Disturbing New Theory on Why People Were Unhappy With the Killing of Zod

[Backward Galaxy]

Newbaggy, Backward Galaxy, and CKent/KalEl have contributed an addition, that people who don't want to see Superman kill were allowed to believe he didn't kill in Superman II. Aside from the fact that this isn't inconsistent with my theory, it is a defective counter-argument in that it only explains Superman II, and not the many other examples.

Which other examples?

[DA_Champion]

Which other examples?

From my first post:

To me, Superman has killed many times before: he killed Doomsday, Hank Henshaw, and Zod in the comics, Zod in Superman II, Nuclear Man in Superman IV, he killed that T-1000 in Smallville, he killed that Druid monster in Lois and Clark, and he killed a couple creatures in the new animated movie All-Star Superman. In addition, other comic book movie characters have killed recently: Batman in the original Batman and he kills Two-Face in TDK; Captain America; all of the avengers kill Chittauri, Hulk in his first movie, Green Lantern killed Parallax, et cetera.

That is an extremely incomplete list, as I have read few comics, watched only some of the cartoons, and watched only some of the movies.

This was the only example I could remember from Smallville:
http://smallville.*****.com/wiki/Trent_MacGowen
But if I watched that show again (I won't) I suspect I would find other cases. There are also at least two cases where Chloe killed on his behalf.

[Backward Galaxy]

I'll try and take them one at a time:

1: he killed Doomsday - Doomsday came back to life. In fact, dying and coming back to life was basically his super power.

2: Hank Henshaw, and Zod in the comics - My understanding is that fans went ballistic when he killed Zod with the kryptonite in the comics. They also followed up him killing Zod with him going into self-imposed exile in outer space, not taking on a new job where he can work with his girlfriend. I don't know the specifics about the Henshaw one.

3: Nuclear Man in Superman IV - most people hate that movie. I think the reason no one brings up being upset about that specific killing is because everyone has tried to block that film from their collective minds.

4: he killed that T-1000 in Smallville - I remember A LOT of people hating Smallville because the "freaks" died all the time. I myself, on this very website, called Clark a murderer several times. I remember a lot of people found it stupid and aggravating.

5: he killed that Druid monster in Lois and Clark - never really watched that show, so I can't comment

6: he killed a couple creatures in the new animated movie All-Star Superman - I didn't like that movie, so my comments won't be helpful. Aside from that, the audience for that film was very small. What kind of uproar were you looking for?

7: In addition, other comic book movie characters have killed recently: Batman in the original Batman and he kills Two-Face in TDK - Batman is not Superman. Superman is not Batman.

8: Captain America; all of the avengers kill Chittauri, Hulk in his first movie - Different characters. Different motivations. Different rules.

9: Green Lantern killed Parallax - That's another movie that I think people don't talk about because most everyone hated it.

[BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow]

You can't really compare Superman to every other superhero. The nature of the beast is that characters are different. Some are anti-heroes, some turn evil. And some killings occur in mediums that prefer the villain to be axed at the end of the story.

[DA_Champion]

1: he killed Doomsday - Doomsday came back to life. In fact, dying and coming back to life was basically his super power.

Your worst counterargument. He doesn't know that Doomsday is going to come back to life, he's doing everything in his power to stop him.

In any case, I think Doomsday's murder was handled extremely well. From my personal point of view, it is satisfactory. He had no choice, and he paid a heavy price.

I don't know the specifics about the Henshaw one.

He did everything in his power to end Henshaw. Admittedly, like every other dead creature in comics, he turned out not to be dead later on, a moot point.

3: Nuclear Man in Superman IV - most people hate that movie. I think the reason no one brings up being upset about that specific killing is because everyone has tried to block that film from their collective minds. ...

9: Green Lantern killed Parallax - That's another movie that I think people don't talk about because most everyone hated it.

Fantastic rebuttals.

4: he killed that T-1000 in Smallville - I remember A LOT of people hating Smallville because the "freaks" died all the time. I myself, on this very website, called Clark a murderer several times. I remember a lot of people found it stupid and aggravating.

5: he killed that Druid monster in Lois and Clark - never really watched that show, so I can't comment

These are some of the most widely known interpretations of the character, hence they are relevant. It may be the case that the weak writing in Smallville in fact did reduce audience totals, which would be... a great rebuttal not to the idea that Superman has never killed, but to my idea that audience reaction is presentation-dependent.

7: In addition, other comic book movie characters have killed recently: Batman in the original Batman and he kills Two-Face in TDK - Batman is not Superman. Superman is not Batman.

Doesn't Batman have a more stringent no-kill rule?

Further, Nolan's films firmly and aggressively established Bruce Wayne as a non-killer.

[BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow]

9: Green Lantern killed Parallax - That's another movie that I think people don't talk about because most everyone hated it.

I certainly don't want to talk about it but something just occured to me. Hal killing Parallax...does that mean that in the Green Lantern universe no living being experiences fear?

Sure the movie could have (and did have) it's own rules but during Blackest Night Nekron tries to revert the universe back to a pre-Big Bang time by killing The Entity of the White Lantern. When Nekron wounds The Entity he collectively (at least it's assumed) wounds every being in the universe. Okay, tangent over.

[Backward Galaxy]

Your worst counterargument. He doesn't know that Doomsday is going to come back to life, he's doing everything in his power to stop him.

In any case, I think Doomsday's murder was handled extremely well. From my personal point of view, it is satisfactory. He had no choice, and he paid a heavy price.

But you're not talking about Superman's ethics. You're talking about audience reaction. My understanding is that audiences understood Doomsday's powers.

These are some of the most widely known interpretations of the character, hence they are relevant. It may be the case that the weak writing in Smallville in fact did reduce audience totals, which would be... a great rebuttal not to the idea that Superman has never killed, but to my idea that audience reaction is presentation-dependent.

Yes, but my point was that audience reaction to the Smallville deaths was the same as the reaction to MoS.

Doesn't Batman have a more stringent no-kill rule?

Further, Nolan's films firmly and aggressively established Bruce Wayne as a non-killer.

Not in all incarnations. Remember, Burton's Batman killed and killed aggressively and that iteration was wildly popular.

Edited for clarification: The Nolan example is a sound enough example because of the story of that film.

[HalJordan4184]

Just as a point, Batman's rule is more of a "No Gun Policy" then a strict no kill rule. Batman recognizes he may have to take that step, and has plans for that. His stance is a no gun policy. He would prefer not to kill, but in extreme cases, has been shown to be okay with it when the situation demands it, and often takes no issue with other characters killing out of a true necessity.

In fact one of my favorite Batman stories was a short one by Alex Ross, and maybe Paul Dini, it was included in a collection, but in it Superman is being mind controlled by Brainiac, and Batman is trying to stop him. Batman has Superman's legs tied, and Superman is pulling Batman through the air. Batman pulls a revolver on Superman, and his inner dialogue is him stating that basically he has had a no gun rule ever since his parent's murder. Through all the bag guys he's ever encountered, no matter how much he was tempted, he would never resort to the gun, the easy way. He then comments that basically he will cast that rule aside for Clark, because he holds the trust Clark placed in him, and the promise he made to do everything to stop a rogue Superman, as being more important than his own rules about no guns.

He also demonstrates this in Batman Beyond, when it's show that Bruce stopped his nightly Batman activities, when he pulled a gun on a criminal out of fear, and anger.

[Exedore]

Have we finally reached the point where Batman is said to have a strong no-kill rule but no Superman? Feels like Bizarro world.

The deleted scene is irrelevant. It's a deleted scene, it wasn't shown in the theatrical version. A

It was included in the tv versions shown in the 80s. In any case, I don't think that scene is even necessary to tell us that Superman didn't kill them. I watched the movie (theatrical cut) as a kid many times and it never even crossed my mind that Superman just committed murder. I always assumed he just threw them into a cell or something. The way Superman and other characters had been depicted plus the slapstick, cartoonish tone of the movie does not lend itself to the kind of brutal interpretation you're going for; I mean nobody dies or is even harmed by Zod's attack, people are being thrown around like rag dolls and nothing happens to them, some kid is playing around that railing at the Niagara Falls and nobody is bothered and Superman throws a freaking cellophane S at Non! And if that wasn't enough, the movie ends with a memory-wipe kiss. There's just no reason to imagine that they suddenly went for a brutal murder.

Regarding Doomsday, as far as I can remember, Superman never actually planned or intended to kill him. It was all happening too fast and he just went in there to fight and stop him....or die trying. And then they just punched each other until the rampage finally stopped....with both of them "dead". That doesn't really scream "Superman just broke the no-kill rule" to me.

I only remember it vaguely but I think the L&C episode had a similar element. All I remember is Clark using heat vision to destroy the villain's magic mask and the guy disintegrated after that; did Clark actually intend to do that to him or was that just a by-product of his actual goal: stop the villain by destroying his weapon?

Also, Superman has been around for the better part of a century. Literally thousands of stories have been written about him with quality ranging from awesome to horrible. Just because we find something was used by some writer at some point in his history doesn't automatically make it a good idea. Otherwise how about a Lois Lane-Jor El romantic subplot? Hey it happened in a Silver Age comic so perhaps it would have been a good idea for MOS? Hmmm imagine Jor and Lois making out on Zod's ship. Or wait, how about Superman/Big Barda pr0n for the Justice League movie? It did happen in the comics - and it was from the same writer who had Superman execute Zod and his minions after depowering them. Neither were well received at all. People hated that stuff. I like Byrne but man he did some nasty things with Supes there.

[j03superbat]

You say that Zod would not have been addressed by Donner in Superman III, but do we know this? Maybe he wanted the option to bring back Zod as a villain.

I think Donner was going to be fired one way or another. I'm not even sure he wanted to do more movies beyond the first two (maybe, but maybe not). It was the late 70's/early 80's; I don't think they were thinking of future implications after the first two.

[McFly]

It was included in the tv versions shown in the 80s. In any case, I don't think that scene is even necessary to tell us that Superman didn't kill them.

Scenes can be cut for a number of different reasons. Often the scenes are of much lower quality, so they were deleted for good reason. Yet some may contain details that appeal to audiences. Among the reasons include:

• Reducing the overall running time, especially for theaters where a lower running time means an increased number of showings.
• Improving the pacing of the story
• Getting rid of what turned out to be a bad scene or a poorly executed sequence.
• A change in the productions aim to ensure a different rating. Quite often it is because of the desire to include the PG-13 crowd from an R rating. More rarely it is an angle to make it darker and edgier and appeal to the R crowd.
• A change to make the work more popular with test audiences, either the inclusion of a scene to clarify an obscure scene.
• A massive change to the ending.

Lester made a slapstick movie out of SM.. It was so light hearted that people could (well Clark) as a mortal walk to the FOS; Buy a car up there and have Lois drive it home.. They pandered to the kid demo (way more back then as apposed to now) hence the guy that takes the Gomer Pyle bump through a wall by Ursa and lives.. where MOS really didn't..

[BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow]

They pandered to the kid demo (way more back then as apposed to now) hence the guy that takes the Gomer Pyle bump through a wall by Ursa and lives.. where MOS really didn't..

I think Man of Steel did pander to the kid demographic but by this days standard. I mean there wasn't anything really that complicated or sophisticated about the new movie. There's no dimensions to the characters, they are there to service the plot which includes a lot of action in the form of punching. And had the movie been entertaining I would have zero problems with MoS being a straight forward action movie.

One could argue that Jor-El and Jonathan (among some other characters) present the deeper meaning to the film, they present the heart of it...but to me it all sounded really pretentious.

[McFly]

I see what ur saying, but Lester and that era of SM movies wouldn't have had a scene with Zod about to kill a family without making it campy..

Look at all the scenes in Metropolis in SMII like the couple leaving KFC talking about french fries, the guy who just won't give up on that phone call on the pay phone, the "you'll pay for it" lady (talking about her car windshield as if that has any bearing on an alien invasion), the lady that doesn't want to move ten feet to the front or back to save her kid, the guy that throws up his cane on his head, as to think that would work.. All camp to take away from the disaster that was happening.. A lot of which is removed in the Donner cut..

MOS didn't go that route. "Man, this is gonna be good.." Ah.. No it isn't, well shouldn't.. "The big one is just as strong as SM.." said with smile on her face.? OK, now we portray a human rooting on the kryptonians as a sort of dig on Lois' love of SM.. What a mess..

[cksidekick]

First point: I don't care what 100 polled people off the street say. I can think for myself.

Second point: My argument is abbreviated in this thread. I have pointed to many examples in the Lester cut that the world created is completely different from the reality in which we live. They're not dead because Superman doesn't kill in those movies. He faces armed gunman and doesn't kill them. He faces Luthor and doesn't kill him. He faces a jewel thief and doesn't kill him. The Kryptonian villains don't even kill anybody. The idea of violence in Superman II is them blowing a skater backwards down the street. The idea of violence in Superman II is a guy continuing his phone conversation while his telephone booth is blowing down the street. The idea of violence in Superman II is an ordinary human getting thrown through a building and farm truck and only being a little shaken up. A bus full of people gets thrown, nobody dies. A building antenna collapses and falls, nobody dies. And this isn't based on an absence of bodies. We actually see the people moving inside the bus, under the antenna building, and after being thrown through a building and truck. We see them alive and well. The bad guys don't even kill in that movie, let alone Superman. This is the lens through which we must look at the finale.

It's also why this is not in any way a pot/kettle thing. There is no substantive evidence at all to support that the Kryptonians are dead. You have no idea where that pit goes. You have no dead bodies. You're assuming they are dead because they don't show up again and that's pretty much all you have. That's not evidence. I, on the other hand, have everything leading up to that scene showing that people don't die in that movie and certainly aren't killed by Superman. It doesn't happen. That's why they're not dead. It's not some random deleted scene that may or may not be canon. It's that world.

Your arguments are the mind of a fan who has dismantled the story and grown to adulthood. You can't have it both ways. The point DA is making in the OP requires the consideration of the interpretation of those 100 people off the street. Those are the people he's talking about. The whole point of the thread depends on NOT dismissing their thought process.

(I was born in 77 so big screen Superman and I are pretty much the same age) I can tell you that even as a kid, the argument "the world created is completely different from the reality in which we live. They're not dead because Superman doesn't kill in those movies." didn't fly (pun intended) Even as a child I understood the difference between putting the bad guy in jail and tossing him in a pit to his doom.

"Dad, where is Zod now?"

"He's in the hole"

"How deep is it?"

"Too deep to climb out of"

"For how long?"

"Forever"

"Ummmmmmm, soooooo.....well....ok then....Got it. Zod is dead"

I didn't take it to OMG Superman just killed Zod!!! But I understood the concept quite well. Bad Guy gone. Forever. Point is, even as a kid, who bought into the alternate world they built, I STIILL understood that Zod was POOF! Gone. Done. Over. No jail, no phantom zone, no turning him into a good guy. Nope, Superman just tossed him into oblivion. Oblivion = Zod Is Dead.

Your rationale is wonderful and I frankly agree with you. But that is only because Im all grown up now and view movies with a critical mind. What I'm saying is that DA's argument on why people are so offended by the killing of Zod in MoS isn't relevant to the way you have dismantled the original. Lots and lots and lots of people watch that movie and think, "well, that's that. Zod's dead". The points you bring up are great for discussion between hard core fans but it doesn't dictate general perception of the film or fan reaction. Again, the whole point of the thread.


I have to completely agree that it's because it's handled in a less than serious manner. Fans have to actualy process it emotionally in MoS instead of just shrugging it off. A lot of people didn't like doing that. The analogy to foreign policy in a later DA post is dead on.

[jon-el87]

But when Superman pushes them into the Crevasse of Doom, they are no longer super-powered bad people. In the same way one would wonder if humans are okay after the otherwise-lethal injuries they sustain, one can wonder if the Kryptonians survive whatever hell Superman pushed them into; they're no longer invulnerable.

Or, crevasses are the Kryptonian equivalent of taking a fireman's pole into a prison cell underneath your living room. It could go either way.

Rewatch the film. He doesn't push them. Yes, he throws Zod up against a wall, then he falls down into the "abyss". But, he doesn't touch Non or Ursa. Non falls in, when he attempts to fly. And Ursa, after Lois punches her in the face.

At the end of the day, all we know is that they disappeared into that mist and weren't talked about in the three following movies (nor SR). There's an issue, of Ultimate Spider-Man, where Peter talks to Nick Fury about the recently appearing Venom. Peter tells him, that Venom's dead. To which, Fury asks him if there's a body. Peter says "no". And Fury says something down the line of "well, then he's not dead".

The same rule, applies to Zod, Ursa, Non and Nuclear Man. We're not shown bodies. The three vanishes into a mist (how far is the drop? What's down there? What can a Kryptonian body handle (remember, despite no longer having powers, they're still aliens. So, one can't really use "well, this would've killed a human", as a basis)). And Nuclear Man being thrown into a nuclear reactor, which is presence then charges (for all we know, he's still alive in there, only dormant).

The only way, that we can be certain that these characters died, is if DC does a CB continuation, where it's established that they died (and, even if they did. In comics and soap operas, deaths aren't always permanent. So, they could show up again, even if someone says, that they are dead). Until that happens, it's all speculation. Speculation, based on the fact that we never hear about the four ever again. And if we accept that speculation as fact, what does that mean for, for example Smallville characters, that we saw once (didn't die onscreen) and never heard from again? Does this mean, that they're all dead?