghilz]

Christ now we're arguing who shot JR.

Kristin did. She said she did!

[FlynnTaggart]

Personally I have no problem with a superhero killing...... under some circumstances. Despite being pretty liberal in alot of ways I also am pretty pro-2a (and I don't find a real disconnect between the two, to trot out that tired old talking point that gun rights help protect other rights, up to you to decide whether thats bullshit or not but I personally atleast believe it, an armed person is far less likely to be able to victimized by some "good ol boy"), I believe a person should be allowed to protect themselves and the lives of others even with lethal force.

Killing is evil but unlike other evils I believe it can be done for good too, there is no "positive" way to rape or commit ethnic cleansing. A person can kill another to protect themselves and the lives of the innocent, to do an evil act but for a good reason.

I think a superhero could do the same. Flyingbrickman could kill Baldyman if Baldyman is killing people or threatening to kill people even though Flyingbrickman is not a soldier or cop, just a citizen assisting in a crisis. Its bad to kill yes but its worse to allow someone to kill indiscriminately if you can stop it even if you might have to kill to stop it, why I never had a problem with the Zod neck snap. Supes didn't practice Kryptonian chiropractic techniques on Zod for shits and giggles, he did it to save lives.

Now of course Superman being a bullet proof space alien here to steal our jobs and romance our human women doesn't have to kill mostly, he's fast enough, strong enough, and invulnerable enough to stop most baddies without taking a life and that allows his mostly no killing rule to work, he has the power to kill but chooses to not to.

The Elite though, they killed just to kill. The soldiers they didn't need to kill even if they had cause to so that might be excusable but people like the politicians, like trying to kill Superman, they did it just because they felt like it. Thats not committing an evil act for a good reason, thats just being evil. I'm sure they probably thought they were in the right, probably thought they were like Dexter (the one who worked in a lab and wanted to bone his sister) doing bad stuff to bad people and that made it right. But I don't think it was.

You can kill someone and it be not evil but not the premeditated and excessive force stuff they were doing, they were essentially the Byron David Smith's of super"heroes".

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The Elite though, they killed just to kill. The soldiers they didn't need to kill even if they had cause to so that might be excusable but people like the politicians, like trying to kill Superman, they did it just because they felt like it. Thats not committing an evil act for a good reason, thats just being evil. I'm sure they probably thought they were in the right, probably thought they were like Dexter (the one who worked in a lab and wanted to bone his sister) doing bad stuff to bad people and that made it right. But I don't think it was.

You can kill someone and it be not evil but not the premeditated and excessive force stuff they were doing, they were essentially the Byron David Smith's of super"heroes".

I can't believe I never really considered this lol. At this point I just considered The Elite bad guys, I suppose, and didn't think much past them duking people too foolish to realize that they'd gone a step too far. That's a pretty stark differentiation though between what we're considering with Man of Steel and this movie.

Truth be told, characters have different interpretations of the no-kill rule. MCU Daredevil is just Catholic based, and in the show it is only applied to people that are otherwise considered fellow men in Hell's Kitchen. Whether or not Murdock decides to kill is a subject basked in nuance, while in the second season the conviction he puts upon Frank Castle gradually becomes somewhat frivolous by his own decree.

Whether a character kills or not is not a black or white issue, but more weighed by consistency in their character between adaptations to any extent. It's particular to each person, so it's not argued about very effectively on a broad level of whether killing should just be avoided by everybody or not.

I'll again posit that Superman breaking Zod's neck doesn't seem to antithetical if we take into account the circumstance and believing that he wasn't written to be an idiot when he could have done something else. Whether this is written into a compelling narrative of Superman's nobility is a different issue, which I have seen brought up by people who object. That being said, I still see consistency as they blended a Christ narrative in there.

[Beastro]

Superman isn't a soldier, Superman isn't a cop, superman isn't even a firefighter, he's a random guy on the street who sees something horrible happening and steps in to try and make the world a slightly better place... just add superpowers.

Most superheroes are that.

I find it reflective of the American cultural origins of comics as that is fundamentally what Americans look on their nation as a whole as.

Care to elaborate on that?

The aloof, uninvolved loner who is in his little sanctuary who intervenes when they decide others are in need of help that has no obligation or position of authority to compel them to do so. Superheroes are highly individualistic yet are individuals which acknowledge their duty to society as a whole even if they prefer to remain apart from it.

Americans love their non-interventionist history until the turn of the 20th Century, then make much of how they came to the aid of others in the two World Wars while also trying to undo Europe's empires and create a situation where all nations can effectively be American, free and to their own.

One can also see it too in a lot of it in the bitching many Americans have done in the past ten years or more about being tired of being the global police, wishing to drop everyone and just go back to looking after their own matters not realizing that it's decades too late to do that being the global hegemon since about 1943.

[TrueMetis]

By the same token, there is never a no kill rule established in the DCEU. So we're at a 1:1.
In truth, some of them do have rules against killing. I told you that. Because you said you were not aware of Marvel heroes (sans Wolverine and Punisher, obviously) having aversions to killing their enemies. It started en masse with Bendis in 2004. I can provide scans if you need more proof or you can take my word for it.

You really don't understand just how differently iconic superman is compared to ever other marvel superhero do you? The DCEU has an de-facto no kill rule because it headlines with superman, a guy who has "does not kill" as the thing everyone knows about him. You can take that away, but you then cannot also act like were then supposed to considered it a big deal if he does kill. You cannot have him simultaneously kill, then have him freak out like that was a big deal and wonder why people have a problem with him killing. The DCEU relies on everybody knowing who superman is, the all American, no killing, big blue boy scout. While also playing up a "this isn't your father's superman" angle.

The iconic Superman already existed and the DCEU both relied on that existence, and shied away from it. Note, that people don't have a problem with say, Injustice superman killing people, they don't have a problem with Justice Lord Superman killing people, or a problem with any of the other evil alternate Superman characters killing people. Because those don't rely on him being the OG Superman to function. The DCEU wanted it to be the OG Superman, relied on that (hence why in Justice League everybody acts like he was the entire time) then the creators were surprised that him not acting like the OG Superman wasn't taken well.

The iconic Iron Man, Captain America, etc. Were created by the MCU, no body cared about the comics, not even the comic fans apparently cause no one gave a shit about them killing.

Nice. If I'm not mistaken, your strategy is to disparage the Marvel characters, while disparaging Superman, in an attempt to not engage with my point and somehow win the debate going on.

Not even in the slightest, though the fact you think that's the case It tells me plenty about your reading comprehension. The point, is that different people in different circumstances are held to different standard. And the fact that you really can't understand why we don't have a problem with the space pirate killing people but do with Superman is entirely on you.

There is no maybe. The Avengers and other big Marvel heroes didn't kill regularly until Bendis. I know you don't know. You said as much here, "I've never heard anyone ever say Captain America doesn't kill, or Ironman doesn't kill". That's why I gave you the answer. Not a good look to bring a point up and then drop it, when it become inconvenient to your argument/narrative.

I don't care, nobody cares. The marvel comics do not have the cultural impact Superman does, as such they don't have to follow the comics as closely. I mean fucking really dude, when the MCU was first announced people laughed because the idea of making a movie, let alone a cinematic universe, around a bunch of b and c-listers no one had heard of was considered a joke.

Who who doesn't read comics knew there was a no kill rule for Marvel heros? The answer, fucking nobody.

Who who doesn't read comics know there was a no kill rule for Superman? The answer, fucking everybody.

I don't know what you mean here. I listed and demonstrated how nearly every other Marvel and DC character that's been adapted to live action in the last 20 years, has been allowed to kill their enemies and get away with it in pop culture and to audience. Supes is the only one who has been singled out. Thereby, creating a double standard.

Keep calling itself a double standard all you want, it's not going to make is true suddenly.

Like if I, as a soldier, run away from a firefight, my ass is getting charged. If a civilian runs away from a firefight, he was doing the smart thing. Is that a double standard? Fuck no.

For a somewhat closer comparison, if I shoot and kill an enemy fighter, good for me. If the Padre does so, well they're not even supposed to have guns, so they're in trouble. It's not a double standard, it's a different standard for different people in different situations.

E.g. It was wrong from Superman to kill space Hitler, Zod. But when Wonder Woman killed the genocidal Ares, people cheered! Wind the clock back to 2005, with Infinite Crisis to see how the world reacted to Wonder Woman killing someone. No one was cool with it.

Oh please, the world didn't react to shit with Infinite Crisis. Comic nerds did. Most of the world wasn't aware it even happened. More of the world got their indication of Wonder Woman's character from the Justice League cartoons. And that series has an episode where she's clearly going to pound Toyman's skull in for killing Superman and only doesn't not because she doesn't do that, but because as Flash points out, Superman doesn't. With that as my intro to Wonder Woman my response to her killing Ares is "Yeah and? What else was she gonna do?"

[Dragon Ball Fan]

maybe I am being cynical but I think the root of my problem is I can't reconcile the optimistic tone of Superman stories most of the time when he lives in a world where super intelligent and super powered psychopaths break out of prison and slaughter thousands of innocents on a daily basis and there is absolutely no progress at fixing such a broken legal system. I mean, the status quo of villains always breaking back out has been going on for decades, even in-story with nothing changing about that.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

E.g. It was wrong from Superman to kill space Hitler, Zod. But when Wonder Woman killed the genocidal Ares, people cheered! Wind the clock back to 2005, with Infinite Crisis to see how the world reacted to Wonder Woman killing someone. No one was cool with it.

Oh please, the world didn't react to shit with Infinite Crisis. Comic nerds did. Most of the world wasn't aware it even happened. More of the world got their indication of Wonder Woman's character from the Justice League cartoons. And that series has an episode where she's clearly going to pound Toyman's skull in for killing Superman and only doesn't not because she doesn't do that, but because as Flash points out, Superman doesn't. With that as my intro to Wonder Woman my response to her killing Ares is "Yeah and? What else was she gonna do?"

M.A.C.O. also said before that live action adaptations of Batman got away with killing too, like in the Burtonverse and Nolanverse. but it's suddenly a problem when Batflek does it.