The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[habitual]

Until now

Hab

[Liam Rodgers]

Sorry that the truth hurts you that much.

Bye.

Truth? You are so fucking confused I actually feel sorry for you but your highly subjective, baseless rhetoric triggers my Autism, so if I don't put you on ignore I'm going to say hurtful, nasty fucking things to you and I'd rather not.

Superman used to kill, then times changed and so did he. Now times are changing again and so must Superman. There is no preferred point of reference to draw upon, so all of your complaints are meaningless.

[Spektre]

Truth? You are so fucking confused I actually feel sorry for you but your highly subjective, baseless rhetoric triggers my Autism, so if I don't put you on ignore I'm going to say hurtful, nasty fucking things to you and I'd rather not.

Superman used to kill, then times changed and so did he. Now times are changing again and so must Superman. There is no preferred point of reference to draw upon, so all of your complaints are meaningless.

I draw on continuity, but you continue to draw on your autism if it suits you.

[Herald]

Truth? You are so fucking confused I actually feel sorry for you but your highly subjective, baseless rhetoric triggers my Autism, so if I don't put you on ignore I'm going to say hurtful, nasty fucking things to you and I'd rather not.

It doesn't matter to me which way you go. I've told this sort of truth so often over the years, and it's pissed off so many people like you that, frankly, I've had all sorts of rage hurled against me. And you know what?? I'm still the one standing after they've all fallen away.

And I mean ALL sorts of rage, from ALL corners.

So I'm not concerned about one more cow mooing in the corral. Especially if that bovine is not on the same level as the former Executive Editor/current co-publisher of DC Comics, who put me in a comic book. Sorry.

That said, I'm sure some of the people around here, given THEIR experiences with me, would suggest that you figure out how to work that Ignore function. So there you go.

[Strict31]

I'm so glad you asked.

The trope in question is called "Railroading". Snyderman was Railroaded into killing by a cynical writer (David S. Goyer) and director (the guy who puts the "Snyder" in "Snyderman"), which is why the utterly compromised character they upchucked isn't Superman.

More Darker and Edgier garbage from people who do Believe a Man Can Fly, yet somehow can't Believe a Man Won't Kill. Call me when they find some people willing to do the job of portraying Superman RIGHT.



Not at all. It's harder to decide NOT to kill in such a dangerous situation as the one you mentioned. Snyderman took the EASY way out of his predicament, which is why he's a poor role model, and again, NOT Superman. And there's every reason to suspect that he'll continue to use this tactic in the future; after all, he did it this time, and it worked without a hitch! So, he has every reason to do it every time he gets in a situation he can't handle... and considering he's still a rookie, that's probably going to be a LOT of times. As I said earlier in this thread, the second Luthor pulls his "I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove ANYthing!!" schtick, and Snyderman realizes that Lex is right, there's no concrete proof of his wrongdoing, and this guy's going to get off scot-free -- CRACK!!

That's the problem with going over that cliff the first time; It Gets Easier to justify it the next time, and the next time, and the next time...



Which is why Snyderman killing is boring.

You can find a TON of other characters with no problem killing, from Dirty Harry and James Bond, on down to two of Marvel's favorite sons, Wolverine and the Punisher. Some characters can and should take the harder path of NOT mowing down their adversaries like grass, like Superman.



It's a challenge to stay on the "straight and narrow path" of not killing than to simply slaughter whatever gets in your way. When you're as powerful as Superman, you have to be more skillful and considerate to hit someone so that they're KOed without causing permanent damage or death. It's more difficult to restrain yourself -- ESPECIALLY if you're Superman -- than to completely cut loose and not give a (expletive of choice) about the well-being of your foes AND all innocent bystanders. You yourself mentioned JLU Superman; well, I'm pretty sure he mentioned this in a memorable Speech of some sort!!

THAT is the difference between the REAL Superman and the cheap pretender that is Snyderman.

You also said, "In superhero comics, it's almost a given that the heroes have the ability to not only fight the bad guys, but also save innocent bystanders being placed in danger by their super-fights." Well, it's also a given that the heroes have the ability to fight the bad guys without massacring them, while still saving those innocent bystanders. And nobody exemplifies this particular given better than Superman. Again, it's how you tell the Real Steel Deal from Goyer and Snyder's craptastic fake; the latter FAILED this test!



Superman -- or any other character -- can be imperfect without killing, as he's demonstrated numerous times before. (Interesting that one apparently has to resort to having a character murder people just to prove how "imperfect" said character is... ) And hey... it IS that Snyderman's creators over the time they created this ill-considered movie have forgotten THAT.

I'm glad you looked up that trope for me. I figured it existed (even if it didn't five minutes before I mentioned your name), but I was disinclined to provide that site with any of my unique hits.

I figured we were gonna disagree with this, and I realize that arguing with you is as productive as arguing with a brick wall that thinks it's not a brick wall...

Oh come on, I'm just joking with ya. I haven't had the chance to poke fun at you in a year, man.

But jokes aside, I think we fundamentally disagree on what comprises a boring character. I don't find the concept of Superman boring. In concept, he is my favorite superhero. I find the execution boring; not just with Superman, and certainly not every story. But more often than not, I get the feeling that superheroes are interchangeable with each other. Their morality is often the same, and half the time, their morality is their character.

Now, you seem to be suggesting that it's easy to write a character into a situation where he has no choice but to kill. I'm suggesting that it's even easier to write a situation where the character always has options aside from killing. And usually, this is done by just ignoring shit.

I mean, it's cool for the Flash to routinely move at 9/10ths the speed of light on the surface of the planet, because his kick-ass Speed Force can absorb all the heat he'd generate from friction and all the kinetic disturbances he'd create which would snap the planet in half.

But when Superman gets punched to the moon and flies back to Earth in less than a second, what's his excuse? He's got no Speed Force to deflect all those destructive energies from resulting when you have an object moving that goddamn fast. I can think of at least one occasion when Superman's velocity would have ignited the atmosphere.

comic books ignore this, because nobody reading them wants to think of how many people Superman would kill just by exceeding escape velocity at sea level. And hey, we're probably gonna disagree, but that seems like the simple option. The uncomplicated option. Superman doesn't have to worry about that apartment building he just got punched through because I'm sure Green Lantern and Wonder Woman evacuated it beforehand. He doesn't have to worry about bullets bouncing off his chest to hit random citizens a few hundred feet away, because those guy were probably up to no good anyway.

Writers just hand-wave this shit away. Not always, but often enough to qualify as a trope. Ahem.

But one of the fundamental rules of storytelling is to provide challenges and obstacles for your characters so that they can grow and develop in meaningful ways. A Superman who is never faced with untenable options is a Superman for whom everything works out. And hell, even Super-Jesus had to make some sacrifices.

But hey, sure, maybe Superman could have subdued Zod and thrown him into jail. Oh, except for the part where Zod could have turned any jail cell into sculpture. Or maybe they could have written a different ending in which a magical unicorn comes down from Space-Heaven to poke Zod with his horn and remove all his powers, right after Superman punches him in the dick...just because, y'know...Zod kinda deserved to be punched in the dick.

Then Superman could go off and fuck Lois and her hot sister from the TV series, confident that his morals will never be challenged in any significant way. That's a Superman who has a safety net, and yeah, to me, at least, that's kinda boring.

But like what you like. I'm not telling you you're insane for liking the types of stories you like (you're insane for entirely different reasons...). I'm just explaining why I didn't have a problem with him killing Zod.

[Herald]

I'm glad you looked up that trope for me.

Actually, that was one of the many that I already knew about.

I figured it existed (even if it didn't five minutes before I mentioned your name), but I was disinclined to provide that site with any of my unique hits.

C'mon, let TV Tropes Ruin Your Life! And Your Little Vocabulary, too!!

I figured we were gonna disagree with this, and I realize that arguing with you is as productive as arguing with a brick wall that thinks it's not a brick wall...

Oh come on, I'm just joking with ya. I haven't had the chance to poke fun at you in a year, man.

I don't mind!

But jokes aside, I think we fundamentally disagree on what comprises a boring character. I don't find the concept of Superman boring. In concept, he is my favorite superhero. I find the execution boring; not just with Superman, and certainly not every story. But more often than not, I get the feeling that superheroes are interchangeable with each other. Their morality is often the same, and half the time, their morality is their character.

If you feel that way, then you've been reading the wrong superhero stories, written by the wrong people. (In other words, almost anything created during the DiDio era! ) These heroes, properly written, are anything but interchangeable. They have different experiences, different abilities/training, and have a different circle of friends and acquaintances, all of which affect their personalities and outlooks.

Now, you seem to be suggesting that it's easy to write a character into a situation where he has no choice but to kill.

"So easy a Goyer can do it!"

I'm suggesting that it's even easier to write a situation where the character always has options aside from killing. And usually, this is done by just ignoring shit.

I mean, it's cool for the Flash to routinely move at 9/10ths the speed of light on the surface of the planet, because his kick-ass Speed Force can absorb all the heat he'd generate from friction and all the kinetic disturbances he'd create which would snap the planet in half.

But when Superman gets punched to the moon and flies back to Earth in less than a second, what's his excuse? He's got no Speed Force to deflect all those destructive energies from resulting when you have an object moving that goddamn fast. I can think of at least one occasion when Superman's velocity would have ignited the atmosphere.

And yet, you're willing to grant the creators the notion that A Man Can Fly AT ALL. WithOUT lift or constant propulsion to keep him aloft. And, for that matter, you buy into the notion of a Speed Force that conveniently protects the Flash from heat, and the rest of the world from his kinetic disturbances.

I always find it interesting how people conveniently select where their Willing Suspension of Disbelief begins and ends when it comes to superhero stories. If we didn't agree to "ignore shit" like the impossibility of Superman flying or Flash running at near-light-speed, these stories couldn't exist.

comic books ignore this, because nobody reading them wants to think of how many people Superman would kill just by exceeding escape velocity at sea level.

No, they ignore this because the stories won't work at all unless you agree to buy that Superman can do this. If you're reading these stories with the notion that only this pure science you're espousing matters, and anything that contradicts pure science is a crock of crap, how are you conceding the fact that Superman can FLY?? How can you stand to read a Superman story AT ALL?? The Speed Force doesn't work with real-world science, either; how are you buying into that in every Flash story, much less thinking it's "kick-ass"??

And hey, we're probably gonna disagree, but that seems like the simple option. The uncomplicated option. Superman doesn't have to worry about that apartment building he just got punched through because I'm sure Green Lantern and Wonder Woman evacuated it beforehand. He doesn't have to worry about bullets bouncing off his chest to hit random citizens a few hundred feet away, because those guy were probably up to no good anyway.

Writers just hand-wave this shit away. Not always, but often enough to qualify as a trope. Ahem.

Like I said: Willing Suspension of Disbelief

Again: You are sure willing to believe that Superman can fly AT ALL; otherwise, you would never have been willing to tolerate reading a Superman story in the first place. Same goes for every other superhero story you've ever read, given their abilities. Even Batman crosses the line by "mastering 127 martial arts", plus detective abilities, various sciences, and everything else, between the ages of 8 and 25.

But one of the fundamental rules of storytelling is to provide challenges and obstacles for your characters so that they can grow and develop in meaningful ways. A Superman who is never faced with untenable options is a Superman for whom everything works out. And hell, even Super-Jesus had to make some sacrifices.

Some people, when faced with a Sadistic Choice, can figure out how to Take a Third Option. Superman is one of those people.

But hey, sure, maybe Superman could have subdued Zod and thrown him into jail. Oh, except for the part where Zod could have turned any jail cell into sculpture. Or maybe they could have written a different ending in which a magical unicorn comes down from Space-Heaven to poke Zod with his horn and remove all his powers, right after Superman punches him in the dick...just because, y'know...Zod kinda deserved to be punched in the dick.

Instead of snapping Zod's neck, Snyderman had the option of incapacitating him by poking into that neck and snapping his spinal cord. And, to stop heat vision, poke out his eyes.

Problem Solved.

There IS a Third Option, IF the character is allowed to take one...

Also, Zod's powered by SUNLIGHT. Keep him out of the Sun, and he eventually loses his powers altogether.

Then Superman could go off and fuck Lois and her hot sister from the TV series, confident that his morals will never be challenged in any significant way. That's a Superman who has a safety net, and yeah, to me, at least, that's kinda boring.

Superman can be (and has been!) challenged without FAILING the challenge, as Snyderman did. Now, if you want to see heroes fail such challenges of life, I suggest you check out Marvel's heroes, not DC's. DC heroes, especially the likes of Superman, shouldn't be Marvelized just because some people find failure and angst interesting, and success and happiness boring.

But like what you like. I'm not telling you you're insane for liking the types of stories you like (you're insane for entirely different reasons...).

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

Never forget:

I'm just explaining why I didn't have a problem with him killing Zod.

Just as I explained why he had no business killing Zod.

[Spektre]

Zod was pretty darn invulnerable at that point. Had he figured out how to fly?

Drill a hole to near center of the Earth and leave him there buried until depowered.

[Strict31]

Herald, I will address some of your points, but not in quote form as that has become tedious for me.

I find it interesting that you mention willing suspension of disbelief when you are unwilling to allow yourself to do so. For every battle in (I guess, pre-Didio DC) comics that has leveled a city or town or building, but saw no bystanders killed, you were willing to suspend your disbelief.

But because you refuse to accept this movie on any terms but the worst, you cannot make the same leap. You accept that Superman's beatdown of Darkseid in JLU harmed no civilians, presumably, since you seem to have a favorable opinion of that example. The only difference is that you're already predisposed to dislike Man of Steel.

Otherwise, it would be no leap for you to accept that these building falling like rain in Metropolis had been evacuated, just as they are in the comics. But at the same time, it's not as if DC...PRE-Didio DC... never slew innocents while the heroes stood helpless. Crisis eradicated entire worlds of innocents, despite the best efforts of dozens of Supermen, and yet, I do not see your ire for such a failure of writing. In Giffen Era JLA/JLI, Despero smashes the city of New York before the Martian Manhunter could contain him, and the heroes were so beset by Despero's power that they could barely even protect themselves much less innocent bystanders.

And where was Superman?

Your suspension of disbelief is painfully selective. You should find it interesting, herald. And in fact, you should be able to find it in the mirror I have set before you. If you, as I, can accept that a man can fly in some fantasy tale, then it should be no great leap to accept that those building in Metropolis and those storefronts had been cleared out. Just as they usually are when Superman starts getting knocked into shit in the very same comics that are free of Didio's apparently accursed touch.

And Superman has willfully killed in pre-Didio comics. Whether or not you accept his execution of Zod as canon or not, it was published. Maybe that's one of the comics you include under the banner of bad writing. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But it's certainly pre-Didio, and it was published. Of course, you also talk about "the wrong comics" as though you classify as some sort of arbiter. Well...we've already established that you're INSANE so I will keep my own counsel as to what constitutes the wrong comics to read. And you, of course, should keep your own.

But yeah, I do feel that up until the modern era, and excluding a few notable exceptions (the aforementioned JLI, for example) superheroes from both companies have been at many times, interchangeable. You could take captain America and give him Superman's powers, and he'd be doing the exact same thing Superman does every month. I remember re-reading Galactic Storm a few months back and the only characters who really stood out as different in personality were Quasar and Wonder Man.

Yes, their histories and back-stories vary widely and wildly, but this variance seems to routinely produce individuals of the exact same moral bent. Despite being an alcoholic playboy, Iron Man was no more willing to sacrifice lives than was Captain America who was a loyal soldier.

I'm not saying every superhero is like that, but too many of them are to ignore, and that's a failing of the writing. For too long, writers followed what seemed like a safe pattern. Like...writing by numbers.

You also talk about writers ignoring that which won't allow their stories to work. A superhero fantasy cannot work if, every time a hero punches someone, that guy's chest gets caved in and his intestines explode out of his ass. As such, we almost always see heroes pulling their punches. These types of stories require that conceit of suspended disbelief, yes. We take for granted that Superman is not punching a thug with his full strength. We take it for granted that the bullets bouncing off his chest do not hit stray civilians. We take it for granted that someone, somehow managed to evac all those buildings and homes right before someone with an adamantium ass got pimp-slapped throuigh them by someone with a warhammer made of unobtanium.

And if we refuse to make that choice to accept them, we tend not to enjoy the subject matter.

In this case, you've already refused that choice with Man of Steel. You refuse to accept that an impossible choice is a valid challenge in any type of story, be it comedy or fantasy or adventure. And you refuse to accept this because you clearly dislike Goyer and Snyder and Didio and god-only-knows-who-else. This prejudices your ability to suspend your disbelief in regards to Man of Steel, and it seems really rather arbitrary.

[Arion]

Yup and we spent the whole summer talking about it. Not only does controversy sell, it allowed WB to dominate the super hero news cycle for months.

The most impressive thing is that we are still talking about it today.

[Herald]

"So if you loved the Christopher Reeve-era Superman movies, but wish that they made 'em less hopeful, killed countless civilians, visualized our worst fears of urban terrorism, and had Superman overcome his first villain by murdering him with his bare hands...

...then DC has made the reboot for YOU, PSYCHO!!"

[Herald]

Herald, I will address some of your points, but not in quote form as that has become tedious for me.

I find it interesting that you mention willing suspension of disbelief when you are unwilling to allow yourself to do so. For every battle in (I guess, pre-Didio DC) comics that has leveled a city or town or building, but saw no bystanders killed, you were willing to suspend your disbelief.

But because you refuse to accept this movie on any terms but the worst, you cannot make the same leap. You accept that Superman's beatdown of Darkseid in JLU harmed no civilians, presumably, since you seem to have a favorable opinion of that example. The only difference is that you're already predisposed to dislike Man of Steel.

Otherwise, it would be no leap for you to accept that these building falling like rain in Metropolis had been evacuated, just as they are in the comics. But at the same time, it's not as if DC...PRE-Didio DC... never slew innocents while the heroes stood helpless. Crisis eradicated entire worlds of innocents, despite the best efforts of dozens of Supermen, and yet, I do not see your ire for such a failure of writing. In Giffen Era JLA/JLI, Despero smashes the city of New York before the Martian Manhunter could contain him, and the heroes were so beset by Despero's power that they could barely even protect themselves much less innocent bystanders.

And where was Superman?

Your suspension of disbelief is painfully selective. You should find it interesting, herald. And in fact, you should be able to find it in the mirror I have set before you. If you, as I, can accept that a man can fly in some fantasy tale, then it should be no great leap to accept that those building in Metropolis and those storefronts had been cleared out. Just as they usually are when Superman starts getting knocked into shit in the very same comics that are free of Didio's apparently accursed touch.

I find it interesting that you think that I have such a major problem with civilian casualties, when I've made it pretty clear that Snyderman killing is the main issue I have with the "Man of Steel" movie. (Well, the main issue that we've brought up in our discussion, anyway. I also dislike the fact that Snyderman is a beacon of fear rather than hope, like the REAL Superman is.)

And, possibly MORE interesting: Given the tone that you appear to be using, it's clear that you're no longer in a joking mood.

And Superman has willfully killed in pre-Didio comics. Whether or not you accept his execution of Zod as canon or not, it was published. Maybe that's one of the comics you include under the banner of bad writing. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But it's certainly pre-Didio, and it was published.

And post-Crisis Superman personally, majorly suffered from killing Zod and his pals. Afterwards, he banished himself to space. And then, he became an amnesiac, returning to Earth only to believe himself to be a non-powered crimefighter called Gangbuster.

And the murder STILL haunted him for years after that. Including LITERALLY, in his "Ghosts" Annual:



On your side of the coin, what karmic backlash has Snyderman suffered?? NONE, really. He came out of Zod's murder scot-free. He's not banishing himself to space in penitence for what he's done; the guy's clearly walked it off. Murder's no issue for him anymore.

The takeaway for Snyderman and the audience in this movie: Killing is GREAT! It neatly solves all your problems! Snyderman gets to say what so many anti-heroes and outright VILLAINS always say to justify themselves: "Yeah, I killed people! I Did What I Had to Do!! And It WORKED!!" So the next time Snyderman comes up against a foe that he can't just breeze through, he should kill again! And the next time and the next time! And all times after that! After all, it worked so well the first time, so why not??

This is why Snyderman is NOT Superman.

Of course, you also talk about "the wrong comics" as though you classify as some sort of arbiter.

As does everyone else here, at one time or another. I hear that some people here even write review columns, or make joke articles that ultimately espouse their notions of what they think is right and wrong with comics.

Well...we've already established that you're INSANE

No, we've established that "We're ALL mad here." You're in no better position than I am. Sorry.

so I will keep my own counsel as to what constitutes the wrong comics to read. And you, of course, should keep your own.

Again, if you've come to the conclusion that these characters are interchangeable, then frankly, you're doing something wrong. They are demonstrably not interchangeable.

But yeah, I do feel that up until the modern era, and excluding a few notable exceptions (the aforementioned JLI, for example) superheroes from both companies have been at many times, interchangeable. You could take captain America and give him Superman's powers, and he'd be doing the exact same thing Superman does every month.

HORRIBLY incorrect.

Cap wouldn't have the same resources that Superman does: The Daily Planet's access to up-to-date news about crimes and disasters to avert; the Fortress of Solitude's Kryptonian science, not to mention Superman's friends in the Bottle City of Kandor; Superman's Justice League allies and headquarters, etc.

Also, Cap is a high-ranking soldier; he's good at devising tactics and telling his teammates what to do. Superman, on the other hand, is a Messianic Archetype; he leads by example and inspiration, not by barking commands at people. Even when he's the nominal leader of the Justice League, he usually leaves the marching orders up to Batman.

All in all, if Cap got Superman's powers, he certainly would NOT be doing the exact same thing Superman does.

I see the problem now: You're looking at SURFACE similarities, while not seeing the DEPTH that these characters have. Thank you for providing a sample for me to diagnose this.

I remember re-reading Galactic Storm a few months back and the only characters who really stood out as different in personality were Quasar and Wonder Man.

If true, then the writer failed to do his job.

Yes, their histories and back-stories vary widely and wildly, but this variance seems to routinely produce individuals of the exact same moral bent. Despite being an alcoholic playboy, Iron Man was no more willing to sacrifice lives than was Captain America who was a loyal soldier.

That still doesn't mean that they would respond the same way in every situation. They're NOT interchangeable.

I'm not saying every superhero is like that, but too many of them are to ignore, and that's a failing of the writing. For too long, writers followed what seemed like a safe pattern. Like...writing by numbers.

Like I said, maybe you've read the wrong stuff, then. Or maybe you're demanding something out of these characters that would make them unrecognizable. Frankly, liking Snyderman suggests that the latter might be so.

In this case, you've already refused that choice with Man of Steel. You refuse to accept that an impossible choice is a valid challenge in any type of story, be it comedy or fantasy or adventure.

No, I refuse to accept that there isn't a Third Option simply because David Goyer wants Snyderman to kill.

The problem is that you, Goyer, and Snyder insist that I take your word for it that what Snyderman faced actually is "an impossible choice". Sorry, fellas, but I insist on deciding that for myself. And I demonstrated that said "impossible choice" wasn't what it was cracked up to be. All it took to find this Third Option was NOT automatically assuming that Snyderman has to kill in order to win, like you guys did. Avoiding that assumption, and finding such a Third Option is what a REAL Superman does.

And you refuse to accept this because you clearly dislike Goyer and Snyder and Didio and god-only-knows-who-else. This prejudices your ability to suspend your disbelief in regards to Man of Steel, and it seems really rather arbitrary.

Incorrect. I actually liked Goyer's work up to this point, and had no opinion of Snyder one way or the other.

[Spektre]

"So if you loved the Christopher Reeve-era Superman movies, but wish that they made 'em less hopeful, killed countless civilians, visualized our worst fears of urban terrorism, and had Superman overcome his first villain by murdering him with his bare hands...

...then DC has made the reboot for YOU, PSYCHO!!"

"It's a bird, it's a plane, it's....coming right for us EVERYBODY RUN!!!"

I can barely type through the tears lol

[Strict31]

I find it interesting that you think that I have such a major problem with civilian casualties, when I've made it pretty clear that Snyderman killing is the main issue I have with the "Man of Steel" movie. (Well, the main issue that we've brought up in our discussion, anyway. I also dislike the fact that Snyderman is a beacon of fear rather than hope, like the REAL Superman is.)

And, possibly MORE interesting: Given the tone that you appear to be using, it's clear that you're no longer in a joking mood.

I think I may have said this before, but, irony, thy name is Herald.

Or...was that "insanity, thy name is Herald"...? Whichever. After a day spent dealing with indecisive potheads and people I cannot legally kill, there's nothing you've stated which has done anything more than cause me to genuinely enjoy the time I spend away from real world fools.

So, there is no reason to fear; I am not angry.

I simply feel that your dislike of Snyder and Goyer has prejudiced you against this movie. You say that he is a beacon of fear as opposed to hope. I'm not really sure how you could reach such a conclusion. At each point in his life in the movie, the dude inspires hope and loyalty. Even as a child, he singlehandedly transforms Pete Ross from a douche into a decent kid who is willing to give him a hand. Superman ultimately places his faith in humanity, and that faith is rewarded.

And post-Crisis Superman personally, majorly suffered from killing Zod and his pals. Afterwards, he banished himself to space. And then, he became an amnesiac, returning to Earth only to believe himself to be a non-powered crimefighter called Gangbuster.

And the murder STILL haunted him for years after that. Including LITERALLY, in his "Ghosts" Annual:



On your side of the coin, what karmic backlash has Snyderman suffered??

You're aware that the karmic backlash you have described is...lame, right? I mean, he thought he was a guy called Gangbuster? What, is that supposed to be deep? Poignant?

And banishing himself to space is like the most self-centered thing he could possibly do that doesn't involve carving his own face onto Mt. Rushmore with his dick. People on Earth didn't suddenly stop needing to be saved just because Superman felt tortured about executing a madman. Nut-up, Superman. You've still got a job to do.

But I agree, Superman should feel horrible for what he had to do. And the anguish he displayed immediately after snapping Zod's neck was indicative of that. That was pretty much the end of the movie, so any karmic backlash for killing an evil madman bent on worldwide slaughter probably was never going to last beyond the next five minutes.

And this wasn't a case of, say, some cop shooting a kid in a dark alley only to find the gun the kid had was a water-pistol. This was "you kill me or I'm going to rape the grave of your mom in the butt!" This was, "see that family over there? I'm going to vaporize them with my eyes unless you can find my off-switch!"

Superman might feel anguish for what he did, but I don't think the universe is gonna miss Zod.

NONE, really. He came out of Zod's murder scot-free. He's not banishing himself to space in penitence for what he's done; the guy's clearly walked it off. Murder's no issue for him anymore.

You've adnavced now from labeling it as "killing" to decrying it as "murder." Again, this in indicative of bias. Even U.S. law would not define Superman's actions as murder. Hell, A jury in Texas acquitted a man several years back of shooting a couple of guys who merely seemed like they were breaking into someone else's house.

If Superman's killing of Zod is murder in any way, it's only according to your biased opinion of it. It might classify as manslaughter if either of the guys involved were even human. For it to classify as murder, it must have malice aforethought. That was absent.

At best, you might call it justifiable homicide, because Zod clearly posed an immediate threat to the lives of innocents. And making as much of an issue as you have with it is like being upset that Aragorn never faced any karmic backlash for mercilessly slaughtering all those poor aggrieved orcs and goblins.

I agree that the knowledge of what he did should torment him. But I think the movie accomplished this with his reaction immediately following. Maybe in the Blu-Ray extras, they'll show a deleted twenty minute scene where Superman flagellates himself and begs forgiveness from Space-God. They would have tacked that scene onto the ending, but wouldn't you know it, apparently Dan Didio ordered it removed as he smoked cigars and screwed hookers in his Star Chamber.

The takeaway for Snyderman and the audience in this movie: Killing is GREAT! It neatly solves all your problems! Snyderman gets to say what so many anti-heroes and outright VILLAINS always say to justify themselves: "Yeah, I killed people! I Did What I Had to Do!! And It WORKED!!" So the next time Snyderman comes up against a foe that he can't just breeze through, he should kill again! And the next time and the next time! And all times after that! After all, it worked so well the first time, so why not??

This is why Snyderman is NOT Superman.

This is hardly the takeaway. It is your conclusion, based on a biased interpretation, which I have kindly illuminated above. Killing Zod, despite all he had done and promised he would do, was exactly the last thing Superman wanted to do. Otherwise, it would have been the first thing he did.

And shit...any mortal man would have killed Zod halfway through the movie when the nigga put his hands on his mama. I know I wouldn't have just settled for punching him repeatedly in the face. I would'a led with that whole neck-snapping thing. But then, Superman is supposed to be better than most men.

Hell...maybe it's to Superman's detriment from a modern sensibility that he didn't kill Zod when Zod and his gang choked his moms. Would have saved a lot of lives if Superman had just snapped his neck right then and there. But that's another typical conceit of the superhero genre. Batman refuses to kill the Joker, and so, fails to keep the nut from ever killing innocents again. Readers have to be able to ignore that basic equivalency in order to enjoy the fantasy of the genre.

But it's simple math at this point, and nearly every superhero in comics is allowed to ignore that ruthless calculus. But since we're smart people, we're not allowed to ignore it. Or rather, we must at least acknowledge it. Superman's restraint is titanic, because he doesn't want to kill Zod. he gives Zod every chance to stop. Begs him to stop, in fact.

As does everyone else here, at one time or another. I hear that some people here even write review columns, or make joke articles that ultimately espouse their notions of what they think is right and wrong with comics.

Not me. I've said numerous times in the past that I admit that what I like may be considered shit by others. But mostly, folks around here only here the part about me stabbing space bitches. But now, I want people to understand that I'm so much more than that. For example, I also find value in punching sharks. Not because I hate sharks, but because sharks are so awesome, and punching something awesome makes me even more awesome than that thing I just punched which was awesome.

I've read some of the dipshittiest comics and have enjoyed them, like Empowered.

Wait...actually, I may have once said that Millar's Authority was like being punched in the dick with an entire shark instead of a fist. But I was probably just exaggerating to make a point. And I may have just made that up on the spot to make a point. Or...did I...?

No, we've established that "We're ALL mad here." You're in no better position than I am. Sorry.

I'LL KILL YOU IN THE FACE!!!

Oh wait...sorry. That was the meds talking again.

Or...was it...?

Again, if you've come to the conclusion that these characters are interchangeable, then frankly, you're doing something wrong. They are demonstrably not interchangeable.

I would suggest that the writers are doing something wrong. For too much of comic book history, focal characters always represent the same bland and generic ideals. It is only the rare characterization that comes across as distinct and complex.

HORRIBLY incorrect.

Cap wouldn't have the same resources that Superman does: The Daily Planet's access to up-to-date news about crimes and disasters to avert; the Fortress of Solitude's Kryptonian science, not to mention Superman's friends in the Bottle City of Kandor; Superman's Justice League allies and headquarters, etc.

Also, Cap is a high-ranking soldier; he's good at devising tactics and telling his teammates what to do. Superman, on the other hand, is a Messianic Archetype; he leads by example and inspiration, not by barking commands at people. Even when he's the nominal leader of the Justice League, he usually leaves the marching orders up to Batman.

All in all, if Cap got Superman's powers, he certainly would NOT be doing the exact same thing Superman does.

Never mind the fact you've only managed to speak of methodology, but I'm speaking of personality and morality. You could put Superman right into the middle of the Winter Soldier storyline, and he'd react almost identically. Hell's bells, we even saw this in a JLU storyline. Several, in fact.

Or...oh, well, I guess it's possible that animated Superman was not the "real" Superman either...Maybe we need to come to an agreement on which version of Superman among the many version is the "real" Superman. Since he's a fictional being, written by dozens of different writers with dozens of different takes on him, I'm not really sure how to apply the term "real" in this context.

If true, then the writer failed to do his job.

I agree. And this is my entire point in raising the example. Bland, write-by-numbers characterization is a failure of the writer.

That still doesn't mean that they would respond the same way in every situation. They're NOT interchangeable.

Take a look at the old Onslaught storyline, right before Marvel launched Heroes reborn. Every single hero who was not an X-Man all reached the same conclusion at the same time. They all had to willingly die in order to stop Onslaught. And they all charged into this singular path with exactly the same amount of resolve. No one wavered; no one felt a twinge of fear or hesitation.

All these allegedly disparate individuals and personalities all arrived at the same course of action without variation.

Now, let's take a look at someone like Thor. Thor is the god of thunder and loves a good scrap. Which is the real Thor, though? Redheaded psycho who fucks and slaughters frost giants for peeing in a river (look it up)? Or the blonde do-gooder who shaves his face baby smooth and endeavors not to kill when he can avoid it?

Which is the "real" Thor?

But I digress. I read a story back in the day when Thor's health had been permanently damaged by Hela's kiss. He was fighting Kurse and was trying to protect Power Pack from harm. If you put Superman, who is supposed to be a radically different character than Thor into the same situation, do you think he wouldn't also try to keep Power Pack from harm? What about Wonder Woman? Or Reed Richards? They'd all do the exact same thing that Thor would, because to do anything less would be "out-of-character" for a hero.

This is because being a hero means the exact same thing to every hero. Cap's gonna throw himself at the fore of every fight, just like Superman will, even though his power-set is totally different; even though he has different resources and different background experiences, because it is what the baseline superhero is expected to do by the conceit of the genre.

Do you know why critics often reduce superhero comics to "wish fulfillment"? Because we, as the readers, are meant to be able to insert ourselves vicariously into the role of the hero. We're meant to identify with their virtues, even if their life experiences are like nothing we've ever encountered.

The best way to do that is to make sure that heroes make the same sorts of choices over and over again. Wolverine doesn't use those claws to kill because it put him in the wrong light for the audience. But he has killed and will again depending upon the writer, which makes it come across as absurd when he lectures Rachel Summers: "X-Men don't kill." He doesn't sound much different than Batman

Like I said, maybe you've read the wrong stuff, then. Or maybe you're demanding something out of these characters that would make them unrecognizable. Frankly, liking Snyderman suggests that the latter might be so.

I would demand something that makes these characters unrecognizable: complexity. Which means the writers do not give them simple, easy choices that allow them to maintain the staus quo without needing to grow and develop. And since character growth and development are anathema to the standard format of endlessly monthly comics, I don't read comics any more. I might read something like American Vampire or the Sixth Gun. And I would dearly love for you to make the case that these are the wrong comics to be reading...

But for the most part, I've grown very tired of seeing heroes do the same stuff over and over again. Peter parker grows up and gets married? let's change that shit. Superman bitch-slaps Darkseid for trying to vaporize his cousin? Hey, let's reboot the entire line.

But like I said, it's not every character and every title. I don't want anyone to think I'm casting my scorn over everything in a suit of unstable molecules. Like that same run of Thor I mentioned above, I really loved because of the way he struggled despite his weakness. There are characters who do break the mold while still holding to a heroic ideal. Static comes to mind. Blue Beetle (Jaime). Power Girl. Ms. Marvel. Captain Atom. Jenny Sparks. Elijah Snow (oh, please try to tell me Planetary was among the "wrong" comics to read...). Gail Simone's run on Wonder Woman. Brubaker's run on Captain America. Guy muthafuckin' Gardner. Nova (Richie Ryder); Silver Surfer.

[quote
No, I refuse to accept that there isn't a Third Option simply because David Goyer wants Snyderman to kill.[/quote]

He doesn't want Superman to kill. he wants Superman to face an impossible choice and to handle it in a manner that is complex and genuine.

The problem is that you, Goyer, and Snyder insist that I take your word for it that what Snyderman faced actually is "an impossible choice". Sorry, fellas, but I insist on deciding that for myself. And I demonstrated that said "impossible choice" wasn't what it was cracked up to be. All it took to find this Third Option was NOT automatically assuming that Snyderman has to kill in order to win, like you guys did. Avoiding that assumption, and finding such a Third Option is what a REAL Superman does.

Uh-oh. I feel like I'm being lumped in with things that you don't like. I will know call Didio and inform him that the plan is proceeding exactly as I have foreseen. He can now begin with Stage Two: SUPERMAN PUNCHES A BABY.

You're unwilling to suspend your disbelief. Your choice, bub. And yeah, it's cool that it's your choice to do so. All I'm saying to you is that it is a choice you have made. It is a choice that has more to do with your own personal desires and expectations than anything present in the movie.

Now, me...I dunno...I came into the movie with a dislike of Goyer's writing, from Blade to JSA; but also with the idea that I would simply be open to whatever they showed me over the next two hours. I don't think the movie was as good as it could have been; I don't think it even came close to The Avengers. The movie had some serious flaws for me.

But Waid's complaints seem totally off-base. And that's coming from a guy who has liked a lot of stuff Waid has written.

Incorrect. I actually liked Goyer's work up to this point, and had no opinion of Snyder one way or the other.

Well, we definitely disagree there. I'm not a fan of Goyer, but I think he works well in concert with others, like Christopher Nolan. I liked Synder's version of 300, but didn't care much for Sucker Punch, and felt Watchmen was...well shit, man, maybe Watchmen was like the white whale of comic book movies. I was hardly enthused to find Snyder was going to direct Man of Steel and that Goyer was attached to the script.

And while I found the movie had its flaws, as I said, none of those flaws really revolve around Superman killing Zod, who was a murderous, super-powered dick who was literally about to kill a family of innocents.

Maybe Superman could have found another way to keep Zod from frying those poor helpless humans in particular, but Zod made it clear not five minutes earlier that he was going to give Superman no choice but to kill him or be killed.

And yeah, maybe if Superman had more time, he could have cooked up a plan to simply dump Zod into the PZ. But the whole point was that he didn't have the time to explore other options. It was down to the wire; kill this guy or let him kill a family.

And it's not an indication that Superman thinks it's just shits and giggles to kill someone, because the choice was an agony for him. It's not an indication that the movie is telling small children it's okay to snap necks. And it's not an indication that David Goyer eats baby souls and forces toddlers to smoke cigars.

Although, Didio probably does this in his bunker twenty floors below sea level.

[Strict31]

P.S. You made me do this, Herald.

I just wanted to go play videogames, but you made me do this.



And it was fun! Thanks bro!

[Death Ray]

Hey, at least Superman didn't waterboard Zod first. Because then he'd have had to lock him up in the Phantom Zone for an indefinite period while we all pretended it wasn't the torture-obtained evidence preventing us from bringing him to trial.