"Killing" in films...(Spoilers for DCEU,MCU,Other Films)

This might go south pretty fast but I fancied opening a discussion about our favourite characters, and when they do/don't take a life in the medium of film.

Absolutely obvious that I'm about to mention the DCEU, and the MCU - but this is not, I repeat, NOT, a bashing thread either way. I enjoy both massively, and I really don't want this to devolve into slanging matches. Intelligent discussion sound good? Good.

I've noticed that as fans, our "suspension of disbelief" seems to be a very fluid thing, and I mean that individually, not just across the range of people who might watch these films. For instance, we have Superman and Batman fans up in arms because they have taken lives in the DCEU.

Superman in the DCEU has directly taken two lives at my last count (that are explicit) - one being Zod, whom he killed when he realised he could not contain this person who had vowed to destroy every last human on the planet, and Doomsday, who was a vat grown Kryptonian creature that all three heroes were struggling to contain, and who had not been stopped by a direct Nuclear strike at that point. I don't personally class Superman as having taken human life when he is battling Zod, and we don't know how many people died at Black Zero etc. Those are on Zod in my eyes.

Batman in the DCEU could be said to have taken probably two lives directly that we are shown, maybe 5 or 6 directly that we aren't shown (if we class exploding cars and brute hits from the batmobile) and probably a few more than that indirectly (the guy with the grenade who jumps towards it instead of away from it - I don't even class that as Batman's really.

So that's me setting of my interpretation of what we have been shown so far in the DCEU. Superman showed immediate remorse after that first taking of life, and screamed his rage/anguish out. With Doomsday, he literally ensures his own death to make sure that he vanquishes the beast (in the manner of Excalibur no less). Batman currently has shown no remorse for what he has done, other than a speech near the end of Batman v Superman where he talks about humanity being good, and that it (and he by extension) can be better, and will be better (he won't fail Superman in death etc) which could be construed as remorse I suppose, but more of a changing of ways.

So I suppose my first question is - are the complaints about what we have seen based upon the in universe characterisation, or do they stem only from the source material? I believe for the most part the complaints are based upon the source material, which I understand - but I do think that this complaint is a little redundant when we accept the idea that we are being told a new interpretation and story etc.

The DCEU has taken on (possibly not widely, but on these boards it seems a few) the nickname of being called the DC Murderverse...a title I find so nonsensical it hurts - more on this in a minute.

Which leads me on to my next point - if a character in their source material is shown to already be comfortable taking a life, and then does so on the big screen, would the same person be offended, or not? Is the act of killing acceptable in the film if the character has already done it in the comics?

I want to claim it's hypocritical to deplore killing in one film, and accept it in another, but that isn't the point of this. I'd rather discuss it and see where we get to.

In the MCU, I think my favourite character is probably one of the best examples. Captain America in the MCU is fantastic. His characterization is phenomenal. And yet I see many comparisons to Superman. Superman should be what Cap is in the MCU etc because people are unhappy with a Superman that questions his existence and struggles with so much death and negativity as a response to some of his heroic actions. But when I watch these films and start to compare, things aren't as clear cut as that. Not at all. Captain America has killed literally hundreds of people. His actions, like Batman's detractors in BvS fightscenes, would maim, seriously injure and destroy nameless goons lives - a great example of this is the absolutely amazing boat infiltration scene in Winter Soldier. One of the best opening action scenes I've ever seen. But Cap straight up deforms people, it's so brutal. But...because he kills in the comics, it's OK for us to enjoy that? And he can still stand for goodness, and justice, and heroism? One of the main arguments I believe will pop up here will be that he is a Soldier. Well that's a great argument, because a soldier is there to protect a countries interests, and is driven by whatever government controls their missions. But generally,we agree that a soldier is justified in killing? Or do we not? I think we do for the most part as part of our suspension of disbelief.

So is it OK for Captain America to kill the bad guys, but Batman is a murderer for doing the same to an arguably less numerous degree? If at this point, Batman's "one rule" is the main point of contention - (he doesn't have (at the time of BvS) this "one rule" but he certainly isn't just headshotting anyone he meets), then fair enough - but if we logically follow that through, is not hypocritical of us to applaud killing in one aspect, but deplore it in another? Why do we accept that our heroes kill at all?

And thus we return back to the DCEU "Murderverse" - absolutely certain that our beloved MCU has more killing in it. Definitely. Do I care? Not at all - because in universe, it is shown that the characters kill for a good purpose, much as a soldier would. In that sense, I do end up applying this to the DCEU when I watch it, and even though I love the comics, and I love the various incarnations of DC's heroes etc, it absolutely doesn't seem as bad to me, at all.

Effectively, my enjoyment of the MCU directly has let me enjoy some aspects of the DCEU more, even when part of my brain rebels at a Batman who has "crossed the line" I also kind of love that we have seen that, and I hope we see an interesting take on him coming back to the light.

Killing is killing - it is a bad action, but is it justified when doing the right thing for our heroes? Should DCEU be torn down for it's depiction of our heroes who kill in certain circumstances, should MCU be viewed in a different light if we apply the same rules? Or should we have different rules for different films, much as we accept the different rules for different comics?

Can we tear down Batman for killing indirectly, whilst we applaud a soldier in real life who kills to protect innocent civilians? Can we praise Captain America for killing hundreds of people, evil or otherwise over the years whilst we accept that the Punisher, in the same universe (technically the MCU I suppose?) is hated and loathed for his no mercy stance on criminals?

Hoping this can be a good discussion, and whilst this may come across as slightly defensive of the DCEU (the murderverse thing is what got me thinking really, that people's opinions are formed in surprising ways considering the death dealing across all of the films we watch) I am a massive fan of all of these franchises, which is why I'm here in the first place. Looking forward to hearing people's thoughts.

IMO the problem is when characters on screen fall too far away from the source material that has been portrayed to the public in the past. The public (majority of viewing audience) does not care about some offshoot comics where batman/superman were different. The variety of tv shows and movies portray a character one way and the more recent movie jumps away from that. Now, I'm not going to say the film is wrong or bad for attempting this, I will say it is understandable why the audience feels differently about a character when this happens.

I feel the same thing would happen if all of a sudden the MCU had Captain American start acting totally contrarian to the image he has held in the movies so far.

karmajay said:

IMO the problem is when characters on screen fall too far away from the source material that has been portrayed to the public in the past. The public (majority of viewing audience) does not care about some offshoot comics where batman/superman were different. The variety of tv shows and movies portray a character one way and the more recent movie jumps away from that. Now, I'm not going to say the film is wrong or bad for attempting this, I will say it is understandable why the audience feels differently about a character when this happens.

I feel the same thing would happen if all of a sudden the MCU had Captain American start acting totally contrarian to the image he has held in the movies so far.

Click to expand...

Ok, I can see that. Though which characters are acting differently to what has been portrayed before?

If we talk only about killing, then Batman has indirectly killed in almost all of his big screen adaptations. Doesn't make it acceptable to the fans of the "core" character at all I know, but if we are talking about the public.

Superman is similar, where there have been possible moments - though not in 1978 and not in 2006, so that could definitely be an issue. In Superman 2/3/4 (much less popular than the The Movie and Superman Returns) there are possibilities, but these are also 30 years plus prior to the current films. I dont think there has been a definitive way that Superman or Batman has been portrayed over the last 20/30 years in film alone, they vary quite largely outside of "orphan who fights crime as a bat" and "alien with superpowers who saves the world".

Captain America's previous film to The First Avenger was in 1990 and widely not seen, so Cap doesn't really have a prior personality to the average movie goer that you speak of either. Public I mean. So his characterization for the public is unchanged, because he is one character throughout the MCU (and they do him very well as a genuine patriot/good guy without irony etc so that's probably part of it too)

I suppose the average person may have that instinctive "X character doesnt kill" thought - but why don't they have those thoughts about Marvel characters? I'm the same - I don't instinctively think "Iron Man doesn't kill" or "Cap doesn't kill". Yet they are good guys. Is it the humour in the movies that alleviates the fact that we've just seen someone take a rocket to the face/exploded in a tank, had their neck snapped by a shield etc? I think the humour probably does have quite a lot to do with it too I suppose.

Yeah, I just think it is perception. Think about all the cartoons and other media batman has been in. Most of his items are there to disable. Look at the Star Wars cartoons like Clone Wars and Rebels. People get shot and sliced and killed all the time. It is a perception of the history of the characters and how they get portrayed. The MCU that the public is familiar with has never had a problem with its heroes killing the "bad guys". IMO, the perception the public has of the heroes just can't be ignored when discussing the films.

karmajay said:

Yeah, I just think it is perception. Think about all the cartoons and other media batman has been in. Most of his items are there to disable. Look at the Star Wars cartoons like Clone Wars and Rebels. People get shot and sliced and killed all the time. It is a perception of the history of the characters and how they get portrayed. The MCU that the public is familiar with has never had a problem with its heroes killing the "bad guys". IMO, the perception the public has of the heroes just can't be ignored when discussing the films.

Click to expand...

Haha, discussion solved! perception is the culprit I suppose. Just weird how we dont mix our perceptions up when it comes to enjoyment of a story too. MCU gets to play in that sandbox of killing and is generally regarded as being the slightly less serious, more family friendly films (civil war looks pretty darn serious like) whilst DCEU has less killing and is regarded as more adult orientated (people complaining it's too dark for kids etc), dark and grim etc.

When talking about dc and the much talked about kills that happened in superman and Batman for my point of view it felt weird. I recall reading comics in which these rules of not killing were very vital and then when they eventually broke that rule it had a huge impact on me as a reader. That is something i missed in every movie about dc characters. Not just the recent ones btw. Its just that it automaticly makes the character kind of unfamiliar of what your used too. Now i wont go talk about marvel as i have always kind of stuck to dc comics and my knowledge of marvel comics is not that good.

Superman finishing of zod was expected and i dint mind it. I actually preferred MoS over BvS. For me Ben was a great batman but the killing just felt out of place and dint feel like the batman i grew up reading/watching when i was younger.

Mektar said:

When talking about dc and the much talked about kills that happened in superman and Batman for my point of view it felt weird. I recall reading comics in which these rules of not killing were very vital and then when they eventually broke that rule it had a huge impact on me as a reader. That is something i missed in every movie about dc characters. Not just the recent ones btw. Its just that it automaticly makes the character kind of unfamiliar of what your used too. Now i wont go talk about marvel as i have always kind of stuck to dc comics and my knowledge of marvel comics is not that good.

Superman finishing of zod was expected and i dint mind it. I actually preferred MoS over BvS. For me Ben was a great batman but the killing just felt out of place and dint feel like the batman i grew up reading/watching when i was younger.

Click to expand...

Yeah thats fair - in your case it seems being a comics fan hurts (DC) and not being a comics fan helps (marvel)? so in Marvel, no preconceptions as not much comic knowledge leads to enjoying the MCU incarnations, but DC, preconceptions hurt the material you viewed.

I agree with the impact that having the rule in place allows - some fantastic stories have come out of that as a character trait. I think for me, that those traits have probably existed for twenty years, and now at this point the line is blurring and he's on the other side adds weight and impact to the film for me. So the preconception almost helps in some ways. If this was a 25 year old Batman it would be abhorrent and I'd be the same, I think it would affect me more. But because we have the reasoning behind his actions and the questioning from Alfred "New rules, sir?" I think it added to it for me a little.

I suppose I'm overlooking the pure opinion basis of all this too. It's all personal interpretation and enjoyment. I just enjoy digging deeper into it.

Well it goes both ways, me being a Marvel fan since I was a kid, and not knowing too much about DC, but EVERYONE knows about Batman and Superman. They know their codes. My grandma knows about both of them. Wouldnt it be weird if Spider-Man started killing dudes left and right a la Wolverine/Punisher? Thats how it felt when Bats was doing it in BvS. If he is willing to kill, whats to stop him from killing the Joker? What makes him better than the villains? You also have to see how the films are done from a filmmaking point of view, and the tone. Thats why in Marvel movies, the tone doesnt warrant killing that much, and they make it not a big deal. Hell, Cap is a soldier in WW2, so we know who he is killing, Nazis. Until the end of time, Nazis and Zombies will be ok to kill, no matter what. Why do you think they are always used? But in the DCMurderverse(which I have no problem calling) its different. Yes, Batman was killing criminals, and criminals are bad, but do they need to be killed? Its a mockery of the justice system that he is supposed to hold dear, and that whole speech at the end just didnt warrant what he did for the entire film. Thats the thing about adapting things from so many years of history, if you dont get it right, it blows up in your face. Have you read some of the old interpretations of the way they were going to go with Superman? Just because someone interprets it in a different way, doesnt exactly mean that different = better. Sometimes it works, and its fun(Red Son, Kingdom Come, DKR) other times its not so good (BvS). Thats the thing, with the MCU, their heroes werent all that well known, hell, I think the Hulk and Cap were the only really popular ones compared to everyone else. But when youre building a franchise on the 2 most famous superheroes in the world, there is some stuff that you dont have them do. Yeah, tweak the costume a bit, change around some of their surroundings, but when you mess with the core of the character, people of course are going to be up in arms about it. The thing about comics is that you can retcon stuff into the ground, and change stuff up, but with the films, you have to hope you get a reboot after it fails so hard. Why do you think Will Smith turned down the Superman role years ago? Because he knew people would hate having a black guy be superman because its so different from what they already know. He had a funny quote about it but I dont feel like finding it :lol

My 2 cents...

Snikt said:

Wouldnt it be weird if Spider-Man started killing dudes left and right a la Wolverine/Punisher?

Click to expand...

Yes,it would.That's what I like about his style: he knows retraint,yet knows how to handle badguys (with humor).

If he is willing to kill, whats to stop him from killing (...)?

Click to expand...

Anyone can snap from anything at any time,no matter how pure your intentions.I think it's more about guarding your intentions than fighting the opposite that makes the system work.

Until the end of time, Nazis will be ok to kill, no matter what

Click to expand...

Every (war)criminal is to be tried in a fair trial if captured alive.Otherwise,we're back to the part where you said "What makes him better than the villains?".We have the Geneva Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to keep us from 'snapping' and remaining human.Even Cap would back that up: "I don't want to kill anyone.I just don't like bullies"

There are two main sides to this for me. One is more about how organic it is to the story, and the other is about the individual. I've never had a problem with Captain America killing people -- he's a soldier. He'd rather not have to, but when they attack, he avenges. He also strives to disable rather than kill where he can, but won't hold back when necessary. In that respect, I see him in Batman when done right. They both have a version of an old warrior's code: Do not hurt where holding is enough; do not maim where hurting is enough; and kill not where maiming will suffice; the greatest warrior is the one who doesn't have to kill. Appropriate force, basically. An aware audience member, though, can tell when it is or is not appropriate force.

Superman, now, has always been about restraint (except when he isn't). Humans are so fragile compared to him, he knows he's nigh-invulnerable, so it's no biggie to take his time and let the baddies exhaust themselves against him before taking them into custody with a minimum of harm. Usually. The problem in Man of Steel wasn't that Zod left him with no choice. It was that Zod's motivations were B.S. He has a genetic imperitive to protect Kryptonian life. Well, here's the last known living Kryptonian besides his gang, who possesses the Genesis Matrix, no less. On top of that, why so hell-bent on making Earth into a new Krypton? As it is, it gives him the powers of a god. He's so hot for a planet to protect? Give him Venus to turn his world engine loose on. Plenty of solutions besides the carnage, devastation, and eventual neck-snap. The direct and indirect deaths in that film were due to sloppiness on the filmmakers' part, not a failure on the hero's part.

What I find most annoying is the habit in Hollywood to kill the bad guy at the end of the movie, regardless of how iconic. It jarred me badly when the Joker died at the end of Batman. He's supposed to survive to be a nemesis for at least one more film. So I'm grumpy that Obadiah Stane, Ivan Vanko, and Aldrich Killian all died in their respective MCU films. Cap and Thor have shown that the bad guy can be brought to justice or their fate can be left hanging and if it's well done it's more satisfying than killing 'em off. I still hold out hope that Vanko's armor protected him from the blast and he's been being held in a S.H.I.E.L.D. detention facility through all of the HYDRA crap and that at some point he'll be back as the Crimson Dynamo.

So deaths in and of themselves are like any other plot device -- they can be done well or badly, they can be in accord with the character, or clash. All comes down to the skill of the filmmakers.

--Jonah

Inquisitor Peregrinus said:

They both have a version of an old warrior's code: Do not hurt where holding is enough; do not maim where hurting is enough; and kill not where maiming will suffice; the greatest warrior is the one who doesn't have to kill. Appropriate force, basically.

Click to expand...

Similar to the quote in the Pilot for Kungfu - loved that phrase.

why so hell-bent on making Earth into a new Krypton? As it is, it gives him the powers of a god. He's so hot for a planet to protect? Give him Venus to turn his world engine loose on. Plenty of solutions besides the carnage, devastation, and eventual neck-snap

Click to expand...

He needed the humans to dominate over and experience his god-like status.

What I find most annoying is the habit in Hollywood to kill the bad guy at the end of the movie, regardless of how iconic. It jarred me badly when the Joker died at the end of Batman. He's supposed to survive to be a nemesis for at least one more film. So I'm grumpy that Obadiah Stane, Ivan Vanko, and Aldrich Killian all died in their respective MCU films. Cap and Thor have shown that the bad guy can be brought to justice or their fate can be left hanging and if it's well done it's more satisfying than killing 'em off. I still hold out hope that Vanko's armor protected him from the blast and he's been being held in a S.H.I.E.L.D. detention facility through all of the HYDRA crap and that at some point he'll be back as the Crimson Dynamo.

So deaths in and of themselves are like any other plot device -- they can be done well or badly, they can be in accord with the character, or clash. All comes down to the skill of the filmmakers.

Click to expand...

A good reason for movie makers to switch from doing movie series to making tv series?

Inquisitor Peregrinus said:

There are two main sides to this for me. One is more about how organic it is to the story, and the other is about the individual. I've never had a problem with Captain America killing people -- he's a soldier. He'd rather not have to, but when they attack, he avenges. He also strives to disable rather than kill where he can, but won't hold back when necessary. In that respect, I see him in Batman when done right. They both have a version of an old warrior's code: Do not hurt where holding is enough; do not maim where hurting is enough; and kill not where maiming will suffice; the greatest warrior is the one who doesn't have to kill. Appropriate force, basically. An aware audience member, though, can tell when it is or is not appropriate force.


Superman, now, has always been about restraint (except when he isn't). Humans are so fragile compared to him, he knows he's nigh-invulnerable, so it's no biggie to take his time and let the baddies exhaust themselves against him before taking them into custody with a minimum of harm. Usually. The problem in Man of Steel wasn't that Zod left him with no choice. It was that Zod's motivations were B.S. He has a genetic imperitive to protect Kryptonian life. Well, here's the last known living Kryptonian besides his gang, who possesses the Genesis Matrix, no less. On top of that, why so hell-bent on making Earth into a new Krypton? As it is, it gives him the powers of a god. He's so hot for a planet to protect? Give him Venus to turn his world engine loose on. Plenty of solutions besides the carnage, devastation, and eventual neck-snap. The direct and indirect deaths in that film were due to sloppiness on the filmmakers' part, not a failure on the hero's part.


What I find most annoying is the habit in Hollywood to kill the bad guy at the end of the movie, regardless of how iconic. It jarred me badly when the Joker died at the end of Batman. He's supposed to survive to be a nemesis for at least one more film. So I'm grumpy that Obadiah Stane, Ivan Vanko, and Aldrich Killian all died in their respective MCU films. Cap and Thor have shown that the bad guy can be brought to justice or their fate can be left hanging and if it's well done it's more satisfying than killing 'em off. I still hold out hope that Vanko's armor protected him from the blast and he's been being held in a S.H.I.E.L.D. detention facility through all of the HYDRA crap and that at some point he'll be back as the Crimson Dynamo.


So deaths in and of themselves are like any other plot device -- they can be done well or badly, they can be in accord with the character, or clash. All comes down to the skill of the filmmakers.


--Jonah

Click to expand...

Some excellent points, appreciate you taking the time.


I'll address those few things about Zod though.


Zod specifically states that yes, his prime reason for existence is the survival of Krypton as a society (not all Kryptonian life, as proven with his murder of the high council member and Jor El) , that was why he was created. Earlier on Krypton, we see that the natural birth of Kal El is heresy to Zod, it goes against his "genetic order" of things. Zod needed a genesis chamber and the genesis matrix to create his krypton on earth. Within minutes of getting the chamber and flying it to Metropolis Superman has thwarted that plan. Once Supes took down the Scout ship with the genesis chamber (If you destroy this ship you destroy krypton) the genesis matrix is useless. Zod no longer had anything to protect or strive towards. He isn't looking for a planet to rule at this point, but prior to this, he wanted to join Kal El in changing the Earth and gave him a chance for that - Zod didn't really get chance/have to consider other planets before his initial plans were stopped by Supes and the humans. Clark chose humanity. Zod's response once he had lost everything was to do the only thing he could do as a born warrior - take everything from his foe. His sole objective was to cause Clark pain via loss because Clark had "done the same to him" - eye for an eye.


I think that fairly clearly counters


a) Zod would care about killing Clark
b) Genesis matrix is important to Zod after birthing chamber destroyed
c) doesn't need earth
d) needs a planet to protect


Not that one of us is definitively wrong or right, but I think once we analyse a bit further you can find all sorts of answers. I actually thought Zod was quite well done. Not perfect by any degree. But Michael Shannon's delivery of that speech ("Look at this. We could have built a new Krypton in this squalor, but you chose the humans over us. I exist only to protect Krypton. That is the sole purpose for which I was born. And every action I take, no matter how violent or how cruel, is for the greater good of my people. And now... I have no people. My soul, that is what you have taken from me!") just prior to the final fight was sublime.


In terms of killing, I totally agree with the bad guy thing, it sucks that there can't be ways around it sometimes. Imagine how rubbish it would have been if Loki was properly "killed" at the end of Thor. I believe the original plan was for Loki and Red Skull (one sucked down, one sucked up) to be working together in the Avengers - read that somewhere.
@George - great point about the Nazi thing. Like I put before, if we are OK with soldiers killing, that should technically be brought into our other beliefs. Not all germans fighting for the Nazi cause were evil automatically deserving of death, just as not all American or British or other soldiers are deserving of life. I think Gandalf puts it extremely well,

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." - though that quote is more about the eagerness, rather than killing at all.

Which is why it should be quite a powerful thing within a story - and as we've seen, the MCU and XMEN universe etc are on the side of that being more lighthearted and acceptable - or the story is suited to ensure the bad guys are bad etc. I love that line from Captain America - "I don't want to kill anyone. I don't like bullies." - ties in so, so, so beautifully with "I can do this all day."

So when I saw Superman's anguish within MoS after the neck snap, that resonated with me. I dont think I've actually seen any Superhero or Anti Hero kill and then regret it/outwardly show their remorse. Has that been done anywhere that anyone can think of?

Edit: I also totally realise that we are discussing make believe and fictional stories before anyone jumps in to say that it should just be cut and dry, enjoy it and be quiet, haha. But the reason we emotionally engage with good stories is because we see ourselves in the hero or the villain or the innocent bystander, so there is an element of truth/personality to what we see acceptable on screen or not.

Two points, since much of what I'd say otherwise has already been said.

First, I think the disappointment with the portrayals of Superman and Batman have to do with much more than just the killing aspect. There are other ways in which the characters have been depicted "incorrectly" for audiences, such as Superman's deep-seated doubt. But even beyond the characters themselves, there are tonal aspects to the DC films that aren't...what audiences really want. I mean, hell, a lot of it has to do with just the color timing and palette alone.

The Marvel films are generally more brightly lit and feature more primary colors. Character costumes have bright primary colors, too. Even in The Winter Soldier -- arguably the "darkest" of the Marvel films -- the rest of the world is still generally brightly lit. The action occurs chiefly in the light of day. Even in Thor: The Dark World, Thor still has his crimson cloak, and Loki is clad in forest green.

By contrast, the DC films all use much more muted, grey color palettes and even the normally-brightly-colored Superman is wearing a navy-blue uniform with an almost burgundy cape. Batman's costume -- reminiscent of TDKR -- is black and grey. The end. Doesn't even feature the yellow "shield" around the bat. Now, Batman's always been a darker character, so people probably have less issue with that, but when you also factor in the initial look at Suicide Squad and the releases of character portraits for the rest of the Justice League, everything is dark dark dark. Colors are muted or darker colors. And it's almost like there's no sunshine in the DC film universe, or that it's perpetually overcast.

I think that all of that, combined with a generally more super-serious and dour tone to the performances tends to make the DC universe just seem...too pessimistic, too dark, too lacking in hope for people. Mind you, this is a complete reversal from what people used to believe about DC. Most people's notions of DC are rooted in Silver Age (or even Golden Age) sensibilities, and while that had its fair share of cheese associated with it, it strikes me that WB/DC threw the baby out with the bathwater. In an effort to ensure that people didn't view the films as cheesy, WB/DC went the polar opposite direction and made them grimdark and super-serious.

That works pretty well for Batman, but it's WAY off point for Superman. When people say that Captain America makes a better Superman than Superman, they say it because Chris Evans' depiction of the character is all about the moral code he carries, and generally is an upbeat figure who exudes a sense of hope and optimism. I mean, in the Blackest Night crossover event in the mid aughts, Superman became a Blue Lantern -- the Lantern Corps that were the agents of hope. The Superman from MoS/BvS, though? No freaking way. Superman in MoS/BvS is basically ******-lite.

He's ***** with all of the self-sacrifice and doubt in the garden of Gethsemane, but none of the parables or teachings of peace and love for each other, etc. Superman in MoS didn't really seem to have a moral code by which he lived. He had a conflicted sense of duty, but that's not exactly the same thing. He didn't do things "because they were right" or "because they were good," but rather "because only I can do them." This is, apparently, taken to ridiculous extremes in BvS when he kills Doomsday with a spear, and then skewers himself on it so that he can sail off to Avalon and become the once and future Superman or something. (Never mind the fact that Wonder Woman could've just killed Doomsday with the spear.)

Anyway, Superman doesn't really make his core sense of ethics clear. Captain America does. You get a sense from Captain America of his strong sense of duty, and it's NEVER conflicted. Or at least, to the extent it is conflicted, it's more a question of to WHAT he is loyal, rather than whether he is loyal and willing to act. So, in the Winter Soldier, the issue becomes that there are corrupt forces within SHIELD, which makes him question his loyalty to SHIELD, rather than to America itself. It's sort of the question of "Whom does the Army serve? The government, or the people?" For Cap, it's ultimately the people and the ideals of America.

I didn't get any of that from Superman. At least not in MoS, and I gather from other folks, not in BvS, either. But again, that could also be a factor due to the structure of these films, and other creative decisions like lighting and color timing and such.

Batman's always an issue with me given that when the books first hit he carried a revolver and wasn't afraid to use it, the DC decided to change that and now everyone is shocked when he's willing to go against his own rules and take a life if needed and especially with a gun. A lot of the comics never had anyone dying or at least the heroes not killing due to the Comic Code Authority and their phone book of rules and regulations, well that and the feeling that the hero never had to stoop to the level and tactics of the villain. You see that in a lot of the old short films featuring Dick Tracy and Superman, they're meant to represent the best ideals even if not realistic ones.

Refraining from (extensive) lethal force within the superhero genre,particularly on screen,is what keeps fans of all generations coming to the theatres.Heck,if Spider-man tapped into his dark side (symbiote saga),he would be capable of dark deeds.But even Marvel went a little darker with Avengers where large scale battles and martial arts applications depict specific sadistic (counter-)measures taken by our heroes.

Hawkeye (after the spell from Loki was undone) being happy to put an arrowhead in the enemy's eye socket? Would you pass that value on to your kids,just because the enemy 'was asking for it'? Now that's something totally different from the balloons in batman live action shows saying "POW" and Spider-man comics having the webslinger "KLOP" the Green Goblin.It's like when it's not brutal,it won't sell anymore.I thought Michael Keaton's Batman was pretty rough and dark already,but it's getting worse within both DC and Marvel if you ask me.

Solo4114 said:

Two points, since much of what I'd say otherwise has already been said.

First, I think the disappointment with the portrayals of Superman and Batman have to do with much more than just the killing aspect. There are other ways in which the characters have been depicted "incorrectly" for audiences, such as Superman's deep-seated doubt. But even beyond the characters themselves, there are tonal aspects to the DC films that aren't...what audiences really want. I mean, hell, a lot of it has to do with just the color timing and palette alone.

The Marvel films are generally more brightly lit and feature more primary colors. Character costumes have bright primary colors, too. Even in The Winter Soldier -- arguably the "darkest" of the Marvel films -- the rest of the world is still generally brightly lit. The action occurs chiefly in the light of day. Even in Thor: The Dark World, Thor still has his crimson cloak, and Loki is clad in forest green.

By contrast, the DC films all use much more muted, grey color palettes and even the normally-brightly-colored Superman is wearing a navy-blue uniform with an almost burgundy cape. Batman's costume -- reminiscent of TDKR -- is black and grey. The end. Doesn't even feature the yellow "shield" around the bat. Now, Batman's always been a darker character, so people probably have less issue with that, but when you also factor in the initial look at Suicide Squad and the releases of character portraits for the rest of the Justice League, everything is dark dark dark. Colors are muted or darker colors. And it's almost like there's no sunshine in the DC film universe, or that it's perpetually overcast.

I think that all of that, combined with a generally more super-serious and dour tone to the performances tends to make the DC universe just seem...too pessimistic, too dark, too lacking in hope for people. Mind you, this is a complete reversal from what people used to believe about DC. Most people's notions of DC are rooted in Silver Age (or even Golden Age) sensibilities, and while that had its fair share of cheese associated with it, it strikes me that WB/DC threw the baby out with the bathwater. In an effort to ensure that people didn't view the films as cheesy, WB/DC went the polar opposite direction and made them grimdark and super-serious.

That works pretty well for Batman, but it's WAY off point for Superman. When people say that Captain America makes a better Superman than Superman, they say it because Chris Evans' depiction of the character is all about the moral code he carries, and generally is an upbeat figure who exudes a sense of hope and optimism. I mean, in the Blackest Night crossover event in the mid aughts, Superman became a Blue Lantern -- the Lantern Corps that were the agents of hope. The Superman from MoS/BvS, though? No freaking way. Superman in MoS/BvS is basically ******-lite.

He's ***** with all of the self-sacrifice and doubt in the garden of Gethsemane, but none of the parables or teachings of peace and love for each other, etc. Superman in MoS didn't really seem to have a moral code by which he lived. He had a conflicted sense of duty, but that's not exactly the same thing. He didn't do things "because they were right" or "because they were good," but rather "because only I can do them." This is, apparently, taken to ridiculous extremes in BvS when he kills Doomsday with a spear, and then skewers himself on it so that he can sail off to Avalon and become the once and future Superman or something. (Never mind the fact that Wonder Woman could've just killed Doomsday with the spear.)

Anyway, Superman doesn't really make his core sense of ethics clear. Captain America does. You get a sense from Captain America of his strong sense of duty, and it's NEVER conflicted. Or at least, to the extent it is conflicted, it's more a question of to WHAT he is loyal, rather than whether he is loyal and willing to act. So, in the Winter Soldier, the issue becomes that there are corrupt forces within SHIELD, which makes him question his loyalty to SHIELD, rather than to America itself. It's sort of the question of "Whom does the Army serve? The government, or the people?" For Cap, it's ultimately the people and the ideals of America.

I didn't get any of that from Superman. At least not in MoS, and I gather from other folks, not in BvS, either. But again, that could also be a factor due to the structure of these films, and other creative decisions like lighting and color timing and such.

Click to expand...

Some great points. I appreciate that whilst we differ on a lot of our views, that you take the time to put them across. I know the differences of enjoyment don't only rest on the killing aspect either, it is one aspect of a few - I simply fancied discussing that aspect at the time is all.

Can totally see the colour palette and the tone of the DCEU almost amplifying the killing aspect, and the lighter, brighter world dampens that killing impact from an entertainment perspective - hadn't really thought about that before now. I suppose a good comparison is a piece of art - say a window, through which we can see a green field. If there are two identical pieces of art, but in one of them rain is shown to be falling, it sends an entirely different message. Food for thought indeed.

And the idea that Cap is steadfast and resolute in these films no matter what he is pushing for - I just tried to pick that apart in my head from knowledge of the MCU so far..and I can't. And that is definitely what I love about the character, hands down.

We (obviously) differ on interpretations of Superman as a character here though, and I'm not quite up to rebutting all of it (and not certain I can for a few comments). Suffice to say, whilst the depiction through the lense is of quite a few ****** like references (isn't that quite expected in this world? A being with unprecedented power is suddenly here among us?), it's shown quite clearly in the film that Clark helps because he wants to, not only because he can. As a child, he has on multiple occasions done something heroic ("We talked about this" after Clark saves the bus) - at the oil rig, he gives up his current job/identity/worldly possessions to save the people on the rig by exposing himself to them (oo-er). He intervenes when the ****** at the bar is treating someone with disrespect - he doesn't have to do that. No one else in the bar did that. He didn't need his powers to do so. He is intrinsically good, and that scene alone shows he has moral strength. He doesn't go about teaching that to people - can't argue with that. Though whoever is saved by him/witnesses his acts of heroism at various points during the film would probably react in a positive way. And should he go about preaching to people? It's an interesting idea.

From the killing perspective, all that comes to a head when he does take Zods life - the anguish over that is palpable and and immediate, fitting in with what I perceived as a morally good person having to do a bad thing for the greater good ("Don't do this! Stop! Stop! 'Never.' And then that look on his face is so, so, so regretful even before he does it.)


Supes has a human mind - I can't imagine taking on that kind of responsibility and being as selfless as that at all. And I class myself as a good(ish) person.

In that comparison, I haven't seen Cap anguish over taking a life I don't think.

George said:

Refraining from (extensive) lethal force within the superhero genre,particularly on screen,is what keeps fans of all generations coming to the theatres.Heck,if Spider-man tapped into his dark side (symbiote saga),he would be capable of dark deeds.But even Marvel went a little darker with Avengers where large scale battles and martial arts applications depict specific sadistic (counter-)measures taken by our heroes.

Hawkeye (after the spell from Loki was undone) being happy to put an arrowhead in the enemy's eye socket? Would you pass that value on to your kids,just because the enemy 'was asking for it'? Now that's something totally different from the balloons in batman live action shows saying "POW" and Spider-man comics having the webslinger "KLOP" the Green Goblin.It's like when it's not brutal,it won't sell anymore.I thought Michael Keaton's Batman was pretty rough and dark already,but it's getting worse within both DC and Marvel if you ask me.

Click to expand...

A superb point well made. As we deconstruct the lessons and morals from these films for children, it's important to remember the bigger picture. These are definitely a different interpretation than the comics we read as children, from all franchises, despite some of those franchises implying certain things.

From DC, it could be the darker tone is unhealthy for a child's balance - there is good in this world so don't think it is all doom and gloom etc.

From Marvel, it could be the lighter tone skews a childs perspective - don't think that just because it is bright, it is good to do bad things (violence etc)

From X-Men, it could be that despite what the film shows, just because you are different, doesn't mean you should expect the world to hate you etc.

I feel a "think of the children!" meme is required here.

But is DC really aiming its current movies at children ? I don't think it is the case, I think they're targeting the 18-35 range, children are merely collaterals. Welcome collaterals, but still. Now knowing if targeting comic book movies to an older crowd instead of children mainly is a good idea or not, that's a whole other debate again. I don't believe Marvel is primarily targeting the children neither by the way, in fact I'm pretty sure they're targeting the same 18-35 range as DC, but they do care more about being enjoyable for all crowds including younger ranges.

Re: Superman's character and morals.

I find that in MoS, at least, Superman seems much more conflicted about his role. Does he want it? What will it mean for him if he reveals himself to the world? He helps out here and there a little bit, but then goes back to being conflicted. Compare that to, for example, Steve Rogers in The First Avenger. Even before he becomes Cap, he is absolutely committed to fighting the good fight. He's incredibly earnest, enlists in the army in spite of being in terrible physical condition, volunteers for what is likely a suicidal experiment, and then hurls himself into combat, against the wishes of his superiors. In every appearance since, you've never once doubted what drives him as a character, because he's never really doubted that himself. Civil War may change some of that, but that will likely work because his character is already established. We'll be playing off of our understanding of who he is, not creating it as we go.

That, to me, is a key difference in MoS. MoS had Superman feeling lost, conflicted, and not understanding his role in the world. He wants to help, he's not sure he should. Moreover, as I said before, I don't see that Superman really is a symbol of...well...much of anything on an ethical level. He's a symbol of power, of course. He has an internal sense of duty, which is reasonably clear, but he never talks about why he does what he does, and he doesn't convey a sense of earnestness the way Cap does.

MoS also featured some really poor directorial and story choices in terms of what was emphasized, and what was ignored. I've mentioned that the film doesn't seem to spend a ton of time addressing why he acts as he does. He doesn't talk about doing what's right, or even about his own sense of duty. He doesn't address how he wants to inspire people to do good themselves. I don't get a sense of...I dunno...inherent goodness in him. I get a sense of inherent power and a general sense of duty, but not goodness, and I distinguish those things. Compare that to Chris Reeves' performance or even Brandon Routh's (who I maintain got a raw deal and would have made a great Superman in a better film), and it's just night-and-day different.

Meanwhile, the climactic fight against Zod occurs entirely within a heavily populated metropolitan area...when it sure seems like he could've tried to move the fight elsewhere. If you're engaged in a punchy-punchy punch-fest with Zod, maybe fly him, I dunno, up in to space? Out towards the ocean? To the desert? Try something, at least. Maybe he did and I just didn't notice because I was so terribly bored by the fight.

I suppose the bulk of this deserves to be laid at Zack Snyder's feet, and what he and his corporate masters think is "cool." All it said to me was "These people don't understand the essence of these characters. All they get are the surface aspects."

I think the reason why people tolerate killing in the Marvel films is that the killing is never really contrary to the essence of the characters, whereas in DC's film series, the characters' essences aren't all that well defined beyond raw power. Or at least, to what little extent they are, they're generally outshone by the displays of power, again, probably because Snyder just thinks it's cool.