Metropolis Mailbag: Forbes article?
drakayl asked:
Have you guys read the "Why Superman Can Kill: In Defense of Man of Steel" piece on Forbes? I ... have my own opinion* on it, but I wanted to see what the official 86-99 response is.
I'm still on vacation (and I haven't even read the article), so I'll let the great @donsparrow answer this one:
“I actually agree with the Forbes article, now that I've read it—his list is pretty exhaustive, and well-researched. I also like that the author takes care to say that people who hold the opposite view, that Superman should never kill, are not wrong, they're just choosing to represent a different part of the Superman canon. This issue has become so contentious, and is almost a litmus test on Twitter among comics creators, all of whom I really admire, so I almost hesitate to weigh in. That's the thing—with almost 100 years of comics, there's no one “right” way to do it. While one interpretation (say, Christopher Reeve's performance) may seem the most correct to the largest number of people, there will still be people who like the 50s TV show, or who prefer the 30s golem style avenger, or still others who like what I would call the shallow basdassery of the Injustice Video Game Superman.
So if I had to sum up my conclusion on this matter succinctly, I'd say: I prefer a Superman who doesn't kill, and has never killed. But as this article states, Superman has killed, and despite this, some of the best writers Superman comics have ever had didn't shy away from it, and turned it into fascinating stories. Also, as in Biblical translation, there is a difference, conceptually, between killing and murdering. Superman certainly has never murdered.
In the first place, as this article correctly states, any assertion that Superman just plain doesn't kill simply hasn't been true in virtually every incarnation and era of the character. Superman killed fairly indiscriminately well into the 50s, appeared to kill all three Super-criminals in Superman II (unless the crevasses they were tossed into were some sort of unexplained backdoor to the phantom zone, as I thought as a child—and in fact in the ABC TV cut, Superman destroys the fortress with his heat vision with all three still inside) as well as killing three Kryptonians again in a Byrne issue of Superman from 1988—which stayed in continuity well into the 2010s. I had forgotten about Superman killing Mxyzptlk in that Alan Moore story, but being the non-Alan-Moore fan that I am, that's not surprising (what kind of mind WANTS to think up stuff like wonderful lovable Krypto biting a guy's throat out and then dying of radiation sickness?)
Superman also killed Doomsday in self-defense (though we know how that all turned out) but all of this is to say, there are plenty of examples that disprove the idea that Superman doesn't kill (the 1988 one was very well handled, I thought, by the writers that followed Byrne, and the tailspin his grief and guilt made for some truly interesting stories).
It would be closer to the truth to say “Superman doesn't kill humans” because to my knowledge, he never has, in any of the comics I've read in the modern era.
Don't get me wrong, I still prefer a Superman who doesn't kill, but at the same time, as a Superman fan, how many times have we seen a story where Superman fights Kryptonians that ends with them being tricked into the phantom zone? So while I disliked the fact that he killed Zod, it at least made me sit up and take notice, that this is indeed a very different Superman story than I am used to seeing. Also, I thought Cavill's acting in that scene was very powerful (and that he's gotten very little credit for it). Truthfully, given the drama of the situation, and how Zod clearly wished to die, I was more bothered by Clark drinking a beer (or the rumours that he lives with Lois unwed in the next film) than I was with him killing to defend innocent people.
I understand Waid's point and that of others, like Dan Slott, about the film not "earning" such an ending, but this film was so packed with backstory and character and yes, action, that there really wasn't time to set things up the way I would have liked. This film had the added pressure of paying for the perceived "sins" of Superman Returns (full disclosure: Brandon Routh and I are best friends so I don't have an unbiased opinion on his film) , and had to err on the side of wall-to-wall action and spectacle, to "atone" for a Superman film where fans (not me, best friends, remember?) complain that Superman spent the last 30 mins of screen time in a hospital bed (to say nothing about these fans complaints of Superman being a deadbeat daddy who stalks Lois and people complain is a worse guy than the human raising his secret son).
I keep hearing about the collateral damage as well, and in the first place, I think people are being strangely hard on Man of Steel for this, which happens in every movie nowadays.
(Now, bear with me—I hate putting down one film to defend another, but I do think there is some selective memory at work, here.)
Was there really less damage in Avengers, simply because we got a single line where policemen are instructed by Cap to evacuate? Look at what happened to Gotham in the months and months that Wayne was out of action in The Dark Knight Rises (to say nothing of the carnage of the fear infected people of the narrows, or the people who lived downtown on the rail line in Batman Begins). In the 1989 Batman, Bruce blows up a damn building full of people!
The other thing about the destruction is that, unfortunately, that is what would happen if two Kryptonians did battle. The fighting would be too fast and intense for Superman to be able to get away to a safe place, even if he weren't just about on the first day with his powers. The quickest way to save the Earth was to stop the machine that would have killed all 7 billion of us, even if it meant hundreds dying while he was away in the Indian Ocean doing it.
I prefer the Reeve Superman films, as they are much closer to how I imagine Superman—even if there are morality and logic lapses all over the place in those films as well. But that's just the point—this film wasn't made for old school Superman fans like you, or me, or Mark Waid or Dan Slott. It was made for a whole new generation of people who don't tune out as I do when it's too much noisy CGI action. It's made for people raised on video games, and I think it succeeded in introducing this character for a new generation. As I said in my last message, we now have seen why Superman would never kill in the future (in the same way that we can now understand, from Batman Begins, why Bruce will never use a firearm) and I imagine that's going to continue to be explored in the upcoming Justice League films.
But thinking about the imperfection of even the Reeve films (in just the first two films, we see a sexually active Superman, who abandons the world he has sworn to protect to get laid in the fortress, who kills his enemies, mindwipes the love of his life, and plays with time to suit his purposes) teaches me another lesson: there will never be a perfect Superman film. As I said earlier, writers and artists can't always agree on the "ultimate" Superman story. For some, it's the 80s and 90s Superman that I love, which we cover so intensely on the blog. For some, it's the silver age Super-dad of the 50s. For some it's the cosmic Superman of the Kirby years. For some, it's the socialist avenger Superman of the 30s and 40s. For others—NOT ME— it's the unhappily married, whiny, preachy Superman of the Joe Kelly and Joe Casey years. And there are still others who jumped on during the new 52, who only know an armoured Superman who has never had a romance with Lois Lane. As ‘wrong' as some of these sound, it's just ultimately just an interpretation.
You can't distill 80 years of character into a movie that will please everybody. I thought Chris Nolan did the best job to date on the Batman films, but even he left out the detective aspect that I love about the character. Our expectation of film is simply too high, especially for a perfect being like the Man of Steel. I'm coming to accept that there will never be a perfect comic book movie, so our job as fans is just to take things as they are, and either like them, as I liked Man of Steel, or dislike them, as a majority would seem to for Man of Steel.
Lastly, I think people, fans and reviewers alike just don't cut Superman any slack. Virtually all the issues raised for Man of Steel could be raised in any superhero movie (especially the tepid and smug Avengers films, which I really didn't enjoy) but because Iron Man is funny, or Batman is cool, or Black Widow is sexy (or whatever the reason is), audiences conveniently ignore their glaring flaws. People—especially comic fans— just don't want to like Superman the same way they're prepared to like other heroes. How many times have you been in a comic shop when someone is dumping on Superman? Too many times to count, in my case. How many times do people dump on Punisher, or Dr. Fate, or anyone else? Almost never. People just have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to this character. They hate that he's unrelatable and squeaky clean. But then when he's borderline morally creepy (as others complain about Superman Returns) or violent (like in Man of Steel) they say "That's not Superman, Superman is squeaky clean!"
Again, I agree that there are flaws in Man of Steel, but they're the same flaws present in most superhero movies. I seem to be virtually alone in the comics community, but I loved Man of Steel, and I can't wait to see a shared universe from this film.
So to anyone still reading this, please forgive my wishy-washiness—but I really do see it from both sides. I prefer a Superman who doesn't kill, too. But to pretend there aren't great stories where Superman has taken a life isn't fair either."
Feel free to leave a comment if you'd like to reply to Don, or thank him for articulating your same thoughts, or if you're Brandon Routh and would like to invite him over for pizza on Wednesday!”