People get salty over the "if you kill him" logic

>People get salty over the "if you kill him" logic.
>People get salty when Superman killed Zod

Which is it?

People want villains dead, but they don't want the heroes actually portrayed as executioners. If Superman had killed Zod in a big explosion of heat vision clashing or something like that I doubt that scene would be controversial at all.

>they don't want the heroes actually portrayed as executioners
Very good point dog.

This.
Snyder portrayed the death of Zod as a bad thing; he used the same colors, the same soundtrack, and the same performance from Cavill (a big over the top Nooo) as when Jonathan Kent died.

If you want us to think the hero killing the bad guy is righteous you can't frame it as a tragedy.

Heroes should never kill

We don't need a murderous Superman either (Thank you Hack Snyder)

Isn't Superman supposed to be a light-hearted guy? Seems kinda weird to have him, of all people, snapping a guy's neck.

I'll add that killing is generally not something you need to experience before you decide it's not morally something you want to do.

But my biggest issue with this specific scene is that it didn't really feel like they sold the idea that he truly had no options left. Maybe if it had hit right emotionally no one would be discussing it at all.

>Superman does a genuinely heroic thing by stopping a homicidal member of his species from killing thousands of innocent people.
>KILLING IS BAD REEEE

Seriously do any of these "no kill no matter what" idiots even know of the saying "protect the innocent"?

So my take away from this:

It's dumb when people go "if you kill him, you'll be just like him!" but it's even dumber when the hero goes through with killing him, but it's presented either as a moment of evil or a moment of sadness.

I think the problem is that when we read comics heroes generally don't have to choose not to kill. The stories are just written so that they find another option.

I'd add to this how poorly Snyder did it in the context of the movie. He literally had Zod saying shit like "You'll have to kill me to stop me." and firing a heat vision beam at random innocents like it's the Goldfinger laser scene.

If you have confidence in your storytelling you don't need artificial plot stakes added to the story to make it "more legitimate."

It would have been one thing if Superman killed him in the heat of battle, but that heat vision thing was some of the most childish storytelling in the movie. A movie that never gave a real shit about the collateral damage of the fight scenes(for better or worse, I'm not making a value judgement) suddenly goes "Oh man look at these random fucks with no names, now the battle REALLY matters."

And then we follow up this intensely dramatic scene with dank jokes about how hot Superman is and him smiling about his new job, showing exactly zero of the so-called regret or emotional damage Snyder claimed it would inflict on him.

I don't really care about Superman killing if it's the right context, but like any story it depends on the execution and MoS handled it horribly. You could remove every shred of Superman from this movie and turn it into an OC donut steel and it's still be bad writing from a character standpoint.

i like superheroes finding a third option, showcases their superior lateral thinking

Your takeaway should be even simpler:
"Execution matters."
It doesn't matter what the character does so much as how they do it. That's why yesterday we had a snyderfag thread going HE SAVED THE WORLD SEE that couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that the movie framed it as a dour chore that wasn't actually a good thing.

But what if they're fighting a villain who will always kill no matter what?

executing him is something for the court to decide

if he is to die, then it should be a choice made by a representative of the people, and carried out with their consent

>the country he's in does not support the death penalty
>They decide to put him in prison
>he gets out five minutes later

It's definitely always more interesting. But also the heroes are meta-wise enough to know that killing isn't permanent anyway in their universe.

thats the governments fault, not the superheroes

Real heroes don't kill.

They always find a way.

Then the writer can have someone fix the phantom zone projector and send him back. This is not real life, my friend.

EXECUTION MATTER.

Your work as a writter and director is to make the scene work, there is no "formula", only stupid people and corporate souless executives think that there is a formula instead of EXECUTION.

Samurai Jack for example, dealed with it way better, I would argue that it had a "jaded character becoming desiluded with his mission" better than Batman too.


It is even more dumber because it is never brought up again on BvS, Clark never mentions Zod at any moment.

I remember Snyder saying that it would be the origin of his "no kill rule"....just to it not affect at all Superman characterization on BvS, Supes doesnt even mention Zod at any moment or the fact that he has a no kill rule.

...

I'd gladly break the law if it's to protect/help the innocent over one worthless murderer or rapist.

So if there's a rabid animal in the area, the "hero" should just leave it be or attempt to capture it?

there is always another way, superheroes never resign themselves to "choose the lesser evil", obviously you cant not kill forever, but when you do kill it takes the form of a 2-parter where you lament that you have no right and it strenghtens your resolve not to do it again, and keep that promise for at least 10 years when a new writer messes up your character

but the point is that when faced between 2 choices, you make a third

As far as I'm concerned it's fine if a superhero intentionally murders someone if their name isn't Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man. Those three consistently seem to have explicit no-kill rules while others like Aquaman, Captain America, or Wonder Woman are willing to do it if it's absolutely necessary.

And then you have the Punisher.

If that's the case, why is there no revolt after the 75th time this happens?

the people decided it wasnt a big issue

one wonders if there is lead in their water supply

>rabid animal

I dont think that most heroes are vegetarian, so killing an animal is not much of an issue.

This said "herores should never kill" is dumb, but Superman works way better as the "take a third option" guy anyway, in the same way, Batman iis more dramatic with self imposed rules. If you WANT to make these kill, you better do a good job with it like Capeshit by the big 2 is stupid, their worldbuilding ignores logic and natural progression, and even natural human behavior.

There are no really good in universe explanations, apart from the fact that they are literaly in univere capeshit comic books bound to the cliches of the genre.

The people who are befuddled by why people are annoyed Superman killed Zod the way he did are the same people that go to McDonald's, order a triple quarter pounder with bacon and cheese, a supersize fry, a supersize shamrock shake, a large McFlurry, a ten piece chicken nugget, but also a supersize DIET coke because "they're trying to watch their calories"

>Supes doesnt even mention Zod at any moment or the fact that he has a no kill rule.

Because it was a bullshit excuse to appease fan backlash made outside the movie, like "There is an actual real Mandarin, guys. We're totally gonna bring it up sometime!"

Or even "We're hinting to the Leader guys!"

Fuck you buddy! I got so used to diet sodas over the years I actually prefer the taste now. But I still like huge hamburgers.

But yeah, the problem is that Superman had the upper hand when he killed him. It shoudl've been the other way around: No one complains when a hero kills an enemy in a split second, kill-or-be-killed moment where it can go either way. Zod was menacing a family but was subdued, so even if it isn't quite like so, in most minds it looks like Superman is executing a prisoner. Which is 100% non-heroic, Optimus.

How many heroes are there that are only heroes because it makes it easier to kill people? Like a Murderer who only kills bad guys so he doesn't get arrested?

Both.
Different people complain about different things regarding different characters.

Also execution and context matter.

That's what's called an anti-hero, something that was created to subvert the very archetype that Superman embodies.

The part where Superman is supposed to care about regular citizens. The entire film flip-flops on whether he cares about people or not and Pa Kent isn't helping matters any either. Really, Him killing or not killing Zod isn't the problem, it's just a symptom of some bad story-telling.

people are usually one person

>I remember Snyder saying that it would be the origin of his "no kill rule"
I really don't understand that reasoning, considering the movie still portrays it as the right (if painful) thing to do.

>I think the problem is that when we read comics heroes generally don't have to choose not to kill.

everybody knows that shit like that is more of a cop-out than good writting

>Superman kills in the first movie
>Dies in second
Fucking retards. We could have such a great moments in DCEU. Superman who is forced to kill after all heroic staff he has done could be awesome. See the brightest and inspirational hero do that. And also his death which give less feels to the audience than a death of any side character in quippy marvel.

>A movie that never gave a real shit about the collateral damage of the fight scenes(for better or worse, I'm not making a value judgement) suddenly goes "Oh man look at these random fucks with no names, now the battle REALLY matters."

Superman was saving inocents during all the action scenes that he was involved in, that was the point of the scene that you seemed to miss, doing whatever it takes to protect the inocent

the heat vision was just to represent how Zod would not stop, it wasn't about that specific family

/thread

Viewers want justice to be naturally dispensed, so the hero doesn't end up with any blood on his hands, himself.

It's why endings where "hero decides to let villain live and walk away, but villain goes for the backstab and dies either through retaliation or some other phenomenon" endings are so popular.

The thing is that I feel like they tried to frame it as if it was outside of the norm for his morality, but I don't think that works when you're not selling it specifically as the exception in a large canvass of stories for this version of him or a non-main universe specifically meant to contrast the main version.

Maybe they were counting on the fact that this generally isn't his first movie so the metatext there would be that we're supposed to compare it to his movies and TV shows where he doesn't kill, but I don't think it works if he's a rookie. Needs to at least be known to the people in-universe as well to feel really intentional. Because a hero killing when it's outside the norm for them CAN be interesting but a hero who has mainly just done good deeds and never been in a big battle failing himself just doesn't feel good.

I like food analogies and all but could you explain that one?

>Capeshit by the big 2 is stupid, their worldbuilding ignores logic and natural progression, and even natural human behavior.
then killing Zod was the right thing to do

You could argue that it builds on previous adaptations of Superman being heroic, but since the movie also has this character's origin story and life up onto that point, it doesn't work,

If anything, killing the bad guy is the cop-out.

Not necessarily, movies don't have to have revolving door prisons like the comics do.

Besides we know that in this universe Kryptonians come back from death, so it falls into that dumb comics cliché too.
It's like there isn't much argument for killing the Joker as a means to stop him when he came back from the dead half a dozen times.

I've resigned myself to Snyder's gritty Injustice-style universe. My "S" of seeing a bright uplifting Justice League are dashed, I've come to accept Batman as "the guy with the murder car".
Now I just want the idiotic plotting and wtf dialogue to be replaced by competent writing.
I can even accept the oversaturated visuals, God help me.

It's all but confirmed Snyder is out after JL. He wants to do Ayn Rand next.

Rumors are they want the guy who did First Class to soft reboot Superman. That's also why the Flash script keeps being rewritten.

Then Aquaman is far removed from Snyder's world since it's at the bottom of the ocean, so it should be safe.

You wanted an uplifting Justice League?

If you want uplifting, quippy shit then go watch your Marvel shit. The Marvel movies are nice to watch, but do not address anything on how Humanity would act if these super powered people started showing up.

It wasn't until Civil War that they even addressed people dying. I mean, FFS, make it a little more real and show how Humanity would act.

That is where the DC movies get it right. I actually prefer the DC movies over most Marvel movies. There have only been four good marvel movies, that being Winter Solder, GotG, Doctor Strange and the original Iron Man. I'll even say five good ones as the first Avengers was enjoyable. Everything else was shit.

I was talking about comics. There is no reason for movies to copy the worst parts of Marvel/DC.

Hellboy does recorrent villains too...but they do it right.

TELL

Superman has killed before in the comics. So....if you don't want a murderous Superman, he already exists and Snyder did not create him.

No one wants to be reminded of the inherent pessimism of humanity while watching a superhero movie. But also you can avoid that while not going full quips like a cookie cutter Marvel movie.

As much as WB is trying to emulate Nolan's darkness they seem to have missed the point.

Killing in the heat of a battle is not an execution

I did not give a fuck. also I don't think the "if you kill him" fits here since those are usually for when the antagonist is at the mercy of the protagonist or protagonist sets out with the goal to kill, there are no small kids lives on the line
but who should be the executioner when the target is out of the states reach?

How many people did batman murder in batman vs superman?

>Heroes should never kill
Why not? If heroes should never kill that writers should never write an antagonist that needs killing

>You wanted an uplifting Justice League?

Setting aside your incredible issues with movies based on comics you didn't like to begin with, yes.
I didn't want the Superman who decided who lived and died.
I didn't want Assault Tank Batman.
I didn't want "hack down all the normies" Wonder Woman.
I sure as fuck don't look forward to terrible CGI Cyborg or Rob Zombie Aquaman.

I asked too much of this world.

Far too early to be exploring this part of Superman. Establish his morals and then have him kill. You can do an entire movie exploring his morals, and why he has them. DC threw this in to have a "moment" like they do in all their films. They waste so much good stuff by throwing them into movies when they don't need to.

I don't think it needs to be a reminder of the pessimism of Humanity. But, these are heroes trying to save Humanity and I think we need to at least know how the "normies" stand because they are an intricate part of the story.

I guess I am just to anal about how I look at the caped movies. I forever hate Joss Whedon for what he did to an amazing villain prospect with Ultron. Avengers 2 is, by far, the worst movie to date in my book. I'd rather watch the new Fantastic Four movie before that.

I guess I am just tired of all the brightness of the Marvel CU and want more gritty stuff like we see in the DC Universe and the Netflix Marvel stuff.

I was kind of unhappy that he just let his race die. There is a universe where faora infiltrated his school when he was younger and made his dick hard so he allowed them to have colony

That guy who had the Batmobile dropped on his head might have lived.
We see the tires coming down on his head, but we don't see his brains scatter across the street.

I want to cream Hastur

Then you should go watch the cartoon or go watch the Marvel movies for uplifting.

I'll agree with you on Cyborg...he looks like total shit. I am actually looking forward to Momoa as Aquaman and they way they portray Batman in the movie is more along the lines as how they portray him in the current comics with the Justice League and bigger threats like Darkseid and what not.

>Avengers 2 is, by far, the worst movie to date in my book. I'd rather watch the new Fantastic Four movie before that.

Here you go.

>Rob Zombie Aquaman.

This is the general public's idea of Aquaman

Though if they were recycling GOT actors like all cape stuff does these days, they should have gotten Jaime Lannister

Thanks but I already Worm. DC is no better at showing how people react to Superheroes existing then Marvel is. Hell Marvel feels more real to me because life just continued on after people learned about Supers.

He is not a police man so its really up to him how he wishes to do it.
Is not that kind of like shifting blame.
see atomic skull in Superman vs The Elite

I feel like the normies in the DCEU are not really acting like how humanity should in these kinds of stories though. They should be glad they're being saved, but they're basically an antagonist. That's going too far with it. We know humans in real life would do that but it's not fun to watch. At least in the Nolan movies they were still good people. That's what the DCEU should be trying to emulate and just going anti-MCU like you're trying to argue.

And Netflix Marvel is trash, my man, and pretty much just as bad as their movies. You might just have blinders on in that you like everything of a specific tone instead of being more critical about things like storytelling, structure, and pacing.

There were thousand os problems with Man of Steal, Superman killing Zod is not was not one of them

>b-but, he is man of murder!

killin someone is not considered a murder when you do it to protect yours own life or someone else, he saved a mother and his childby doing it, probably the whole world

>superman should always find a way!

The happy go lucky Superman who lives in the silver age, if you put him in amore realistic setting then he will face situations where there is no other way

>I didn't want the Superman who decided who lived and died

By not killing Zod he would be deciding that the woman he was about to kill should die

Here was the general public's idea of Black Panther.

You can makes something great out of a character while staying true to what it is.
WB hasn't improved upon the DC Universe by flinching away from the classic elements of it.

The audience is fine with the hero killing so long as it's done in the right context. This wasn't the right context.

>and just going anti-MCU like you're trying to argue.

this should have been "instead of", I should edit more tbqh

Hasn't Superman killed Zod in almost every incarnation? He crushed his fucking hands in Superman 2 for fucks sake

>This wasn't the right context
>super strong unstopable alien says he will kill every human on Earth procedes to shot his laser eyes on innocent bystanders

How?

You know, I don't understand you guys.

I think it's pretty obvious that Zod was trying to commit suicide by cop. Remember, his entire race had just been wiped out by Superman. He was literally going "Fucking kill me, you shithead. You've taken everything else that's given my life meaning, you race traitor. You want to save these humans? Then kill me and LIVE WITH IT, you quisling."

Murder should only be done as a last resort. Having Batman kill random people is idiotic but having him keep the joker alive so he could kill again is even more idiotic.

Trust me user, none of those dudes are dead. Batman simply put them to sleep

Do you honestly think the most overused cliche in the history of hero vs villain would be a better ending to that conflict?

>After they demolish a fucking city like a minute before hand
It shouldn't have been portrayed as this thing Superman was forced into. If he had killed Zod because he knew he couldn't be held down by earthly prisons and wanted to destroy humanity I think I would be okay with it. Instead it's potrayed as Superman going back on his morals and ideals.

Byrne Superman, the same one that made porn, kissed Loli Lana, and generally lived out all of Byrne's major fetishes killed Zod once.

Superman II did not end with Zod's death, he got a hand broke for being a dick.
The scene with Zod and co (and Luthor) being turned over to the authorities got lost on the cutting room floor (it still exists on the internet) with the weird reshoots after Donner dropped out of Superman II.
No, Superman doesn't make a habit out of killing Zod.

This. Unless you establish who supes is, how he acts, how he solves problems, what his views are, how the world sees him and so on, you can't make an extreme case of him killing. It freaking needs buildup.

How the FUCK does he go back on his morals? He fucking defending people from shitty space murderhobos

I'm pretty sure he got pushed down a ravine after getting his hands crushed dude

The Joker can work if he's not some insane child-murdering lunatic. And people in the Batman universe need to be able to be redeemed. You can't have them all be villains forever. Otherwise Batman looks like a fool. Him holding out for the Joker to really get help can be a reason to not kill him.

>I think it's pretty obvious that Zod was trying to commit suicide by cop

Because the intent is irrelevant if the execution is poor.

I don't care if that was the point Snyder was trying to make because even if that was true the dialogue was still terrible and the scenario to make Superman do it was blatantly artificial.

I'm getting tired of repeating this to Snyder fans over and over again. The intent doesn't matter. The execution matters. I don't care if you had a great idea for a story in your head, it's what you actually put to paper that has to be judged.

>He was literally going "Fucking kill me, you shithead. You've taken everything else that's given my life meaning, you race traitor. You want to save these humans? Then kill me and LIVE WITH IT, you quisling."
Yes and it's garbage writing, particularly in a Superman movie that advertised itself in trailers as Hopeful.
It's right up there with "Imma destroy the whole dimension, fuck you guys!" Doomachev in Fant4stic.

Can I ask, what possible better reason could there be to kill Zod?

Superman literally says "Zod, please don't make me do this." It's basically that scene from Miracleman after Kid Miracleman levels London, and Miracleman's forced to kill him.

>DCEU
its reasonable because its the first impact, heroes were not around for years and doing good. sups came out because he had a fight with his people and a city got caught in the crossfire, yes they got saved but no one feels like they got saved.

I'm pretty sure I own both cuts and all the extras of Superman II in the box set, and he got slammed against a wall and went down a slide after getting his hands hurt.

Batman was around.

Why didn't he just fly up then? It's not like crushing his hands make him unable to fly.

No, I'm just stating a fact.

There should be some apprehension but they go too far with it and make it weird enough that it's unpleasant. Yes humanity is weird but no one wants to watch that.

>Humanity will act in the most cynical, negative, pessimistic, self destructive, and downright stupid ways possible 1000% of the time. That's the only way to be realistic.
That's you. That's how you sound.

In the scene "take em away boys", Clark and Lois talk to an officer from the Arctic Patrol (lel) as Luthor tries to smooth talk his way out of jail one last time. Zod and his two cronies are led in cuffs into the big arctic cat.

It was never intended by either director to imply that Superman and Lois murdered the Krypto convicts after they were depowered and harmless.