Should Superman Be Allowed To Kill?

[Teague]

Originally Posted by MrYac

isn't wolverine already a godlike wolverine?

:Laugh:

Not the way I'd write him.

Seriously, when Wolvie is working as a character (which isn't often anymore), he's a loose-cannon character who's most often his own worst enemy. He's easily manipulated, if you bruise his ego or offend his specific sense of justice. He got these near-infallible blades on his knuckles, but he can't (or shouldn't) have the strength to puncture everything. He's an incredible fighter, but with virtually no protection, so he gets mauled in every fight, but his healing factor fixes him up right away. These are workable (and non-godlike) elements too often ignored in his character...but they're there.

[built2shred]

Originally Posted by Teague

This. This, this, this.

Superman's power is immense, and he can't always be threatened by physical means. The way that a lot of his nemeses--I'd argue his best and most frightening nemeses--got to Supes was not by threatening him, but by threatening his moral code, which extends out to his family and friends.

Make Superman a godlike Wolverine, and you dilute the power of both Superman and Wolverine. It's bad storytelling, and that's not what Superman is about (or has become about, anyhow).

A Villian is holding a gun to Lois Lanes head, he tells superman to surrender or he shoots her... Of course Superman is faster then a speeding bullet so you just zips over their and disarms him... So how does holding a gun to someone Superman cares about a weakness since his powers allow him to overcome any threat.

Besides I don't think anyone is saying Superman has to be heartless but trying to make him have a perfect morality is boring as hell....

It's probably why Batman is more popular then Superman even though Superman is more well known...

[Teague]

Originally Posted by built2shred

A Villian is holding a gun to Lois Lanes head, he tells superman to surrender or he shoots her... Of course Superman is faster then a speeding bullet so you just zips over their and disarms him... So how does holding a gun to someone Superman cares about a weakness since his powers allow him to overcome any threat.

Besides I don't think anyone is saying Superman has to be heartless but trying to make him have a perfect morality is boring as hell....

It's probably why Batman is more popular then Superman even though Superman is more well known...

"Perfect morality" isn't synonymous with "a code against killing."

More to the point, it's not the threat of a gunman holding Lois hostage that poses a problem for Supes. It's that he knows that while he's invulnerable, those he cares for aren't. That alone can cause tons of tension. Superman might be super, but he can't be everywhere at all times. There are things he can't do, even if he himself might be able to personally survive almost anything.

Not only that, but Batman supposedly has the same code. He's just more violent in carrying it out (and in recent years, bends that rule now and then...especially in the movies).

Batman isn't the opposite of Superman. The Punisher is the opposite of Superman, on the heroic scale, with Wolverine not too many rungs above him.

ETA: Superman plus the willingness to kill and cause haphazard destruction equals Lobo. Discuss.

[Batwing]

Should Captain America kill terrorists? Same question.

Almost every protagonist and hero in movies would, and yet we apply this "no killing" rule to too many superheroes with the exception of Wolverine and the Punisher.

[built2shred]

Originally Posted by Teague

".

ETA: Superman plus the willingness to kill and cause haphazard destruction equals Lobo. Discuss.

Your taking the argument to extremes by implying that Superman would be some sort of killing maniac.... I don't think anyone is suggesting that... I think the idea is more like MOS where he had to kill Zod in order to save innocents.

I'm pretty sure their not talking about making Superman "Judge Dredd"...

[Teague]

Originally Posted by Batwing

Should Captain America kill terrorists? Same question.

Almost every protagonist and hero in movies would, and yet we apply this "no killing" rule to too many superheroes with the exception of Wolverine and the Punisher.

But this isn't about all heroes, BW--I agree with you there. Cap DOES kill--he's a soldier from WWII. He kills the enemy (even though he shows restraint against criminals).

Your taking the argument to extremes by implying that Superman would be some sort of killing maniac.... I don't think anyone is suggesting that... I think the idea is more like MOS where he had to kill Zod in order to save innocents.

I'm pretty sure their not talking about making Superman "Judge Dredd"...

The Lobo comparison was just a joke, but I get what you're saying. I just think that letting Supes kill Zod at the end of the latest flick was a mistake in terms of dramatic effect. (A whole other discussion, I realize.) Part of Superman's character is an inherent nobility to his character--truth, justice, and the American way, all that. He's something of a goody-two-shoes. I think that's part of his charm. Whenever I read a Supes story in which he's "grim and gritty," it always feels awkward to me, like Supes is trying too hard or something. (Hello, the 1990s!)

I get it, I get it. But narratively, I still maintain that taking away Superman's core morality is robbing the character of a ton of his character. The challenge for Superman was that doing the right thing is rarely the easy thing, and living up to that standard was something he set for himself. Take that away, and for my money, he's just less interesting.

[moon_knight1971]

Originally Posted by Teague

I get it, I get it. But narratively, I still maintain that taking away Superman's core morality is robbing the character of a ton of his character. The challenge for Superman was that doing the right thing is rarely the easy thing, and living up to that standard was something he set for himself. Take that away, and for my money, he's just less interesting.

Sums up what I feel exactly. I also feel you lose the essence of the character by letting him kill unnecessarily.

[built2shred]

So according to you guys Superman should let himself be killed before he kills anyone else.

That's like telling a cop that when a bad guy is firing a gun at him he should still try and shoot the suspect in the arm so as to disarm him but not kill him... Even if it might take several attempts and in the mean time the suspect could kill him...

Nobody is saying that Superman should kill someone who he can easily subdue. I think the argument is if someone who is as strong or stronger then Superman and if the only way to save himself or others is to kill the other guy then he should be able to... I do believe that is The American way.

I think the issue with studios is do you keep Superman kid friendly and attract kids 5-14 with their parents or do you make superman more realistic with a darker and grim environment and attract a very large audience where you can make back your $200 million investment.

I know for me I don't care to watch kid friendly movies about superhero's they're usually very cheesy.. Even DC animation department is becoming more adult friendly then kid friendly with their latest animation movies like Flash Point.

You can try and hold onto the Superman of the 50's but things are changing and I predict purists will be bummed out with the upcoming movies across the board..

[moon_knight1971]

Originally Posted by built2shred

So according to you guys Superman should let himself be killed before he kills anyone else.

That's like telling a cop that when a bad guy is firing a gun at him he should still try and shoot the suspect in the arm so as to disarm him but not kill him... Even if it might take several attempts and in the mean time the suspect could kill him...

Nobody is saying that Superman should kill someone who he can easily subdue. I think the argument is if someone who is as strong or stronger then Superman and if the only way to save himself or others is to kill the other guy then he should be able to... I do believe that is The American way.

I think the issue with studios is do you keep Superman kid friendly and attract kids 5-14 with their parents or do you make superman more realistic with a darker and grim environment and attract a very large audience where you can make back your $200 million investment.

I know for me I don't care to watch kid friendly movies about superhero's they're usually very cheesy.. Even DC animation department is becoming more adult friendly then kid friendly with their latest animation movies like Flash Point.

You can try and hold onto the Superman of the 50's but things are changing and I predict purists will be bummed out with the upcoming movies across the board..

That's not what we're saying. We're all agreeing that he should have the OPTION to kill but only in very extreme circumstances. For a person that has his power set those times and situations should be very rare. Look at it like this, Batman has captured the Joker and locked him away a gazillion times only to have him escape, kills a bunch of people and get caught again. Shouldn't Batman just kill him and save everybody the grief? Sure he could but that doesn't represent the law he's sworn to enforce or how it would forever alter his moral code to a level of making him fundamentally no better than a common criminal. It's these kinds of heavy decision making that makes them heroes, not just their power sets.

[MrYac]

Originally Posted by built2shred

all that stuff you said

can I just say that I think it's a sad mirror of society that you equate being a good person and role model with being "cheesy 1950's kid friendly crap" and "dark and gritty violence" with being the adult thing