I just watched the Man of Steel. I have no idea why reviews are so mediocre.

[wilco]

attaboy said:

wilco said:

 

 

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.

The other thing about comics is that, really, there's just the one specific version of the superheroes.  There's the one timeline where all of the stories written from the beginning of time until now are basically the definitive version of the characters and what really happens to them.  Yeah, there are "Elseworld" stories or "What If" stories that are designed to tell stories about what could happen if things were different.  In one story, like Kingdom Come, it pretty much showed what would happen if Joker had killed Lois Lane.  These stories are entertaining but they aren't the "REAL timeline".  I can find a thousand stories where Batman died instead of his parents or Superman killed but the definitive timeline is the one I go by.  Cartoons, video games, movies, and some of the comics go their own route with their own history but (Up until the "New 52"), everything that happened in the main line of comics is what happened.

In the main line of comics, Superman killed Zod.  It bothered him so badly that he exiled himself from Earth and now, he does everything he can to never kill again.  I'm not looking at the definitive stories or anything subjective.  This is the Superman that DC Comics (why do we call it DC Comics when "DC" stands for Detective Comics!?) has presented to us as the Superman.

 

Also *spoiler* Batman killed Harvey Dent/Two-Face at the end of Dark Knight returns.

And that Superman that has killed still has his morals.  He's still called the "Big Blue Boyscout".  Check out the cartoon called Superman vs. The Elite.  It's based on a actual comic book story from the real timeline where Superman takes on some heroes that aren't afraid to kill.  It's a response to people becoming fans of comic book heroes that kill without prejudice.  Superman will kill when he has no other choice but he's not like Wolverine or somebody that kills relentlessly. 

Understand what I mean when I say definitive. Its not just about what DC says is the official timeline or what is canon. When I say definitive I'm talking about the generally accepted interpretation of a character. The reason why Superman killing Zod is even being considered an issue is because the general consensus even outside of die hard fans is that Superman doesn't do that. Comic books are constantly making one thing canon, then changing it, then going back, etc. Usually, if you want to really figure out what should be definitive you have to stick to a specific writer. For all the convoluted mess the X-men series has become, many die hard fans only consider Chris Claremonts run as definitive regardless of what Marvel says. With batman I actually consider Paul Dini and Bruce Timms animated series to be the definitive take on the character. I'm not just talking story lines (plenty of great ones from the comics), I'm talking about the actual character, what he believes in, how he reacts to situations, etc...

I'm not arguing that they can never do a superman kills moment, but they really blew their load with this one. The moment just falls flat when it could have been such a powerful moment if they had just established the character a bit more. It needs to be an established thing that SUPERMAN DOES NOT KILL! Then when he is forced to kill, it is a huge, powerful, shocking moment not the weak garbage that it turned out to be.

Honestly The Dark Knight Returns should never even be brought up when discussing definitive batman books. Its a great story but it is NOT Batman. Its just a quirky little elseworld tale from Frank Miller twisted mind. I don't know why people talk about it as though it defined the character... it changed the tone of batman in the publics consciousness but it did not redefine or define the character at all.

I'm also glad you brought up Superman vs The Elite. Its a perfect example of splendid writing where Superman saves the day WITHOUT KILLING ANYONE!