I see people constantly complain about Superman and batman killing in the Snyder movies.
However people have no problem with marvel heroes using guns and killing people.
I remember Tony killing people in Iran Man 1 and Iron Man 3. Captain America used a gun and shot Nazis. And the Avengers killed countless alien lives in the first avengers film. At least the parademons were already dead.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
You act like everyone in DC has a no kill rule. But Superman and Batman are special cases considering one is a boy scout, and the other is an autistic by the book tightass.
Batman and Superman have a long history of not killing people. Marvel heroes have a long history of killing people.
The problem with Superman is less that he killed people, it's more that the movie takes it for granted that Superman NOT killing people is the status quo (because that's how it is in the rest of media) and doesn't establish it in the movie
Like, his parents were spiritually exhausted, morally ambivalent, self interested people. Clark himself clearly had a vindictive streak, and wasn't particularly a friendly, loving people person. Why would someone like that fall to his knees and scream to the heavens in anguish after breaking a homicidal maniac's neck?
Conversely, I didn't give a shit when Batman killed people in BVS because this Batman was never established as not being particularly murderous. And frankly, his paranoid vaguely xenophobic reaction to Superman gave me the impression that yeah, he probably doesn't have a lot of qualms about killing the hell out of people.
Everyone in the MCU kills with the exception of Spider-Man.
With DC it's Superman, Batman and a few other heroes but heroes like Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Flash don't have that problem.
Captain America was literally a soldier in World War 2. Of course he killed people. Iron Man was an arms dealer, his fortune was built on a foundation of death. Now, if you showed us Spider-Man intentionally killing someone (and even he's allowed to accidentally get someone killed) that would cause just as much objection as Superman and Batman killing, as it's part of those three characters' mission statements that they do not kill.
And to prove it's not one-sided in Marvel's favor, Wonder Woman killed people in her film, did she not?
Since when is Barry casual about murder?
Flash is a killer?
It's because no-kill rules are pretty big staple of Batman and Superman.
Cap on the hand, is literally a soldier fighting a literal war.
>And to prove it's not one-sided in Marvel's favor, Wonder Woman killed people in her film, did she not?
She's the one who should be snapping necks!
He killed more than a handful of universes via Flashpoint, so he's like, on the same scale as the Anti-monitor
Because Superman is expected to be a paragon of justice. The avengers are just a bunch of yahoo's with unique talents trying to change the world.
It's like asking why people are fine if you carry the ball in football but you get a penalty trying that in basketball.
>Iran Man
This made me kek
With the MCU it's sort of practical, Iron-Man's first kills were his own kidnappers then a bunch of hostage takers literally with guns to their heads. Cap of course is a soldier so him not killing would be rather strange.
Supes on the other hand seems to kill because why the fuck not for some reason, apparently same with Bats, including the branding which he may or may not know about supposedly so why does he even fucking do it? And of course it brings up the big question of why the fuck the Joker isn't dead.
>it's more that the movie takes it for granted that Superman NOT killing people is the status quo (because that's how it is in the rest of media) and doesn't establish it in the movie
YES THEY DID.
They made it pretty clear he went out of his way to not punch down for 33 years of life and took tons of bullying and abuse because of that restraint.
>self interested people
Not a single thing points to that on any level. The "maybe" line was concern for the greater good of society not concern about Clark alone. Hence Pa's line "there is more at stake then our lives or the lives of those around us".
How about you actually listen to the entire conversation fucker.
>Clark himself clearly had a vindictive streak
That is perfectly normal for someone who has spent 33 years being bullied & is unable to react to it. That has no relevance in whether or not he values human life.
>and wasn't particularly a friendly, loving people person
Bullshit. He was very warm with Martha & later Lois.
He is cold to everyone else as a sacrifice to stay hidden, he gave up having a social life for the greater good not because he didn't want to or was incapable of caring about people.
>And frankly, his paranoid vaguely xenophobic reaction to Superman gave me the impression that yeah, he probably doesn't have a lot of qualms about killing the hell out of people.
Your a fucking idiot.
His reaction to Superman was in desperation to save countless lives it sure as fuck wasn't because he didn't value life.
Superman is supposed to be the shining symbol of truth and justice, people look up to Superman and he is often held as the moral compass in the DC Universe. Superman himself is more contempt on catching falling airplanes and holding up bridges than fighting thugs or monsters anyway. Having him go around killing people doesn't fit the message of hope and "everyone can be good" he tries to send. His whole shtick is that he's the most powerful man in the world, and he uses powers that could easily destroy humanity to help it.
Batman is also super autistic about killing to the point that he holds it as the line that once crossed no one can go back from. Which, to be fair, you can understand from his viewpoint what with his parents being murdered as a child and traumatising him for life. Also there's the fact that nearly every time someone he knows kills somebody else, they end up becoming a villain (see Red Hood, injustice Superman. etc.)
Marvel is more justified in that, like you said, Captain America was an actual soldier in an actual war, and Iron Man was killing terrorists so that seems fine as well. Plus, people respect and admire Marvel heroes, but not to the point that DC heroes are at, there are a lot more stories of Marvel heroes being put in the bad public light than DC ones, so there probably isn't much motivation to be less trigger happy in the Marvel Universe.
>Supes on the other hand seems to kill because why the fuck not for some reason
Are you fucking delusional?
He only killed Zod and it's crystal clear as fucking day why he had to do it.
It's never confirmed if he killed the dictator but he said he did not so that should be good enough and even if he had he had little other option anyway.
1 - Heating up the gun could have set the ammunition off inside or caused the guy to panic and fire and from that distance I doubt the heat would reach with that level of precision.
2 - Running over and grabbing the gun could have harmed Lois as super speed both by Clark & Flash have alot of impacting force hence him telling Lois to stand back in Mos when he takes flight.
>so why does he even fucking do it?
Because he is in a pit of rage and self hatred for 20 years of failing and wants to hurt people for it.
>And of course it brings up the big question of why the fuck the Joker isn't dead.
He hasn't escaped since before the black zero incident.
>as super speed both by Clark & Flash have alot of impacting force
In this specific universe I meant to say.
>super speed both by Clark & Flash have alot of impacting force
>It's never confirmed if he killed the dictator
This is the problem, the writing: it's all supposedly ambiguous shit, including the Zod thing since he fucking flies him from space to the middle of a city rather than say into a fucking desert or ocean. And if he has the power to overpower him and break his neck all he had to do was grab his armpits and jump/fly, they're immediately out of the city again, then break his fucking arms and legs or something.
Again, the writing is shit designed specifically because Snyder thinks he's some edgy prophet of Superjesus.
Where is Jimmy Olsen in all of this?
And again, why does Bats not kill the Joker?
>he had little other option anyway
You're telling me in after two decades of getting to understand and master his powers, he at no point figured out or tested multiple ways he could deal with a hostage situation? Like superspeed rushing the guy and breaking his arm. Lois wouldn't got hurt anyway, real-world physics don't apply in these movies unless the script dmenads it (example: Mary Jane's death in Spiderman).
Also he didn't need to kill zod, that dumbfuck family could've just ran under the laser and out the way, or Superman could've just covered zod's face with his arm, or suplexed him. The reason he snapped his neck was because the script told him to and comicbook movies are scared of reusing villains so they just kill them off most of the time. Apart from that scream he does, he never acknowledges or addresses killing Zod, even after he's revived as Doomsday, no mention of the supposed "trauma" killing him caused Clark.
Well yeah, that's bullshit, but if you bring up you'll hear a ton of faggots saying it's "more realistic".
Since Cap's movie was decent and he's not seen as shooting anyone specifically, I just handwaved it as he's shooting for covering the others. Tony has been more liberal about killing in the comics for a long time.
It was bullshit in Avengers, too (Hulk crushing some alien's head made me cringe), but once they destroy whatever was sending the signal, I think I recall the alien soldiers stopping, so... whatever. Whedon's a hack anyway.
Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, etc. were nowhere near as popular as Batman and Superman were when the MCU was starting out; everybody knew that Batman and Superman refuse to kill, it's part of their character, this is why Man of steel and Batman v. Superman had such a backlash in this regard.
This is also why Spider-Man doesn't kill in the MCU (so far) despite others doing it, everybody goes in 'knowing' he doesn't.
>Where is Jimmy Olsen in all of this?
Being a black CIA agent before being killed off, I guess.
Because MCU movies are actually good
The 'knowing' or expectations are what's important I suppose, also perhaps why Mandarin wasn't liked, nothing wrong with the movie itself but people were quite irritated.
And of course.
Superman or Batman killing would be like Spider-Man killing. And believe me, if Spider-Man did, there would be at least as much outcry as Man of Murder. Probably more.
Captain America killing Nazis is a soldier in World War II.
The problem is that Superman and Batman are Superman and Batman. Captain America is a solider, Iron Man is an alcoholic lunatic wearing a WMD, and the Avengers comprise of those two people, an unstoppable monster fueled by rage and destruction, a warrior god of lightning, and two other soldiers.
Boy Sup Forums has to go.
If I weren't fuckin drunk I'd give you all the what for, you fuckin fags.
>Iran Man 1
DRAWFAGS
This is a big factor in public reception of pre-established media. If you're gonna do something different with a character or franchise that goes against what audiences expect, you need to curb the hype and expectation. That's what trailers and pre-release interviews are for. If you don't do that, well you end up with the examples in this thread. There's also the fact that Mos and BvS weren't very good films either so that won't help.
>including the Zod thing since he fucking flies him from space to the middle of a city rather than say into a fucking desert or ocean
No Zod took them into space AND back into Metropolis (see the bottom example of pic related), Superman only gains control of the flight near the very end of it making sure Zod takes the brunt of their impact.
>And if he has the power to overpower him and break his neck
He had no idea he could break his bones, he got him into the headlock simply to restrain him, it only occurred to him to try & break his neck once Zod started blasting at the civilians.
>all he had to do was grab his armpits and jump/fly
That isn't a fucking solution, throwing away the advantage the headlock gave just to keep blood off his hands is selfish and negligent on a genocidal level, that is the first time he had the upper hand in the fight. As soon as Zod is out of the headlock he is a immediate threat to thousands and billions long term.
>they're immediately out of the city again
Not even remotely that fast or easy, refer again to pic related and see the moment when he is punching Zod across the sky and they are almost out of downtown and Zod swerves back in.
>Again, the writing is shit designed specifically because Snyder thinks he's some edgy prophet of Superjesus.
Breaking his limbs is alot edgier then killing to save a family in immediate danger and billions long term.
>Where is Jimmy Olsen in all of this?
Irrelevance land, childish comedy relief characters weren''t needed for this universe.
>And again, why does Bats not kill the Joker?
Because AGAIN he hasn't escaped since Bruce started being willing to kill which happened after the black zero incident.
>childish comedy relief characters weren''t needed for this universe
Why is Luthor still alive? Is he going to kidnap Martha every other movie now while eating Jolly Ranchers and planting jars of piss?
>You're telling me in after two decades of getting to understand and master his powers
He spent those decades suppressing his powers in this universe not testing or training with them.
>real-world physics don't apply in these movies unless the script dmenads it
False how the special effects present them does and demands consistency. Your see when him and Flash use their speed they knock shit down all around them.
>or Superman could've just covered zod's face with his arm
Option 1 - He may have lost his arm, we saw when Clark used his beam against Faora that it hurt her.
Option 2 - If it was strong enough to not be burnt away, it may have deflected the beam all across the room possibly hitting someone else.
>or suplexed him
He didn't know who was behind them and the beam going into the ceiling may have caused rubble to fall and hit the family among others.
Regardless these are only microscopic temporary solutions, there was no other LONG TERM solution. And long term a full power Kryptonian can kill the entire human race by hand. Read the casualty predictions in Supreme Power sometime on what would happen if Hyperion started slaughtering people at will. And Dceu Superman/Zod are AT LEAST as powerful as that lower teir version of Hyperion.
Spider Man wasn’t allowed to even punch people in Homecoming
That wasn't meant to be comedy, it was meant to be unnerving and show how bizarre he is.
>He had no idea he could break his bones...it only occurred to him to try & break his neck once Zod started blasting at the civilians
Superman, the strongest man on the planet, who has spent much more time on Earth and has trained under a yellow sun longer than Zod, didn't think to break Zod's arms and legs to incapacitate him?
>Breaking his limbs is alot edgier then killing
No it isn't, it less edgy, because by causing great pain to Zod (who at various moments during the fight was still grappling with the overwhelming power he was inheriting at the moment) he would be put out of commission, allowing Superman to send him back to the phantom zone.
>Not even remotely that fast or easy
Earlier in the film, Superman flew from Alaska to Africa in under a few minutes, you're telling me that Superman couldn't fling Zod out into the Atlantic or the Rockys to fight him? The reason he was fighting in Metropolis was so that the film could have a dumb superhero climax without consideration to logic or consistency.
>childish comedy relief characters
If we were getting rid of characters based upon their worthiness to the story, Alfred would've been gone years ago. WHy wOuld BatMan nEed a ButleR? cried the casuals. But they kept him in because he was tied to Batman's story. Getting rid of Jimmy just shows how little faith the filmmakers have in the source material and/or their inability to find a place for him in Superman's story, which countless writers beforehand figured out DECADES ago.
And yes I know Jimmy isn't JUST comedy relief but their are few who know how to use him without resorting to that.
>MoS retardation is alive and well over 5.5 years later
Behead Sup Forumstards
Spider-Man would kill normal people if he punched them seriously.
Yeah, why show Superman getting to know a normal human and instead make him talk to his two dead dads, one as a hallucination telling him about dead horses.
Synderfags just don't know when to admit defeat. MoS wasn't even the worst DC film out of all of them either.
Here is the case
If you have to "get" Superman to like him, then it wasn't a good portrayal of Superman. Superman is supposed to be so likable (character-wise) that you can't help but like him. Audiences didn't like him. It was a bad portrayal of Superman. That's it. The argument ends right there.
Cap is a soldier in war, him killing is expected.
Tony has already killed thousands by proxy while getting rich by selling weapons, whats a few more.
And Superman doesn't have a no kill rule, he only avoids killing unless its the kind of threat he can't possible pull his punches against like Doomsday or Darkseid
But Superman literally only killed Zod, whom he killed in the comics.
Superman flat out says he didnt kill any of the terrorists, that includes the leader. Also Superman HAS killed other aliens in the comics.
Yes, he never had a chance to practice a hostage situation against someone with exactly his powers. Don't pretend like its the same thing as a normal hostage situation.
>Superman is supposed to be so likable (character-wise)
Lmao what? This is the most casual thing I've read. Supermans personality has changed drastically and many times over the years.
>and has trained under a yellow sun longer than Zod
Hasn't trained at all.
>didn't think to break Zod's arms and legs to incapacitate him?
Likely what they were trying to do to each other by punching each other into stuff and they both clearly were not showing any injury so the possibility that they could break each others bones probably seemed very improbable.
>allowing Superman to send him back to the phantom zone
He had no device with which to open a portal to it.
>Earlier in the film, Superman flew from Alaska to Africa in under a few minutes
That was a montage no telling how much time took place. And he would have had Zod pushing against him the whole flight.
>you're telling me that Superman couldn't fling Zod out into the Atlantic or the Rockys to fight him?
He clearly fucking tried when he let loose punching Zod across the sky away from the sky scrapers and it didn't work.
>The reason he was fighting in Metropolis was so that the film could have a dumb superhero climax without consideration to logic or consistency.
The reason he was fighting in Metropolis was because Zod didn't leave him any choice and there wasn't anything dumb about it. It made the stakes feel real & urgent.
>Alfred would've been gone years ago
No he actually provides wisdom and perspective for Bruce. Jimmy provides little but workplace banter.
>Getting rid of Jimmy just shows how little faith the filmmakers have in the source material
Or they wanted to focus on Lois instead.
This
Superman in the comics is a VERY unlikable person, in fact more so than Batman
Lois is a normal human as is his mother.
And he is meant to be alienated in this universe by choice.
Your asking it to meet a criteria it intended to go for the opposite of.
I was referring to the hostage scene at the beginning of Batman vs Superman, not the final scene of Mos, in the first paragraph. "Guy holds gun to hostage's head" is a super common tactic, it would be stupid not to practice for that situation. And with superman's set of powers, he would have no problem dealing with it without having to kill the guy.
>And with superman's set of powers, he would have no problem dealing with it without having to kill the guy.
Not the movie version of his powers.
>casuals think Superman is fucking mary poppins or something
Just because you didn't like him, doesn't mean he wasn't a good character
Lois is his sex toy, Martha is his adoptive mother who gives his weird advice, or not advice, both of which are treated more as damsels in distress.
Why did Superman want to fight Batman? The literal title fight. Without Lex's shenanigans.
What he couldn't have used:
>heat vision
>freeze/super breath
>super speed
>Literally telling the guy he doesn't want to hurt him and that even if he killed the hostage, Superman is still possesses all of the above and could easily catch him and just force him surrender.
>when Guardians of the Galaxy 2 has a better Superman than the two Superman movies
Well damned near any Superman is better than this Superman.
Injustice Superman probably makes more sense.
>Lois is his sex toy
No they bonded out of mutual trust and respect not lust.
Before the kiss scene there was nothing sexual or even fully romantic about their interaction in Mos.
His heat vision in the Dceu is more like a lava blast then a laser, it isn't precise enough at those distances. And the heat beam even if it was that precise it could have set off the ammunition.
Same with freeze breath and there is absolutely no guarantee the guy couldn't pull the trigger before his hand froze regardless.
>>super speed
>Superman is still possesses all of the above and could easily catch him and just force him surrender.
See -
At least that Superman had justification for being so unlikable. And this is coming from a man who hates Injustice Superman.
But there is nothing nonsensical about dceu Superman.
When is Marvel going to use Hyperion so we can have good Superman movies again?
But there is nothing unlikable about Dceu Superman.
He is extremely sympathetic, he did nothing morally wrong and is never dickish. He is just conflicted and dour.
Your not being able to like someone who is conflicted and dour reflects poorly on your judgemental ass not him.
But most Hyperions have exactly the same personality aspects as Dceu Superman. More so intact. And they are alot more over lording and dickish too.
I suppose after they merge the Fox characters and everything seems stable for marketing such a character. Even then I don't know that they'd want to look like they're openly mocking WB, I would guess all sorts of film industry workers cross paths and studios a lot, the actors obviously do.
>I'm Superman y'all
I doubt Hyperion's interesting enough to carry his own film and he'll be an instant plot hole for any threat the Avengers face.
>we will never see an ultra-high budget miniseries adapting this
The world is not ready to see true capekino.
Is it a lava blast or is it just seem that way due to the special effects? Also, you say that by rushing the guy he could've harmed lois, but his actual movie solution was to RUSH THE GUY through a wall and Lois was not harmed at all, she just got a slight breeze.
youtube.com
But yeah no, he had to kill that guy because he had to get some of that Lane pussy that night.
Batman has a no kill rule and it's well known. But Superman? Frankly Superman is just plain better than most Marvel heroes. He has all the fantastic powers and the intelligence to implement them in creative ways. If he has to kill it just feels cheap and lazy
>Like, his parents were spiritually exhausted, morally ambivalent, self interested people
RETARD ALERT
Well, with Disney acquiring Fox's assets maybe they'd release it under the Fox or whatever they decide to rebrand it as, like Deadpool sort of. It's not exactly connected so people can have sort of clean expectations going in.
>Clark himself clearly had a vindictive streak
Superman 2 has Clark go out of his way to return to the diner to manhandle the bully who beat Clark up when he had no powers. For no other reason than get payback now that his superpowers were back.
Try and read a comic sometime.
>But yeah no, he had to kill that guy
He didn't kill him.
>Who do people not complain about Marvel heroes killing people in the MCU
Because their comic counterparts do not abid by retarded no-kill codes.
He went through like three, separate concrete walls, back first at super speed without any powers or armour and apparently he's fine? Capital b, Bullshit if I've ever heard it. And there are people out there who think there isn't an issue with the DCEU's writing.
So Superman is against all forms of justified homicide on principle alone? Superman hates cops who have righteous kills in life or death situations?
>Retarded
It's not retarded. Superman has to much power to kill indiscriminately. If you want a Superman who kills you may as well replace him with fucking Stardust
>If you want a Superman who kills you may as well replace him with fucking Stardust
And this wouldn't be awesome why?
>I'll turn you all into one person!
My sides, nooo!
It's less that and more that Superman hopes for a world without violence and killing, and by actively killing people himself, it goes against the message he tries to bring and the future he's hoping to build. Besides, Superman is a ultra-powerful alien with amazing abilities who can solve plenty of problems without needing to resort to excessive violence, a cop with a gun being charged by a guy with a knife doesn't have many other options.
>Superman is a ultra-powerful alien with amazing abilities who can solve plenty of problems without needing to resort to excessive violence,
Except in context to Zod, he's fighting another alien with the same exact powers as him, but that person also has decades worth of martial arts and military training, which makes him much more dangerous and powerful than Clark. And that's not taking account Zod's entire motivation is to commit global genocide out of pure spite unless Superman kills him. And there is nothing that could contain Zod if he was defeated non-lethally.
That statement was in regards to Superman confronting normal situations like a robbery or a stand-off, but alright I'll take your bait.
To defeat Zod, a being who has spent considerably less time on earth exposed to yellow radiation and thus has a less developed body and powers, Superman could've:
>Beat the snot out of him because even a Kryptonian can be defeated with enough blunt force trauma
>Break his limbs to incapacitate him and make him more easy to contain
>Fight him on the dark side of the planet so as to drain his powers faster
>Throw him into the sun and have him either be overwhelmed by the power and go on the fritz or get super-cancer
And to contain him:
>Have the scientist replicate red solar radiation and put him in a cell lit by it
>Have the scientists reverse-engineer technology from the crashed ship to produce a phantom-zone projector, just like how Zod re-purposed their own projector into a hyper-drive.
And oh look, that last option gives us leeway to introduce Lex Luthor and have him come to meet general Zod and devise a plan to defeat Clark with Kryptonian technology. See, it's not that hard.
Well there was the guy that was executed in the Superman animated series. Don't know that either DC or Marvel do state execution stuff much, it's kind of a real politically charged debate so I would guess they both try to skirt around it as much as possible.
So was Thor there to fuel the chair or what?
Funny but no, you could see the strapped table in that page on the right side so they were going with lethal injection.
Well yeah, but I don't think Superman will actively interfere with the Justice system unless he's absolutely certain that the person is innocent (like that guy he saved from getting gased that same episode), he's never gonna get rid of crime and violence completely, he just wants to minimize it.
Also why does Metropolis have the death sentence but Gotham doesn't? Are there stories where Gotham criminals get executed or do they just lock up the mass murderers in easily escapeable cells.
>Also why does Metropolis have the death sentence but Gotham doesn't?
The Gotham ones all get insanity pleas.
Well I would guess Bruce is the big rich guy in control of Gotham so he should be able to make their leaders decide if the death penalty is worth pushing for that often as far as talking to people like the prosecutor and such goes.
The specific legalities of it vary from state to state, if your crimes are committed as felony actions they can bump you into federal jurisdiction and execute any murderer if they want regardless of state law.
Oh righto, I come from a country without the death penalty so I'm not sure exactly how the specifics of it works. I'm also aware that the real reason comicbook villains don't get executed is because then there wouldn't be any villains for the hero to fight anymore. It just seems rather odd that a show starring the most lawful good hero with some of the more fantastical villains shows the death penalty whilst the show with mass murderers and a brooding antihero doesn't.
That's now what Jimmy has been used in any live action medium. Jimmy is just fanservice in movies where he calls Perry "Chief" and maybe takes a photo. In Superman Returns he was just an exposition dumb to quickly infodump that Lois was banging someone else and had a kid now. In Lois and clark he's just irrelevant young dude who occasionally happens to talk to Clark. In Supergirl he isn't someone Kara hangs out to connect with humanity.
Nazis aren't people
So making him an actual character in this movie universe would have been good even if only as a minor support character like Sam Wilson but without getting as physically involved in fights.
youtu.be
MCU heroes kill people because they're well written characters
it'd be unbelievable for warrior/soldier characters up against people as dangerous as them like Thor/Cap/Black Widow/Hawkeye not to kill in battle when they have no choice, it'd be unrealistic for Hulk not to kill people when he's having a chimp out and you can understand why Tony kills his enemies because he's a flawed man trying to make the best out of terrible situations by himself
DCEU heroes kill people because they're badly written characters
Batman is homicidal for no reason and guns down mercs with gattling guns on his car which ruins the idea of his character trying to force the world to be the way he wants it to be by sheer will power but for some reason doesn't just use guns to take out enemies in a hostage situation, Superman killing Zod was contrived as fuck and he's so powerful he should never have to take out a human lethally and Wonder Woman is meant to be some ultra compassionate humanitarian envoy for peace who just kills conscripted teenagers she's skilled enough to take out non-lethally because the moral of this allegedly feminist movie is women can be heroes if they're just better at violence than men
No movie is ever going to focus on Jimmy and give him a spotlight simply because he's so irrelevant of a character that it's inane to give him screen time. People don't care about Jimmy in a Superman movie. He doesn't bring anything to the table nor contribute anything that other, more important characters like Lois don't do better.
Even comics struggle to do shit with Jimmy because his function has largely been diminished and made redundant with Lois becoming a love interest who isn't just an antagonist, scheming to expose Clark as Superman or force Superman to marry her.
Yes instead we focus on jars of pee, and a fake witness who goes to a senator for safety, for lying for Lex then leaves the senator and gets killed anyways so that the testimony can go on until the bomb explodes making the whole scheme pointless anyways so that Superman can grimace in the inferno as TV heads speculate that it wasn't actually Superman that caused the explosions so that...
Wait what?
you might as well ask why people dont complain about keaton batman killing
its because a good movie allows you to overlook tiny nitpicks like that and focus on the narrative