• 85 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by w0nd (2700 posts) - - Show Bio

@eternal19 said:

@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:
@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:

@ultimatesmfan said:

@innervenom123: yea and that's so silly,saying it bad cuz the writers did what no one else has ever done in that way.apparently superman has to always always overcome those situations even the one he was put in,in the movie n then that apparently makes him like us and hes supposed to be above us.....but he is above us,if this supes was anything like us he wldve seized every opportunity, gone all out and finished off zod from the start. what he did was the absolute last resort and even then the remorse shown was seriously powerful.

@eternal19 said:

I had a problem with it at first. But when i thought about it a bit, i understood that superman did the same thing to doomsday. I dont like the idea that they are using it to give a reason for why he doesnt kill. Now instead of refusing to kill because of an ideal, superman refuses to kill out of guilt. thats not the superman i read every month.

he still has ideals,why arn't ppl getting this,if he didn't he wld've finished zod off in from the start. its not guilt that gonna keep him from killing. he already had that ideal,and was completely forced to go against it and now he knows what it feels like to kill, so its not guilt,its that he'll try to never let himself be put in that kind of position again.

The only reason that Snyder and Goyer put that in the movie. Is to give a reason for why Clark doesnt kill, so they are pretty much saying that the pain of killing Zod was so much that he will never kill again. Which means that he refuses to kill out of guilt in my opinion. The Superman that i grew up with doesnt kill because he feels that it will lead to a better world. The superman in MOS refuses to kill because he doesnt want to go through the mental pain that comes with taking a life. Thats not my Superman.

hey that's fair, but in the movie he didn't just walk up to Zod and snap his neck, he avoided beating people up, he avoided killing, and in the last scene he said don't do this, he tried to talk him out of it first, so I doubt he had an objection simply because of guilt. He could have beat up the guy in the bar without killing him, and those bullies, he simply did not because standing down was just easier, he knew it was the better way. And people say "because it would raise questions" no it wouldn't...he is 6ft tall and huge, he could beat up people no questions asked.

Im saying that the entire scene was intended to give a reason for why clark doesnt kill. according to Snyder and Goyer, clark doesnt kill because he is scared of having to go through the mental pain of killing a person. That is guilt and shows that Goyer and Snyder dont know what Superman stands for. They were so focused on makeing him supposedly "relatable" that they forgot what made the character cool in the first place.

P.S. i personally enjoyed this movie. I understand that its a different version of Superman. But i definitly dont want this version to translate to the comics.

seems to me this version has already translated into the comics, the comics one is punch first ask questions later....and I don't know how many parademons he killed in that Justice League story. Seems to me the superman you don't want to carry over is already there but even worse. Unless you preferred that mouthy obnoxious one that mocked and taunted authority?

We're not even sure he actually killed a parademon. You must not have read the last several issues of action comics. Because he is more like the pre-new 52 superman.














I'm sorry but were you joking? Their arms legs and heads were flying all over the place, how could you miss that? And I know he is like the pre 52 superman, but someone said they hope this doesn't version doesn't transition over to comics, So I simply pointed out the first appearance of the new action comics 52 superman was douchey..so in my opinion he has already like that before this movie even came out...

#52 Edited by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

Haha, this is hilarious.

#53 Posted by Eternal19 (2076 posts) - - Show Bio

@lilben42 said:

@eternal19: @joshmightbe: Zack Snyder said he put that scene in to give Superman an origin to his moral code. So no he won't kill anymore. It was risky but I think it worked.

thats why i had a problem with it. Its not the fact that Superman killed that annoys me. Its that they used it to set up his no-kill code.

#54 Posted by Eternal19 (2076 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:

@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:
@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:

@ultimatesmfan said:

@innervenom123: yea and that's so silly,saying it bad cuz the writers did what no one else has ever done in that way.apparently superman has to always always overcome those situations even the one he was put in,in the movie n then that apparently makes him like us and hes supposed to be above us.....but he is above us,if this supes was anything like us he wldve seized every opportunity, gone all out and finished off zod from the start. what he did was the absolute last resort and even then the remorse shown was seriously powerful.

@eternal19 said:

I had a problem with it at first. But when i thought about it a bit, i understood that superman did the same thing to doomsday. I dont like the idea that they are using it to give a reason for why he doesnt kill. Now instead of refusing to kill because of an ideal, superman refuses to kill out of guilt. thats not the superman i read every month.

he still has ideals,why arn't ppl getting this,if he didn't he wld've finished zod off in from the start. its not guilt that gonna keep him from killing. he already had that ideal,and was completely forced to go against it and now he knows what it feels like to kill, so its not guilt,its that he'll try to never let himself be put in that kind of position again.

The only reason that Snyder and Goyer put that in the movie. Is to give a reason for why Clark doesnt kill, so they are pretty much saying that the pain of killing Zod was so much that he will never kill again. Which means that he refuses to kill out of guilt in my opinion. The Superman that i grew up with doesnt kill because he feels that it will lead to a better world. The superman in MOS refuses to kill because he doesnt want to go through the mental pain that comes with taking a life. Thats not my Superman.

hey that's fair, but in the movie he didn't just walk up to Zod and snap his neck, he avoided beating people up, he avoided killing, and in the last scene he said don't do this, he tried to talk him out of it first, so I doubt he had an objection simply because of guilt. He could have beat up the guy in the bar without killing him, and those bullies, he simply did not because standing down was just easier, he knew it was the better way. And people say "because it would raise questions" no it wouldn't...he is 6ft tall and huge, he could beat up people no questions asked.

Im saying that the entire scene was intended to give a reason for why clark doesnt kill. according to Snyder and Goyer, clark doesnt kill because he is scared of having to go through the mental pain of killing a person. That is guilt and shows that Goyer and Snyder dont know what Superman stands for. They were so focused on makeing him supposedly "relatable" that they forgot what made the character cool in the first place.

P.S. i personally enjoyed this movie. I understand that its a different version of Superman. But i definitly dont want this version to translate to the comics.

seems to me this version has already translated into the comics, the comics one is punch first ask questions later....and I don't know how many parademons he killed in that Justice League story. Seems to me the superman you don't want to carry over is already there but even worse. Unless you preferred that mouthy obnoxious one that mocked and taunted authority?

We're not even sure he actually killed a parademon. You must not have read the last several issues of action comics. Because he is more like the pre-new 52 superman.

I'm sorry but were you joking? Their arms legs and heads were flying all over the place, how could you miss that? And I know he is like the pre 52 superman, but someone said they hope this doesn't version doesn't transition over to comics, So I simply pointed out the first appearance of the new action comics 52 superman was douchey..so in my opinion he has already like that before this movie even came out...

Those things must not actually be alive then. Otherwise that would be stupid. Early Action Comics Superman was nothing like MOS superman; they were like completely different characters, so technically it didnt translate over to the comics. People think that im mad that Superman killed someone, I know that was the only way he could have saved those people. Im just mad at the fact that they are using it to set up his no-kill code. Which goes against what Superman stands for

#55 Edited by w0nd (2700 posts) - - Show Bio

@eternal19 said:

@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:

@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:
@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:

@ultimatesmfan said:

@innervenom123: yea and that's so silly,saying it bad cuz the writers did what no one else has ever done in that way.apparently superman has to always always overcome those situations even the one he was put in,in the movie n then that apparently makes him like us and hes supposed to be above us.....but he is above us,if this supes was anything like us he wldve seized every opportunity, gone all out and finished off zod from the start. what he did was the absolute last resort and even then the remorse shown was seriously powerful.

@eternal19 said:

I had a problem with it at first. But when i thought about it a bit, i understood that superman did the same thing to doomsday. I dont like the idea that they are using it to give a reason for why he doesnt kill. Now instead of refusing to kill because of an ideal, superman refuses to kill out of guilt. thats not the superman i read every month.

he still has ideals,why arn't ppl getting this,if he didn't he wld've finished zod off in from the start. its not guilt that gonna keep him from killing. he already had that ideal,and was completely forced to go against it and now he knows what it feels like to kill, so its not guilt,its that he'll try to never let himself be put in that kind of position again.

The only reason that Snyder and Goyer put that in the movie. Is to give a reason for why Clark doesnt kill, so they are pretty much saying that the pain of killing Zod was so much that he will never kill again. Which means that he refuses to kill out of guilt in my opinion. The Superman that i grew up with doesnt kill because he feels that it will lead to a better world. The superman in MOS refuses to kill because he doesnt want to go through the mental pain that comes with taking a life. Thats not my Superman.

hey that's fair, but in the movie he didn't just walk up to Zod and snap his neck, he avoided beating people up, he avoided killing, and in the last scene he said don't do this, he tried to talk him out of it first, so I doubt he had an objection simply because of guilt. He could have beat up the guy in the bar without killing him, and those bullies, he simply did not because standing down was just easier, he knew it was the better way. And people say "because it would raise questions" no it wouldn't...he is 6ft tall and huge, he could beat up people no questions asked.

Im saying that the entire scene was intended to give a reason for why clark doesnt kill. according to Snyder and Goyer, clark doesnt kill because he is scared of having to go through the mental pain of killing a person. That is guilt and shows that Goyer and Snyder dont know what Superman stands for. They were so focused on makeing him supposedly "relatable" that they forgot what made the character cool in the first place.

P.S. i personally enjoyed this movie. I understand that its a different version of Superman. But i definitly dont want this version to translate to the comics.

seems to me this version has already translated into the comics, the comics one is punch first ask questions later....and I don't know how many parademons he killed in that Justice League story. Seems to me the superman you don't want to carry over is already there but even worse. Unless you preferred that mouthy obnoxious one that mocked and taunted authority?

We're not even sure he actually killed a parademon. You must not have read the last several issues of action comics. Because he is more like the pre-new 52 superman.

I'm sorry but were you joking? Their arms legs and heads were flying all over the place, how could you miss that? And I know he is like the pre 52 superman, but someone said they hope this doesn't version doesn't transition over to comics, So I simply pointed out the first appearance of the new action comics 52 superman was douchey..so in my opinion he has already like that before this movie even came out...

Those things must not actually be alive then. Otherwise that would be stupid. Early Action Comics Superman was nothing like MOS superman; they were like completely different characters, so technically it didnt translate over to the comics. People think that im mad that Superman killed someone, I know that was the only way he could have saved those people. Im just mad at the fact that they are using it to set up his no-kill code. Which goes against what Superman stands for

Uh no they are alive lol...they are very much alive, they are just alien.

I know the new 52 action comics superman wasn't nothing like the MOS stupid man, the action comics one was worse. I just found it funny it was said "I hope this doesn't transition over to the comics" when stuff like that already had taken place, that's all my point was.

Also come to think of it, is there ever an issue establishing why superman doesn't kill. I know it's because killing is bad, but is there ever a plot based around this?

Anyways I know why you dislike it now, and it's fair. I just like the fact that he killed someone and came to the conclusion he hated it and decided he would never kill again, rather then him saying "i will never kill!" and then proceed to kill anyway several times after that, and then a hoard of aliens.

It's easy to say you stand for something like no killing, but kind of defeats the purpose if you end up killing anyway...as noble as it may be, and unrealistic, makes him seem like a self righteous hypocrite now....

#56 Posted by SmashBrawler (5409 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

Also come to think of it, is there ever an issue establishing why superman doesn't kill. I know it's because killing is bad, but is there ever a plot based around this?

Yeah.

#57 Posted by Ciriel (410 posts) - - Show Bio

There are many reasons I dislike the film. Zod's demise is not one of them.

#58 Edited by tupiaz (2165 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't like that people think killing a criminal makes you one as well. He can still be aspirational and take a villians life when necessary

Well it makes Lex point about we only got Superman's word much stronger.

@royal_rumble_man: He doesn't really have the same no kill code as Batman he just wont kill unless its his absolute only option

Batman has killed in the comics as well.

#59 Posted by lilben42 (2487 posts) - - Show Bio

@eternal19: Why? Baman's no kill code makes sense because his parents were killed in front of him so he never wants to kill. But Superman's makes no sense on why he has a no kill code if it doesn't have a reason.

#60 Edited by w0nd (2700 posts) - - Show Bio

@lilben42 said:

@eternal19: Why? Baman's no kill code makes sense because his parents were killed in front of him so he never wants to kill. But Superman's makes no sense on why he has a no kill code if it doesn't have a reason.

it also makes no sense because he goes on how he doesn't want any 10 year old boy to know what it feels like to lose a parent, so he locks joker up after he just killed 200 people....then of course joker gets out and does it all over again. Keeping joker a live he just orphaned 50 or so kids

#61 Posted by w0nd (2700 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

Also come to think of it, is there ever an issue establishing why superman doesn't kill. I know it's because killing is bad, but is there ever a plot based around this?

Yeah.

cool thanks a lot i will read those

#62 Posted by CrazyScarecrow (1167 posts) - - Show Bio

@drudox19: Thank you! Very nice comments which I very well agree with though I do have to disagree about the Silver Age. While the style of writing wasn't all that great it did give us Barry Allen's Flash which marked the return of superhero comics and the modern day Flash. Hal Jordan which marked the return of the Green Lantern concept. Plus, the Teen Titans concept. Aswell as these characters it also gave us the Supergirl, Batgirl, Atom, Hawkman, and Hawkgirl as we have come to know them. It also gave us villains like Poison Ivy, Matt Hagen (first with shape changing Clayface), Mr. Freeze, Captain Cold and the Rogues Gallery, Brainaic, Metallo, General Zod Sinestro, etc. Plus it did bring back many forgotten Batman villains that have become favorites like Riddler, Scarecrow, and Two-Face.

Oh the Silver Age also had the premire of the Justice League of America which not only provided for many great storylines in the future and a way for us to know the main DC heroes, but also provided inspiration for Marvel to go back to superhero comics with the Fantastic Four. If DC Silver Age never happened there would never have been Marvel heroes and a bit more mature storytelling in comics for the superhero genre. So Silver Age DC actually did help somewhat.

Also what are wrong with Wonder Woman fans? I am more of a Batman so I guess I'd be more a part of the Batman fanbase, but recently I have been getting into Wonder Woman from New 52. I was just wondering what mad the fans so bad so I won't possibly become like them. I'm afraid it's a infection from the way I here about on Comic Vine. D:

@royal_rumble_man: The editor of most of the DC Comics in the 1940's, Whitney Ellsworth. He didn't like the idea of having Superman or Batman/Robin kill in the comics so he had them take a oath in a World's Finest comic or their own. I forgot which one. I actually the like the idea when it comes to Batman and Robin, but not Superman. Mainly because people will start bitching because apparently they would rather have General Zod kill some innocents and have Superman stand their smiling instead of him saving a families life.

And the Whitney isn't a dumbo really. Without him the Joker would be dead as he died in the first issue of Batman. Ellsworht told Kane to draw up a another frame where Joker is revealed to be alive.

#63 Posted by lilben42 (2487 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd: That's great but his no kill code still makes sense for the most part. I'm glad they gave Superman a reason for his. I read somewhere that in the comics Superman killed Zod and stuff then felt so remorseful that he left Earth for a while. MoS is basically doing the same thing so I don't see what all the fuss is about.

#64 Posted by cameron83 (6499 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm sick of this "Superman doesn't kill" argument being used to bitch about the end of MOS, you don't like the movie that's fine but find a different thing to focus on because Superman has killed several times, in fact Superman has actually killed Zod several times.

Superman prefers not to kill and will usually do whatever he can to prevent doing so but he will do and has done what he has to do. Also the movie made it very clear that killing Zod was the only way to stop him, Zod actually said the only way Superman could keep him from killing every human on Earth( Which any Kryptonian could do in about 9 seconds) was to kill him.

I find it funny how people assume that Superheroes are not people,they have emotions.However,more importantly and on topic,Superman didn't really have much of a choice.

#65 Posted by Avenging-X-Bolt (12397 posts) - - Show Bio

@redlantern23 said:

I'm soooo sick of this arguement. Get over it already christ

agreed. people on both sides of the arguement need to pull the barbed wire out of their asses and get over it.

Online
#66 Posted by w0nd (2700 posts) - - Show Bio

@redlantern23 said:

I'm soooo sick of this arguement. Get over it already christ

agreed. people on both sides of the arguement need to pull the barbed wire out of their asses and get over it.

it's a topic, of course people will be talking about the topic. I never understood why people seem so offended by this, it's easier to avoid the topic altogether if it bothers you that much then to come in and display your distaste.

I enjoy the debate, and although it may not seem like it I like hearing the opposing sides point of views, if I didn't I wouldn't have even bothered coming in here, I never get why people who clearly show distaste for the topic enter it though.

#67 Posted by Eternal19 (2076 posts) - - Show Bio

@lilben42 said:

@eternal19: Why? Baman's no kill code makes sense because his parents were killed in front of him so he never wants to kill. But Superman's makes no sense on why he has a no kill code if it doesn't have a reason.

If you actually read superman comics. His no-kill code comes from his parents teaching.

#68 Edited by Avenging-X-Bolt (12397 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

@avenging_x_bolt said:

@redlantern23 said:

I'm soooo sick of this arguement. Get over it already christ

agreed. people on both sides of the arguement need to pull the barbed wire out of their asses and get over it.

it's a topic, of course people will be talking about the topic. I never understood why people seem so offended by this, it's easier to avoid the topic altogether if it bothers you that much then to come in and display your distaste.

I enjoy the debate, and although it may not seem like it I like hearing the opposing sides point of views, if I didn't I wouldn't have even bothered coming in here, I never get why people who clearly show distaste for the topic enter it though.

its not the debate itself, its just that people act like frothing psychopaths.

Online
#69 Edited by RedLantern23 (883 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd: i have no problem with the topic itself. i do however have a problem with the 6 threads i have seen this past month on it. i have a problem entering a thread and seeing the same 6 scans. the same arguements. There is nothing new to be added to the topic. If it was one thread that just lasted forever, that would be fine. But i see a new thread on it every few days. So i come into these threads and voice my displeasure. Its no more nonsensical than the endless cycle of this tired, worn out topic.

#70 Edited by SmashBrawler (5409 posts) - - Show Bio
#71 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3453 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman didn't kill Zod. Zod killed himself.

#72 Posted by straightedgejoe (28 posts) - - Show Bio

@martian81: Dumb Article. first off Snyder saying that his aversion to killing is unexplained is BS because you don't need to have him killing someone to have him decide that its wrong. instead he should have already had those values instilled in him from an early age by the Kents instead of having Pa the whole movie telling him don't save people! don't be special!. second it assumes that people are okay with him killing Zod in Superman 2, i hated that!

#73 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman didn't kill Zod. Zod killed himself.

This is true, Zack and Goyer already said that it was suicide by cop.

#74 Posted by Lvenger (17848 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm sick of this "Superman doesn't kill" argument being used to bitch about the end of MOS, you don't like the movie that's fine but find a different thing to focus on because Superman has killed several times, in fact Superman has actually killed Zod several times.

Superman prefers not to kill and will usually do whatever he can to prevent doing so but he will do and has done what he has to do. Also the movie made it very clear that killing Zod was the only way to stop him, Zod actually said the only way Superman could keep him from killing every human on Earth( Which any Kryptonian could do in about 9 seconds) was to kill him.

For Superman killing the Pocket Universe Kryptonians, that was a poorly written badly executed move. Sorry but it is. Superman had beaten, depowered and left Zod stranded in another universe. Even if he did get his powers back and come to this universe, Superman knows how to beat him again. Besides the Earth is teeming with metahumans and some with Superman specific nullifying powers. They could have stopped them. Superman let himself be goaded into ending their lives when he definitely could have just left them there in the pocket universe.

As for Doomsday, that was a money grubbing scheme to fill DC's pockets. And whilst I don't like making the animal/human comparison, whilst we are just another species of animal, we have developed our intelligence into making cultures and grasping knowledge of the world. Doomsday is an animal acting on instinct that didn't understand what he was doing nor could he be reasoned with. At the end of the day, you have to put the rabid dog down to stop the spread of disease.

In any case, for the few times Superman has killed, I can cite at least double the quotes where he admonishes killing in all its forms. So sorry but I'm afraid Superman killing is a very good thing to focus on why the film was massively flawed.

#75 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio
#76 Posted by joshmightbe (24434 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: Okay what about the few dozen other times he's killed in the comics? Not even counting all the aliens he's offed that didn't look human so of course no one cares about.

Online
#77 Posted by consolemaster001 (4892 posts) - - Show Bio

Agreed

Online
#78 Posted by Lvenger (17848 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe: Which aliens has he killed? I'd like some specific examples please so I know how to respond to this.

#79 Edited by DocLuthorVonDoom (101 posts) - - Show Bio
#80 Posted by Smart_Dork_Dude (2586 posts) - - Show Bio

Yep. Also there's this little bit of Golden Age goodness

#81 Posted by zeejaybay (70 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: I agree with every word and that's why the movie gets a 1 out of 10 from me. Just because he's killed in the past doesn't mean it was good then or now. Every time it's happened it's been contrived and writers along with fans voiced their deep dislike. He's gone years and years before killing that's why we can count them on our hands and like you said it's heavily outweighed by the times he's aligned himself with never killing. I also think it was a horrible idea to set this as the tone for this generation to get familiar with as Superman. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/7541-Man-of-Tomorrow I'm appalled by all the people that reason away that him killing is not only okay but expected. He's also made out with a 14 year old, made a porno, and launched Supergirl into spaces as a punishment before yet none of these elements deserves to be a representation of Superman to the masses going forward.

#82 Posted by waezi2 (6547 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh yeah? Well... um...

...

LALALALALALAICANTHEARYOU!

#83 Posted by Lvenger (17848 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: I agree with every word and that's why the movie gets a 1 out of 10 from me. Just because he's killed in the past doesn't mean it was good then or now. Every time it's happened it's been contrived and writers along with fans voiced their deep dislike. He's gone years and years before killing that's why we can count them on our hands and like you said it's heavily outweighed by the times he's aligned himself with never killing. I also think it was a horrible idea to set this as the tone for this generation to get familiar with as Superman. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/7541-Man-of-Tomorrow I'm appalled by all the people that reason away that him killing is not only okay but expected. He's also made out with a 14 year old, made a porno, and launched Supergirl into spaces as a punishment before yet none of these elements deserves to be a representation of Superman to the masses going forward.

1 out of 10 is a bit harsh IMO. Despite my criticism of MOS, I do give it a 7 out of 10. I do agree that every time he's killed in the past (aside from the Golden Age when he was rougher and more morally lax) has been contrived. The years he's gone without killing are more indicative of his no killing code than the times he has killed. In fact, Batman is now the pinnacle of morality for DC. Recently, in Batman Inc 13 and the back up to Batman 23, Bruce has made it abundantly clear he won't kill anyone. Not even his most hated enemies who come back every time to try and finish him off. And for me, that's how Superman should be. Refusing to kill even when it seems like there's no other option. A big part of his character is his moral compass and Superman has shown plenty of times that he won't kill. More than he has been willing to kill for certain.

#84 Edited by overlord0 (5 posts) - - Show Bio
@lvenger said:

@joshmightbe said:

I'm sick of this "Superman doesn't kill" argument being used to bitch about the end of MOS, you don't like the movie that's fine but find a different thing to focus on because Superman has killed several times, in fact Superman has actually killed Zod several times.

Superman prefers not to kill and will usually do whatever he can to prevent doing so but he will do and has done what he has to do. Also the movie made it very clear that killing Zod was the only way to stop him, Zod actually said the only way Superman could keep him from killing every human on Earth( Which any Kryptonian could do in about 9 seconds) was to kill him.

For Superman killing the Pocket Universe Kryptonians, that was a poorly written badly executed move. Sorry but it is. Superman had beaten, depowered and left Zod stranded in another universe. Even if he did get his powers back and come to this universe, Superman knows how to beat him again. Besides the Earth is teeming with metahumans and some with Superman specific nullifying powers. They could have stopped them. Superman let himself be goaded into ending their lives when he definitely could have just left them there in the pocket universe.

As for Doomsday, that was a money grubbing scheme to fill DC's pockets. And whilst I don't like making the animal/human comparison, whilst we are just another species of animal, we have developed our intelligence into making cultures and grasping knowledge of the world. Doomsday is an animal acting on instinct that didn't understand what he was doing nor could he be reasoned with. At the end of the day, you have to put the rabid dog down to stop the spread of disease.

In any case, for the few times Superman has killed, I can cite at least double the quotes where he admonishes killing in all its forms. So sorry but I'm afraid Superman killing is a very good thing to focus on why the film was massively flawed.

The no killing rule is flawed, even the real world heroes will resort to kill, if it means to save an innocent life. Prehaps you should be reminded that he was willing to let his love of his life die (even though it was an illusion) and for what? To protect his self image? or to feel some sense of morally superiority. Also the no killing rule was created by CCA for all comic book superheroes, not just superman. For the reason that they think comic books are linked to violence, drug abused and criminal activities of the youth during the 50's. Much like how video games are seen today. So really, what you think is the true core of superman's character, is really just a base for every other superheroes at that time. Overtime the code gets changed, and some less restricting writing could see the daylight. And then it was finally abolished in the 2000s, Im not saying Superman should go all punisher, but to have superman to not kill ever, even if it means to save innocent lifes or even someone he holds dear, just so he could be morally clean, is just selfish.

Semi-rant over.

#85 Posted by Lvenger (17848 posts) - - Show Bio

@overlord0: I still disagree with that well written semi rant but I've argued this particular case over and over again on here

#86 Edited by SuperEnd (89 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: There's no real point in arguing with someone in general, people are not really all that fund of being wrong. So to try winning someone over to thier side seems kinda pointless. Lets all just lay Down our arms and walk away :P