| attaboy said:
I've been a Superman fan since I was a little kid. That means that I've read the comics, watched the movies, bought the toys, watched the cartoons, etc. People have expressed their problems with Superman killing Zod. The thing is, Superman killed Zod in Superman II and he killed Zod in the old comic from like 1986 or something. Superman just can't get enough of killing General Zod! So, in Man of Steel, did Superman (who has only been "Superman" as we know him for a couple of days and isn't very experienced, yet) kill Zod to save five people or did Superman kill Zod because Zod said HE WAS GOING TO KILL EVERYBODY. We know that Zod was raised to protect Kryptonians. With no Kryptonians left, Zod said out of his own mouth that he no longer has a purpose except to kill. Zod had become Doomsday and comic book fans know that Doomsday is just destruction incarnate. Thousands died in the Superman vs Doomsday fight (comics, not cartoon) when Doomsday went on his rampage and Metropolis got destroyed. Same goes for Superman. And, for people wanting their corny "Look up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane!" Superman, that guy was long gone except to people that just watched 80'scartoons. The character has evolved way beyond that. Superman no longer has all of the answers. He deals with people that consider him a god, racism, xenophobia, choosing between two catastrophes at once, etc. Bottom line: I agree that the writing could have been better but virtually everything except for Jonathan Kent being a dumbass comes from the comics or the DC Direct cartoons. |
You can't really say that superman killed zod in superman II. He just kinda pushed them into oblivion, he didn't snap their necks. Personally I think the original superman movies were charming for their time but they are a bad example. The thing about comics is you can't just start cherry picking storylines, you really have to look at definitive stories. For example, there are many comics where batman has killed or used a gun, but the definitive version of batman that just about everyone agrees is definitive is one that doesn't kill and doesn't use a gun. Even Mr. Dark and Gritty himself Chris Nolan knew that. He kinda bent it a little with batman allowing Rhas to die in Batman Begins, but overall he stuck to what is considered the definitive principles of the character. Because he did that we were able to get the brilliant storyline of The Dark Knight.
Having those hard and fast principles are important. I know everybody its cool and hip for all the heros to be conflicted and edgy with moral gray areas, and I enjoy that myself. But can't we have just one hero that still stands up for his principles even when its not easy? I thought that would be superman, but apparently now even Batman has a stronger moral compass than Superman, thats kinda sad. Those principles really seperated the DCU characters from most of Marvel's characters who outside of spiderman are perfectly fine with killing. I just hate to see every single superhero going for this moral grey area thing. It makes for interesting stories but it would be nice to have atleast one superhero that stays true... always thought that would be superman.
