BICYCLE REPAIR MAN!
Posted on 06/18/2013 2:33:00 PM PDT by craum
My Superman Doesn’t [....]
[Spoiler Space] 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
There has been some (but not much) talk about the fact that Superman kills in this latest telling of his legend. Much of this talk revolves around what he did, but I want to take a higher level view. The point isn’t to debate his behaviour – the writers are the creators. What they will is so. The point is to debate the meaning of his behaviour. Superman stories are a reflection of the times, and certainly, important issues of each era have been mirrored throughout the history of the Superman legend. The role the story tellers play is to be a kind of barometer of societal attitudes. This gives us a chance to look at where we are taking ourselves - the path we are on. A reality check, if such a thing were possible in fantasy and sci-fi.
I’ve enjoyed the Superman legend my whole life. One of the main reasons is because of what Superman stands for. Unconditional respect for all life. "The Ending Battle" with Black Manchester is the quintessential "Superman Does Not Kill" story. But that's just so boring and simplistic to today's morally sophisticated consumer. Yeah... So we are now in a time that is reflected by the prescient genius of Darrow and Miller's “Hard Boiled”.
http://www.questionsleep.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/miller_darrow1.jpg
We are in a time where writers tell stories that successfully entice people to cheer each week for a serial killer (Dexter). Video games that let us play a psycho killer as a valid story line. Some people think this just goes to show how we’ve grown up and want our entertainment and inspiration to come from the gritty real world. But these stories aren’t the real world. Beyond entertainment, stories are meant to put us in a world that inspires and teaches us. Instead, today’s culture shows what a nihilistic, self absorbed, unrestrained society we've become.
Goyer and Nolan wrote the script for Superman to kill; for unrestrained, almost pornographic, violent destruction. They did this as a reflection of the times we live in. This movie is a mirror that shows us as a violent, amorally nihilist society. What does all this mean in real terms? As an example, a sizable chunk of our society thinks it’s OK to kill Americans without trial using drone strikes. The writers had Superman omnipotently chose a final solution to his problem because it reflects our experience in real life. Additionally, people who don’t like a Superman who *doesn’t* kill betray their attitudes by cynically using words like “Dudley do right” or “boy scout”. It’s so much easier to drag Superman down to their level, rather than leave Superman where he belongs – as an ideal of goodness for us all to strive for.
C. Raum
Like many other super hero he never needs to use a restroom.
Superman killed to save innocents. He had no other choice. None. This is a huge endorsement of the concept of defense of others. See “Just War” by Saint Thomas Acquinas for a deeper look. BTW this is also an almost uniquely American part of our law: even civilians can use deadly force to not only defend themselves but also others.
I had no problem with it. None. Quite the opposite in fact.
or eat
Oh and as for the destruction, when powerful good battles powerful evil, things like cities get broken. Cf WWII.
Excellent post. As a ‘by the way’; Superman killed Zod (and two others) by kryptonite poisoning in the comics circa 1987.
1. Hitch-hike
2. Show PDA with Lois in “uniform”
3. Wash his suit, ever.
Probably just as well.
BICYCLE REPAIR MAN!
I agree, the only problem I had was the cussing. Was it necessary? No!
This is a pointless exercise. He had no choice, it was either him or Zod, Zod said basically the same thing. Zod would have not stopped until Superman and the Earth were destroyed, or Zod was dead.
It was obvious he didn’t want to kill him, and gave him MANY MANY MANY opportunities to stop.
“Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.”
I just wonder how many people got killed in all those buildings in the fight at the end.
Superman shouldn’t have even kept Zod in the city, he should have flown off, Zod would have followed. Then he could have incapacitated him and Earth could have locked him up.
So what if superheroes kill bad guys? I cannot stand fantasy or science-fiction stories where the really really bad guy is spared because the main character think, “Enough people die for today.” Even knowing that the bad guy might kill again in the future.
To me it’s a very elitist and hierarchical position: bad important guy lives to reach enlightenment, other not-so important guys can die with no consequence.
I am always disappointed when a hero does not get the kill on a true, evil villain so the villain knows he/she was defeated. The villain always seems to die anonymously by something falling on them or an explosion of their own making etc...
Also makes for a crappy sequel.
Why would Zod have followed him? He can hang back and kill humans all day until Superman comes back to the battleground Zod chose in the first place. The only difference between what Superman does in the movie and what you propose is the number of dead people.
I haven’t seen the latest Superman or maybe a few others.
Does Zod ever actually say, “Kneel Before Zod”?
In the original Superman being a mild manor newspaper reported was a respected and noble occupation. I have not seen the movie but does he still have a job?
I think read that in the first season it aired, there was tons of violence and killings on ‘Superman’ starring George Reeves. They toned it down after that 1st year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.