Hey, to all. It's been a while since I've done an editorial but I do feel strongly about this subject so I thought I'd share my opinion. Now, I understand we are all a bit tired of this subject, but lets beat the dead horse just one more time.
Several have voiced their opinion that Superman should have never killed Zod in the final act of
Man Of Steel. Most fault the writers for putting him in that situation, as they believe that if Superman kills he becomes the very thing he is fighting. I understand this opinion. I do not agree with it and I'll tell you why.
Superman has killed in the comics. Those saying Superman never kills need to read more Superman stories. In Superman #22 (October 1988), Clark executed General Zod, Quex-Ul and Zaora.
In
The Death Of Superman Superman kills Doomsday. Most would say this was just because he was a monster set on killing and had no higher brain functions. But what had Zod become in
Man Of Steel? Had he not become a monster which was just going to keep killing no matter what? Clark pleaded with him to stop but his answer was, "Never."
In a more recent comic Superman almost had to sacrifice Heather even though she was being mind controlled by an alien because she was going to kill hundreds if not thousands if he didn't stop her. Sure it worked out that he didn't kill her, but if she had of died would he have been wrong?
Superman killed in the animated series. In
Justice League: Secret Origins all the Justice League members ultimately pull the evil aliens into the sunlight killing them.
Did anyone have a problem with that?
Superman has killed robots.
Most would say that robots don't have high brain functions so this is okay from their point of view. But yet it is shown wrong if someone kills Vision. So what's the difference? I'm not saying it's wrong to kill evil robots, I'm just saying if you have a problem with Clark killing humans or aliens why not robots as well?
Some try to say that in
Man Of Steel Clark was reckless and didn't care about human life. Someone even stooped so low to make this cartoon.
The above cartoon shows only what some want the situation to look like. It shows a reckless Superman that doesn't care if he kills someone or not.
Man Of Steel never showed this. Clark is devastated by all who lost their life in the film. Including Zod. In
Man Of Steel Clark is addicted to saving people. Seeing Johnathan die when he could have saved him nearly killed him.
Thus the way Clark is portrayed in
Man Of Steel is not the problem. What is the problem? Some don't understand what really happens in a fight. First, have you ever fought someone? No, not a school fight. Someone who wanted to kill you. Were you trying to stop them from killing you/others or were you trying to knock them out so you could turn them over to the police? The problem is some think that you can fight someone and not kill them. The line is harder to draw then most think. Do you realize if you punch someone, you have a chance of killing them on the first blow? Fighting isn't something everyone can just walk away from and be okay. If you fight someone, you have to be willing to kill them. Who knows if you might just hit them too hard one time? You may not know your own strength. This is why you have to be careful who you fight.
Several complain about the destruction of Metropolis calling it, "Destruction porn." Would you rather have Clark let Zod go to not only kill that family but more of the city as well? If Clark couldn't kill him how would he have stopped him? He couldn't use the wormhole trick again so what did you want him to do?
And about that wormhole trick. While I honestly think that everyone in the wormhole will survive (mainly because Colonel Hardy, and Dr. Hamilton are very important to Superman stories so I doubt they would kill them off in the first movie) but what if they didn't? Clark has no idea if it would kill them or not honestly. If it did would anyone fault Clark for making them go into the wormhole? Technically if it did kill them, he would have also indirectly killed Colonel Hardy and Dr. Hamilton. Which were the good guys!
Several say that Superman is different than other heroes because he is the only one that has the "no killing rule". This is very untrue. Back in the 50's and 60's EVERY Superhero had a "no killing rule". That's right Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and pretty much all those heroes that have killed several times in the movies were portrayed in the comics at the time and somewhat even today as to have a "no killing rule". This is mainly because of the comics code established sometime in the 50's. Several writers adhere to the tradition today as well so that the good villains aren't killed off. So Superman in having a "no killing rule" is not special at all. I bet even if Deadpool had of been created then he would have suddenly gotten rubber Katanas.
I've heard it said that after
Man Of Steel Superman should suddenly start his "no killing rule". Why I ask? Was the destruction in Metropolis not enough for you? Do you really want him to not try to stop Brainiac? Or Darksied? I'm not saying he should be able to just kill all the villains he faces easily. I'm just saying he shouldn't try not to kill them. Besides if he could kill them easily at any time, how much of a threat does the villain become? You should have a villain at least equal to the hero right?
I never understood the idea of having the hero want to kill the villain but ultimately they can't because of... what? So that they can kill more innocents? This is where the logic fails. But if the hero kills then he's just like the bad guy! Wrong. If he doesn't try to stop the bad guy then he is just as guilty as the bad guy for he is the very thing that lets him continue! It's much like a forest fire, if you don't put out the flames they will continue to burn and burn until nothing is left.
So which would you rather have? The hero that stops the villain from killing more innocents? Or the hero that allows the evil to continue?