@lvenger: Sheesh, People really don't understand the whole death thing do they?
No, it's that Superman does not kill ever. If you miss that basic aspect of Superman's morality, you've missed the core of Superman's character.
It is correct that Superman in the Comics does not kill people. Why should that be a thing in the movie? Superman decides not to kill Zod. Why? Why shouldn't he kill this threat to his home?
Because Superman is the fictional representation of the best aspects of humanity. Our kindness, compassion, empathy, good will, righteous and moral steadfastness and more rolled into one being. The moment Snyder had him snap Zod's neck, he lost any credibility that his version of Superman represented humanity's goodness. As no matter how inexperienced or new on the job he was, Superman would never compromise his morals like that. Never.
People will state is the morals of Pa and Ma Kent. That does not mesh with the current modern culture of Kansas. People on a farm like that will typically be all for Gun Rights and while they might not like it...they view a soldier killing an enemy as the right thing to do
But as you said, it does not mesh with what Pa and Ma raised him to be. Or how Superman in the comics acts about killing. It doesn't matter a rat's ass that real people on farms are for gun rights, it doesn't make Superman killing Zod any better or more inaccurately disgraceful to who Superman is.
So how does Clark Kent as Superman raised by this kind of mentality make the decision not to kill a huge threat to his home? Simple. He doesn't. He makes the decision that rends his heart in two. He in mental anguish kills the last of his race to protect humanity.
And that desecrates the whole point of Superman being better than us. Now he's stooped to the level of a murderer, I'm not inspired by this version of Superman. I'm disgusted and angry that he's been dragged down
You want to talk about hope? This is it. Clark put aside his own desire to belong for humanity. Because he hopes that the human race will be better.
Not only is this a flawed, poor and weak attempt at justifying the non existence of hope in the movie, it misses the point of who Superman is. Superman doesn't think that the way to make humanity better is to kill off the last of his race. He accepts both parts of who he is and uses them to strive forwards to be better. Clark cherishes his humanity above all else and by killing Zod, he's severely harmed his humanity in my book. I won't be accepting any excuses or justification, it's plain wrong for Superman's character for this abomination of a film to have ever ruined the character.
On a final note...it is the fact that Clark killed the 'last' of his race that will make the no killing thing an integral part of his character. He has destroyed the 'last' of his race and the pain that causes will make him decide to never kill again.
But Superman should never have had to have killed to make the no killing thing an integral part of his morality. It already is an essential part of his morality. Just because you don't rob a store doesn't mean you don't know that robbery is morally wrong. Likewise, Superman should already have his no kill code in place already. Snyder's abject failure is firm proof that he isn't the right man to be directing the new Superman. And yet people foolishly lap up his stuff like he's revitalised Superman again. What a joke, those fans should be ashamed of themselves for being deceived about Snyder ruining Superman's character and morality and tossing it to the mud. Fortunately though, there are fans who call out MOS on its BS and disrespect to the source material as those guys know what he did wrong that the others fail to see.
Log in to comment