So why did everyone bitch about Superman killing Zod again?

I'm pretty sure this was worse
youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0

Other urls found in this thread:

screenrant.com/times-superman-killed-his-enemies-villains/?view=all
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>not muh Superman

And people act like it didn't affect when it's clear it did, even worse they're like "hurr the next scene he's all smiling with his mommy, what a psychopath".

How long was he supposed to be tortured by the memory of a guy that tried to destroy your adopted planet and broke your mom's arm?

Fuck that guy.

So killing him to save a family is bad but killing him for fun like Reeves Superman did is ok?

Little kids on Sup Forums just can't deal with seeing people die.
That's all it really boils down to.

They really need to grow up.

>implying superman doesnt have safety nets in his fortress

That's a real stretch

The problem is that the climax of the film sets up "Will Superman have to cross the ultimate line?" as the big conflict even though the rest of the movie does absolutely nothing to make that the central struggle of the movie. The rest of the movie is about Superman coming to terms with being who he is, but then the big dramatic climax just goes "hey y'all like the nolan batmans rite" and acts as if it's earned that moment when it clearly has not.

the same people didn't give two shits about batman murdering dozens of people in BvS. dumbest complaint ever next to the too much destruction criticism.

>the same people didn't give two shits about batman murdering dozens of people in BvS.

Most people hated that.

I don't understand this argument. We're not allowed to be upset that he is Superman in name only?

Why couldn't Snyder create his own morally-conflicted murderer superhero instead of taking an established character and molding him to fit his bullshit worldview?

Superman is the quinsentential boy scout superhero. I don't like it when the comics try to make him edgy in order to make up for the inability to write a good story for him, and I don't like it when the movies do either. If you can't write for the character, then don't. Write for Batman, or Punisher, or Deadpool, or some other tryhard faggot.

>I don't understand this argument.

There's a lot you probably don't understand

>We're not allowed to be upset that he is Superman in name only?

Superman does everything he does from the comics in this, he fights for Earth, he saves people from danger, he grew up in Kansas and loved his mom and dad who both had positive influences in his life, but he's "Superman in name only" because he killed a murderous tyrant on his first official day?

Take your bait elsewhere.

>edgy
>screams in grief over taking a life

Fuck this I'm out.

>There's a lot you probably don't understand

Is this what passes as clever over at reddit? Post ignored until you post the response without this normie-tier insult shoved in.

god damn what an awful flick

why was supes killing Zod an issue?

>because he killed a murderous tyrant on his first official day?
Yes, it pretty much tarnishes the image of Superman as a character that solves things without murder.

Not that the movie was any good either, I felt like I was watching a Michael Bay movie.

Having him kill Zod in and of itself is edgy. This isn't a documentary. The characters only exist in the situations they do because the writer decides to put them in those situations, and the reasoning behind these decisions is open to criticism.

How desperate do you have to be to resort to this cheap excuse?

Because he's Superman, not Rambo.

>That's a real stretch
Tell that to Zod's snapped neck!

>the same people didn't give two shits about batman murdering dozens of people in BvS
Were you living under a rock and missed everyone and their mom pointing how Batman killed people and Sup Forums defending Snyder for that to no end for some reason?

and superman never kills?

I actually have more trouble with Batman killing.

In my mind, Superman would do anything to save an innocent life, including kill someone. He's just so powerful that he never has to make that choice.

Batman in my mind, would let an innocent die if it meant he had to kill someone and jeopardize his code. This is because I don't see Batman as necessarily a good person, but rather someone who is rigid in his sense of right and wrong and is so psychological damaged by the death of his parents that he can't handle being even remotely similar to the man who killed them.

I know various comics have had both characters refuse to kill and kill wantonly, but that's what you deal with when your characters are written by multiple authors. This is just my personal take on how it SHOULD be. Superman should be willing to kill, but never should. Batman should never be willing to kill, and if he ever does it should ruin him.

Not outside of poorly-written trash like Man of Steel.

this is a jaded batman

>I think that it just came about that this particular Batman, he’s been jaded by the process. There’s a really amazing line in the movie, ‘20 years in Gotham, how many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?’ And let’s face it, he’s a very damaged guy... We see Robin is not around. The character has evolved, and he’s definitely a more brutal guy, and we wanted him to be right on that edge, right on that razor. And he has to be on the razor’s edge, or why would he get Superman’s attention?

Also, it's confirmed that the joker killed robin before SS

cuz Supes is God lol

screenrant.com/times-superman-killed-his-enemies-villains/?view=all

>y-y-y-y-you triggered meeeeeeeeee!! *IGNORE*

What a fucking baby.

capeshit please no

Oh yeah Superman should've definitely saved Zod, put him to jail and wait for him to break out and kill thousands of people again

Fucking Sup Forumsmblr

Go fuck yourself

>Having him kill Zod in and of itself is edgy

That is a child's understanding of what is honestly a childish fucking term, so congrats on not knowing fuckall.

>It's edgy putting end to a megalomaniac mass murderer
Sure fucking thing.

I didn't say Superman has never killed before, I said he's never killed outside of poorly-written garbage.

Injustice was fun though.

>basing your argument from an opinion

don't know how to say it, son, but that's not an argument

I'm just keeping my board free of reddit garbage. If you want to repost your argument without the embarrassing attempt at humor, I will gladly response.

But I think we both know I've already bested you in this game of wits.

Well, this is certainly an exaggeratedly edgy response to something being called edgy. If I didn't know you were a DC fan, and therefore undoubtedly retarded, I would suspect you were being clever.

God I forgot how camp that shit was

I said Superman being in the situation in the first place was edgy, not Superman's actions in the scene. Learn how to read before stepping up to a superior intellect.

Yes, I'm offering an opinion. This thread is about people's opinions on Superman killing.

If you can't handle that, you should go back to /r/DComics

Too bad you answered a factual question within an "opinionated" thread

It's best you go back to tumblr if you can't handle being btfo'd

Have you even read a superman comic book?

>Superman should be willing to kill

Why? What about being a farmer from Kansas would make Superman more comfortable with taking a human life? In my opinion being okay with dealing death (with your bare hands) does tarnish the character, even if he rarely does it.

>He's just so powerful that he never has to make that choice.

Superman is not untouchable. He has many villains that are a threats to him. Direct threats like Metallo and Parasite and indirect threats like Lex Luther and Queen Zazzala. The list goes on and on. If I remember correctly, toy man managed to kill Kat Grants kid in Metropolis (Superman's home turf).

If he is okay with killing then when does it stop? How do you explain why the killing hasn't changed him?

>Too bad you answered a factual question within an "opinionated" thread

No, what actually happened is I offered an opinion. Namely that having Superman murder people is a crutch used by untalented writers. In response to this opinion, like the retard you are, you responded with "So Superman never kills XD?"

You mistakenly thought I said he's never killed before, and instead of admitting that mistake and moving on, you're doubling down. So let me say with some finality: it was a stupid, irrelevant question, written by a stupid, irrelevant cuck.

Yes.

seems like you're doubling down and according to your wall of text I don't think it's on opinion only

but on burgers
fatty

I think Superman should be willing to kill because he's not a farmer from Kansas anymore. He's a hero, and he takes his responsibility to save innocents very seriously. He doesn't prioritize having a code or separating himself ideologically from the villians he fights; his number one priority is saving innocent lives. I think he would gladly sacrifice everything to save someone else. That's what makes him a hero.

I'm not defending the Man of Steel murder scene though, just defending the idea of Superman killing at all. In the end, I don't think he should; because another fundamental part of the Superman mythos is that he always finds a way to win without compromising that ideal. He certainly shouldn't be murdering people in his FIRST movie.

>in MoS superman spends about an hour personally demolishing occupied buildings, utterly obliterating occupants left and right

>then at the climax of this, he has the choice between killing zod and saving a family

>this is a choice only because snyder forgets about all the powers at superman's disposal, that have been on display for about half an hour.

>supes is totally upset about this for about a minute, then goes and fucks the shit out of lois lane.

Five sentences with multiple line breaks in between them is not a "wall of text". Pick up a fucking book and train your mind to do something besides watch bad movies.

The big point of superman is once he has a moral code, he'll never have to compromise it, because nothing can ever be a legitimate threat to him.

The problem is snyder's superman doesn't have a moral code. At all. Yet hes still going through the motions of being superman with a constant "why am I doing this" look on his face for no reason beyond "script needs this."

>Namely that having Superman murder people is a crutch used by untalented writers
so you tell me boss... what do talented writers do with him? superman in Snyder movies is a perfect reflection of how good(or innocent perhaps?) people feel living in our world. Realistically speaking he wouldn't just wake up one day, wear the suit and have the morals which makes him the superman you know. He needs to have some experiences to make him the person we want him to be.

You do realize how far off the deep end it is to clai snyder has ever accurately represented any human emotion, right?

>so you tell me boss... what do talented writers do with him?

There are countless things you can do with Superman that don't have him mowing down people. Superman has existed since the late thirties, and has been an enduring character for all that time. Decades upon decades of quality stories, and very few of them rely on the shock value of snapping someone's neck.

>superman in Snyder movies is a perfect reflection of how good(or innocent perhaps?) people feel living in our world.

Superman in Synder's movies is a perfect reflection of what a cynical, joyless childhood he must have had.

> Realistically speaking he wouldn't just wake up one day, wear the suit and have the morals which makes him the superman you know.

That's why in the comics Superman is the man he is because of how his adopted parents raised him. They didn't tell him to let buses full of children drown or tell him that he doesn't owe the world anything. One of my primary problems with Man of Steel is that what you're describing is literally what happened. He DID just decide to put on the suit and become a hero, because he essentially ignored all the shitty things the Kents taught him as a kid. He becomes a hero despite them, not because of them.

see

coming from a guy who reads comicbooks is kinda a non-insult

No one needs to see your shitty post, delete it from the thread and save yourself the embarrassment of having more people see your bullshit.

I read comic books, but I also read novels. You don't seem to read much of anything.

Where is the line? His villains are all hugely powerful. They come back and a lot of people get hurt/killed. Really, all of his rogues are too dangerous to live. Why not kill them all?

>he'll never have to compromise it, because nothing can ever be a legitimate threat to him.

THIS IS NOT TRUE. Many of superman's villains are threats to him personally. For the last time, Superman IS NOT INVINCIBLE.

You don't seem like you do either since you feel the need to spell it out for people

and lmao'ing @ your life.

If you read novels because you like to read you wouldn't have included it, pretentious twat

So do you think in that situation, Superman would have let Zod murder that family? It basically comes down to the ethical dilemma of "Do I pull the switch and kill one person, or let 5 people die?"

I don't have a problem eitn Superman breaking zods neck, but you have to establish that superman doesn't like to kill people.

I mean the entire half-hour before that, was basically superman killing hundreds of thousands of people so I don't know why its supposed to be a big deal if hes kills zod.

>Where is the line? His villains are all hugely powerful. They come back and a lot of people get hurt/killed. Really, all of his rogues are too dangerous to live. Why not kill them all?

The line is literally when they are about the kill an innocent person and he has no physical way of stopping them without murder. Preemptively murdering someone because they MIGHT kill an innocent is completely different, and not at all in line with what I'm talking about.

I pointed out that I'm a frequent reader because the person I responded to suggested I only read comic books. That's how a conversation works.

Feel free to be mad about it if you want though.

No, I do not think Superman would have let Zod murder that family. But what I'm critisizing is the fact that Superman was placed in that situation at all. The only reason he could not fight a non-fatal way to eliminate Zod is because the screenwriter arbitrarily decided he couldn't.

>The line is literally when they are about the kill an innocent person and he has no physical way of stopping them without murder.

You originally were compared him to batman's no kill code.

Yes, in my mind, Batman kill code is absolute. He would helplessly watch Joker bludgeon his own son to death with spiked dildo rather than kill him.

But obviously, most fans wouldn't agree with that.

>>he'll never have to compromise it, because nothing can ever be a legitimate threat to him.
>THIS IS NOT TRUE. Many of superman's villains are threats to him personally. For the last time, Superman IS NOT INVINCIBLE.

Those villains only pop up long after superman has developed a fixed, and now completely unbreakable, moral code.

But snyder's superman never got a chance to do anything without superpowered assholes invading earth. He just moped around being a useless hipster lumberjack for 30 years.

It's people complaining about "not much Superman" when it's obvious in this thread they don't really know shit about Superman and are just holding on to their childhood idea of what he is.

What a twist

He tried to shoot someone with a gun when he thought they killed Dick Grayson, so no.

*muh

I said in my mind, I realize different writers attribute different characteristics to Batman.

The Superman from my childhood and the Superman in the modern comics of today are almost exactly the same.

Neither of them bare a passing resemblance to the morose, plank of wood in Snyder's "films".

Point proven

Just like my japanese animes!

You didn't prove anything.

You're just saying I have no knowledge of Superman without actually proving it. I can do that too.

The only way someone could conceivably like Snyder's "films", is if they either have no knowledge of or admiration for the source material.

To be fair, snyder's superman is kind of a mashup between the god-awful 90s superman and doctor manhattan. The latter only because watchmen is the only comic snyder ever read.

whoa

But that's the point! Superman dying and then having a personality change was meaningful BECAUSE it followed decades of him being essentially the same character. Having Superman be a morally-conflicting, frowny murderer for the entire duration of his FIRST movie completely robs us of that change in the future.