If anyone wants to flame me for this, well, I'm expecting it. Everyone has a right to their opinion, including me. I'm not trying to start an argument, I just want a chance to have my say. If I come off as arrogant, selfish, thick skulled, etc, I apologize. I am merely giving my opinion and that is all. So, wheather you agree or disagree, here are my thoughts on why Superman should never kill.
In MOS, Superman's fight with Zod ends when Superman breaks Zod's neck, killing him instantly, in order to save a helpless family from being fried by Zod's Heat Vision.
When I heard this bit of news, my heart wrenched and I felt sick. I watched as the fan reaction was split in two and I shook my head in frustrating dismay. A lot of fans loved the scene and thought it was very powerful while a lot of other fans are as outraged as I am.
It's obvious what side of the fence I'm on. Superman should never kill under any circumstances no matter the cost. And here's why I know Superman should never kill and should never be written in a position where he has to take a life.
See, fans love to point out example after example that Superman has killed. That's not the question here, the real question is "should" he kill. My answer is no.
Superman isn't a policeman, he isn't your average soldier going to war with a gun defending his country or some kind of secret agent like James Bond. He's Superman, an alien from another planet with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. He's the first Super-Hero and many see him as an example to look to for inspiration, for hope and for justice. It's the never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way.
With Superman's power set, finding another way should be easy for him compared to someone who isn't nearly as powerful and has limited options. If it's ok for Superman to kill Zod then why stop with him? Why not kill Luthor as well so he won't get away with crimes? I mean, think about it. Lex loves committing crimes then rubbing it in Superman's face, "You know I did this, but you can't prove anything." Thus, the cycle of the never-ending battle continues. A Superman who kills would just kill Luthor and be done with it. But why stop there? How about kill Brainiac or Mongul before they have a chance to invade Earth and potentially save millions of lives before they can be lost? How about killing corrupt politicians so we have a "good" Government run by honest men? The prisons are overflowing. Why not stop with his most powerful rogues? Superman can just take the prison guards out before razing every prison to the ground with the prisoners still inside. So what if a few innocent, and wrongfully imprisoned men, lose their lives? It's all for the common good right?
This is one of several reasons why I have a problem with Superman killing. A man of his power should never be put in that kind of position. Power corrupts absolutely as they say and the temptation to kill would just come on stronger the next time.
Superman could have saved that family from Zod in multiple, short term, ways. Freeze breath, spinning them both into the very Earth itself, tossing Zod up and punching him into space before grabbing him and slamming them both into the Earth to knock him out…whatever. Superman WOULD and SHOULD have found a different way. Superman should ALWAYS find a better way even when there isn't one.
Superman could have taken Zod's unconscious form to a hologram of his father and asked how Zod could be dealt with without killing him. Then Superman's daddy could have told him, "Put him back in the Phantom Zone." And then told Superman exactly how to do that. There. Simple as that. And that didn't require a whole lot of thinking on my part. But did David S. Goyer, who wrote this "out-of-character" scene think of a better way? No. He wanted the scene and didn't care.
To me, having Superman kill demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of a basic moral standpoint that has been a part of who and what Superman is for many decades. Killing someone goes against everything Superman represents.. It's part of his code, "I vow never to take a life" which Superman has stated numerous times.
And while Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster did have the early stories of Superman taking lives, that was a much, much different character back then. The character of Superman has evolved in the past seven and a half decades since those early days and a lot of writers have given Superman a strong moral compass that says, "I vow never to take a life." Each time that moral standpoint is broken, whatever the medium, it's not only way out of character but the writer in question doesn't "get" Superman and how he works.
Superman landed on Earth as a baby, raised by human parents then later becomes Superman. Superman is supposed to protect us, defend us, inspire us to be better than what we are. Thus, he must be above our base desire to kill when necessary and above our need of revenge. The moment Superman starts killing is the moment he's no better than any of us and thus he stops being Superman.
There are no precedents, no scenarios, no situation that should call for Superman killing Zod or any of his enemies. But that doesn't stop the fans from citing a number of examples where Superman has taken a life.
The first example is taken from "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" in 1986 by Alan Moore. In this story, Superman has a final encounter with Mr. Mxyzptlk who decides he's had enough being a funny imp who plays tricks on Superman and decides to turn totally evil. So, Superman is forced to kill Mr. Mxyzptlk. Because this went against his code of never taking another life, Superman permanentally removes his powers with Gold Kryptonite and vows never to be Superman again. He lives the rest of his life as a normal human being with Lois Lane and they have a baby together (and it's hinted the baby has powers). What most fans fail to realize is, this story is only a "hypothetical" story. It's not actually canon and never was. It was always a "What If?" type of story. So, moving on…
The second example is from Superman #22, a comic printed in 1988 and written by John Byrne. In two previous stories that lead up to this one, we are introduced to "Matrix Supergirl" who is not a Kryptonian (long story) and she's from an alternate universe. This alternate universe has only one inhabited planet. Earth. Why? Because it's a Pocket Dimension that was supposedly created by a being called the Time Trapper. So the entire universe within this Pocket Dimension consist of only Earth (one wonders, then, how Clark's ship landed on Earth when he's an alien from another planet, but whatever). On this alternate Earth, Matrix Supergirl takes Superman there and he is told that the General Zod of that universe destroyed the atmosphere of the planet and almost wiped out all life including 5 billion human lives.
But before Zod decided to wipe out 5 billion human lives, he tried to take over the Earth through force. But he was met with resistance. Tired of the resistance, he decides to just destroy Earth. So, in comes Superman and John Byrne's need to put Superman in a position to kill.
Let's back up here and examine this story. Zod wants to take over this Earth that exists in a Pocket Universe. It's already been established there is no other inhabited planet within this Pocket Dimension. So, Zod decides to destroy Earth? And then what? Where is he going to go afterwards? To what planet? None exist! Zod can't go anywhere else and now he's stuck with a planet that can't even support life because of his own doing. Yeah, what a genius plan. Byrne obviously wanted to give Superman an excuse to kill the three Phantom Criminals, but in the end it makes NO internal sense. None. Think about it.
In the middle of this story, it's firmly established that Zod and his companions are too powerful for Superman to handle. Enter Gold Kryptonite. So, if Gold Kryptonite existed in this universe then why didn't Lex Luthor (leader of the human resistance) use it against Zod and company to win the war and save humanity? His WEAK explanation was because he wanted to beat the Kryptonians "himself". But then Lex creates Matrix Supergirl (again, long story) so she could bring Superman to deal with Zod? How exactly does that make sense?
First, Superman uses Gold Kryptonite to strip Zod and his companions of their powers. Then, feeling like he was the only justice left on the planet, Superman decides to kill them with Green Kryptonite.
Superman essentially acts as judge, jury and executioner. Superman killed "defenseless" people. Regardless of their crimes, regardless of what Zod had done, what Superman did…killing defenseless people like that…was not justice. It was MURDER!
John Byrne did NOT have to write this story, he just wanted to. And it's so full of holes that if it was a boat, it would sink like a rock. Fact remains, Superman should NEVER kill and Byrne should have never written this lame story in a failed attempt to put Superman in a position where it would make sense, but in the end it did not make sense at all if one really thinks about it. All it it did was enrage comic book fans. I'm sorry, but this was WAAAAAY out of character of Superman. I mean, writing a story just so Superman is put in an impossible position so he has no choice but to kill?! John Byrne had NO reason to write this story. None. And I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. John Byrne still gets flak for that story today by Superman fans who still are upset over it today.
The third example is from Superman II where Superman strips Zod and his companions of their powers then casually tosses them into dark crevices in his Fortress. Once again, what fans fail to realize that there is a deleted scene that was filmed where Zod and his companions are seen hand-cuffed and arrested walking out of the Fortress and ALIVE. Superman II, WITH said deleted scene included, has showed on ABC a few times. Bryan Singer's Superman Returns is said to be a "sequel" to the Christopher Reeve films. If that's so, then guess what? Singer wanted Zod to make a cameo appearance in the movie but Jude Law was not available at the time. So we clearly see that Superman did not kill Zod and his companions in Superman II because they were always "meant to survive".
The third, and final, example is taken from Superman #75, 1992 by Dan Jurgens. In this story, Superman has to stop a monster called Doomsday. A mindless killing machine bent on destroying everything and killing everything he comes across. Superman feels there is only one way to stop him. Fact is, Mr. Jurgens doesn't even EXPLORE other options Superman should have taken. Yeah, Superman tries to fly Doomsday into space (in prior) issues, but other than that, nothing else is tried. No other options explored and Superman just wails into Doomsday with everything he has. Again. Out of character. Superman ALWAYS finds another way no matter the cost. That's who is, that's what he's about. Jurgens must have realized this was the wrong way to go, so he wrote Superman/Doomsday Hunter/Prey and attempted to explain the ONLY way to stop Doomsday was, indeed, to kill him. Of course, in this story it's established that each time Doomsday dies, he comes back stronger than before. But Jurgens obviously wasn't happy with the way he ended Hunter/Prey by having Superman leave Doomsday to die at the end of time. Why? Because Jurgens brought the character back in Superman: The Doomsday Wars. Doesn't erase what Dan Jurgens "almost" did. Superman killed. Again. Superman. Does. Not. Kill. Under. Any. Circumstances. He ALWAYS finds another way and Dan Jurgens failed to have Superman explore other options. The only time Jurgens did have Superman explore other options was in "Doomsday Wars" where Superman managed to trap Doomsday in four JLA teleport tubes where Doomsday was trapped and unable to escape.
I know some fans have cited more examples, but then this editorial would go on forever. So, back to Superman killing Zod in MOS. A person wrote this on his blog, "…if Superman twists the head off of his first supervillain, it no longer exists as an out of character moment…it becomes a character DEFINING moment. That is [a] response to the no-win-scenario." (See end of Article for source of the Blog)
I'm inclined to agree. Because this happened, now this trait will define Superman if any sequels are made of this Superman. Sadly, a sequel is already in the works. So, now we have a Superman who kills, a man who doesn't inspire me to be a better person, to reach ever greater heights. He's just a man like any of us. And that's not Superman, he's just a Man pretending to be a Superman.
The WB should have learned a lesson from Nolan's Batman films. The reason why Nolan's Batman trilogy was such a huge hit was because he stayed true to the original source material (for the most part). But instead of learning it's lesson, the WB decided to make a Superman film that was dark. Snyder even stated that his Superman is not a boyscout. Again, breaking away from the original source material that he IS a boyscout!
Unfortunately, MOS is on it's way to becoming a success. That means, we'll be seeing a lot more Super-Hero movies that are "dark" and slay their enemies. I'm sorry but the dark tone of the Nolan Batman films works but for the majority of the DC Universe it most certainly does NOT. And it never will.
In Superman vs. The Elite, Superman stands by his "no killing" rule but he is challenged by a super villain by the name of Manchester Black who believes in it. Superman's odds of winning are not good because the Elite have the power to kill Superman. While Clark talks to Lois, they exchange this:
Clark Kent: I heard a child say that he wanted to be in the Elite when he grows up, because it would be fun to kill bad guys. Fun to kill... People have to know that there's another way. They have to see that someone believes in humanity strongly enough to...
Lois Lane: ...to die for them?
I never read the comic, but I have watched the Animated movie that is based off the comic. It's available on Netflix to anyone who wishes to see it. At the end of the movie, Superman makes it "seem" like he kills Manchester Black's team. But it's revealed he never did, he had his robots from the Fortress of Solitude protect all of the citizens and create a false illusion that Superman went nuts and killed them. The Elite Superman knocked out were taken to the Fortress of Solitude to be stripped of their powers before being sent to maximum security prison. So, as you can see...in the end of the movie everyone sees that Superman's way is best for all mankind and killing is not. I love this story because this is Superman and this is how he should be written.
At Superman's core, he represents ideals that are above humanity. Morals that he can never afford to break (like no killing!) because he isn't a police officer or a soldier. Superman has a LOT of power and more than one way to find other options than killing his enemies. If Superman can't inspire us to be better, then why bother being Superman in the first place? He might as well cease to exist because that isn't Superman and it never will be.
If you've managed to read this far, then I would like to add one more brief thought. If you feel you need to leave a comment in the comments section then please feel free to do so. If you agree or disagree with my thoughts, that's fine. We all have our different opinions. Just don't expect me to argue about it with you because I won't. So, you have no fear of this being turned into an argument. That's not the purpose of this editorial. Even if you want to flame me and call me a complete idiot, go ahead. Thanks for reading this far and thanks for your understanding.
Credits: Much of my information was gathered here but put in my own words. http://iblogalot.com/2013/06/15/superman-does-not-kill-ever-not-under-any-circumstances-no-matter-what-context/
And here: http://dogfoodforchairs.blogspot.com/2013/06/superman-with-great-power-comes-great.html