Superman destroyed Metropolis

[IOwnTheSpire]

Then of the two examples you cited, only one of them is possibly relevant. The fight with Captain Marvel is not. The episode went out of its way to describe how the city in question was uninhabitated. The fight with Darkseid I cannot comment on, as I have never watched Superman: the Animated Series, but let us assume you're right and Superman killed thousands of people in that fight. Are you saying Kal-El's actions are above reproach or criticism because a children's cartoon has portrayed him doing the same thing, or are you trying to change the subject from Kal-El's actions by attacking the perceived hypocrisy of people who disagree with you?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy, since critics throw out the same rhetoric over and over again: they're upset that Superman killed, yet ignore all the times he's killed before; they complain about the destruction and ignore all the other collateral damage done when Superman fights. If Man of Steel is going to be criticized for its portrayal of Superman, than every other work that depicts him the same way must be criticized for its portrayal too, yet no one seems to do so. That's the problem.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

Then of the two examples you cited, only one of them is possibly relevant. The fight with Captain Marvel is not. The episode went out of its way to describe how the city in question was uninhabitated. The fight with Darkseid I cannot comment on, as I have never watched Superman: the Animated Series, but let us assume you're right and Superman killed thousands of people in that fight. Are you saying Kal-El's actions are above reproach or criticism because a children's cartoon has portrayed him doing the same thing, or are you trying to change the subject from Kal-El's actions by attacking the perceived hypocrisy of people who disagree with you?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy, since critics throw out the same rhetoric over and over again: they're upset that Superman killed, yet ignore all the times he's killed before; they complain about the destruction and ignore all the other collateral damage done when Superman fights. If Man of Steel is going to be criticized for its portrayal of Superman, than every other work that depicts him the same way must be criticized for its portrayal too, yet no one seems to do so. That's the problem.

The city was clear during the Darkseid fight. Just making sure that's clear.

 

[JimB]

The fight with Darkseid I cannot comment on, as I have never watched Superman: the Animated Series, but let us assume you're right and Superman killed thousands of people in that fight. Are you saying Kal-El's actions are above reproach or criticism because a children's cartoon has portrayed him doing the same thing, or are you trying to change the subject from Kal-El's actions by attacking the perceived hypocrisy of people who disagree with you?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy.

Fine. Very well, you have pointed it out; and more, I notice you have narrowed your responses to me with each successive post until this is all you're talking about. Let me return to the question I've asked you more than once, though: Do any of the things you complain about, the perceived hypocrisy of people who disagree with you or the way the character has behaved in different media not currently under discussion, excuse anything Kal-El does in Man of Steel?

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

The fight with Darkseid I cannot comment on, as I have never watched Superman: the Animated Series, but let us assume you're right and Superman killed thousands of people in that fight. Are you saying Kal-El's actions are above reproach or criticism because a children's cartoon has portrayed him doing the same thing, or are you trying to change the subject from Kal-El's actions by attacking the perceived hypocrisy of people who disagree with you?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy.

Fine. Very well, you have pointed it out; and more, I notice you have narrowed your responses to me with each successive post until this is all you're talking about. Let me return to the question I've asked you more than once, though: Do any of the things you complain about, the perceived hypocrisy of people who disagree with you or the way the character has behaved in different media not currently under discussion, excuse anything Kal-El does in Man of Steel?

I don't think he did anything morally objectable, you and others obviously disagree, but I think he did the best he could on his first day of being a superhero. Right now I'm eager to see how BvS will address the issue.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

I think everyone complaining about the Metropolis fight doesn't understand priorities.

Or the better yet; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Say, due to their fight, dozens of people died. Sure. But then again, how many lives were saved by ending Zod? Comparatively more. I also find it cute people trying to claim Superman should have lured Zod out of the city, because he's Vegeta and will agree to go to a better fighting ground, instead of going Prototype on the populous.

But that's just my opinion that is kind of expressed in a dickish way.

 

[JimB]

I don't think he did anything morally objectionable.

So you think nothing you have brought up actually bears on the issue of Kal-El's culpability?

Say, due to their fight, dozens of people died. Sure. But then again, how many lives were saved by ending Zod? Comparatively more.

The idea that the dead deserve no justice because they have to just take it for the team, that the suffering of the bereaved doesn't matter because it doesn't fit into a numerical expression of the value of human life, is one I cannot support. It is a viewpoint that excuses any attempt to wipe out people with diseases like AIDS, for instance, because the number of people killed in such a pogrom is less than the number of people who would die of transmitted infection.

I also find it cute people trying to claim Superman should have lured Zod out of the city, because he's Vegeta and will agree to go to a better fighting ground, instead of going Prototype on the populous.

I'm glad you find it cute when people say that, but I must point out no one has said anything about "luring" Zod in this thread. Instead, almost everyone who has brought it up did so in the context of using physical force to make the fight relocate, and the person who did bring up Dragon Ball Z did so only in the context of mentioning the goal itself rather than any specific tactic for achieving that goal, so I ask you to please limit your mockery to ideas actually presented in this discussion.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Words lessened for less space.

No, seriously, someone said something about luring Zod all Dark Souls style. Maybe I misread it, sure, but it's there.

Actually, I said nothing about the dead deserve no justice, nor did I imply it. This is like the, 'Sacrifice 1000 for the lives of 1,000,000', which is totally a shitty thing to do, certainly, but it's better with that turnout, then 1000 live then 1,000,000 die scenario. Besides, geeking a genocidal maniac is far different then dealing with diseases.

P.S. Wasn't mocking.
P.S.S. So, where could Superman even punch Zod to to get away from collateral damage? And how would that actually stop Zod from doing more damage?

 

[Zontar]

P.S.S. So, where could Superman even punch Zod to to get away from collateral damage? And how would that actually stop Zod from doing more damage?

Given that Metropolis is a coastal city, one would think punching Zod towards the ocean would cause less damage then the trillion dollar, 5 digit death-toll, 7 digit casualty count fighting in the biggest down-town core in the US did.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The real problem here isn't Superman ... it's the man behind the movie Man of Steel. I'm talking about the director of course, Zack Snyder. Apparently he wanted the movie to be somewhat serious, dark ... while keeping the tone of Superman clear. Yet, he somewhat failed on a few notes. For starters, I don't think it's realistic for a father (regardless of who you are) to tell someone "Yea let the kids drown. You identity of secrecy is more important" .... NO I think rather the father would be like, "I'm so proud of you son. Saving all those kids lives- we're going to be famous my boy with your powers & all."

And the funny thing is, that scene could've been fixed entirely simply by removing that 'maybe'. The intention behind what Pa Kent says is that once Clark reveals his powers it's going to cause a major shock around the world and whether or not he's ready for that yet. But by putting that 'maybe' in there it makes his father comes across as sort of an asshole.

Even if that wasn't the case, the biggest offender to me was when Superman's human dad killed himself to save a dog. ........... really? I love animals too, but the fact he, HE insisted on going alone, letting the dog out, then stand there for death was just utterly stupid. Have Clark go with you, and walk you back without the twister overtaking you. People aren't going to notice because it's a hurricane, people are going to be to busy fleeing away. So does Superman, despite losing his father- respect keeping his identity a secret?

... Nope.

You know what's even stupider? All those people, who I figure are used to taking shelter from tornados on occasion, are hiding under an overpass...

 

[Chaos Isaac]

P.S.S. So, where could Superman even punch Zod to to get away from collateral damage? And how would that actually stop Zod from doing more damage?

Given that Metropolis is a coastal city, one would think punching Zod towards the ocean would cause less damage then the trillion dollar, 5 digit death-toll, 7 digit casualty count fighting in the biggest down-town core in the US did.

Ooh, maybe then Zod could smash some big'ole holes underwater and try to sink the city, with Superman no less. Or cause such monumental impacts out in the water to flood a good chunk of the place.

That wouldn't actually stop Zod from doing damage. And the prolonged smackdown could cause more damage.

 

[JimB]

No, seriously, someone said something about luring Zod all Dark Souls-style. Maybe I misread it, sure, but it's there.

I believe that was inu-kun, and he was talking about sniping Zod with heat vision, inflicting pain and damage on him until he had no choice but to close the distance with Kal-El. He wasn't talking about dangling a raw steak over a net made of vines and hoping Zod would forget he's not Chewbacca.

Actually, I said nothing about the dead deserve no justice, nor did I imply it. This is like the, 'Sacrifice 1000 for the lives of 1,000,000', which is totally a shitty thing to do, certainly, but it's better with that turnout, then 1000 live then 1,000,000 die scenario.

If you are bringing it up to excuse or minimize their preventable deaths being caused by someone who showed no regard for them, then yeah, you pretty much are arguing that they deserve no justice.

So, where could Superman even punch Zod to to get away from collateral damage? And how would that actually stop Zod from doing more damage?

Somewhere without people. There are lots of such places. Without knowing the geography of the DC world, I can't say for sure, but the ocean is one; outer space is another; the rural areas invariably surrounding any major city is a third. There might be no place where the body count would be zero, but I won't subscribe to the Nirvana Fallacy here and say that better isn't better because it isn't perfect, particularly since my entire complaint is not the number of digits necessary to count the dead but that Kal-El did not care enough to even try to keep people out of harm's way.

 

[SmugFrog]

The "you're reckless and irresponsible so I'm going to have a massive and reckless punch-up with you" thing is just stupid. Given the heaviness of it, this looks stupid even by comic book standards.

I agree with that. It was nothing more than destruction porn for the sake of having destruction. When they're writing these things up, there's a big difference in "Wouldn't it look cool if..." and "What would Superman actually do." One of Christopher Reeve's Superman movies used the civilians against Superman (Superman 2?) and this fight in the city made sense as Zod and his crew weren't going to leave the city, they would have just started killing people.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Why? Starting to kill humans while superman attacks from afar only endangers him more, not to mention that both of them collapsing a building kills a lot more than Zod could by picking off passersby.

Your assuming that their heat vision is an effective means of killing the other. If it were, Zod would have cut Superman in half from the beginning.

 

[Fox12]

Couple of issues with that. First of all, supes never even tried to control the property damage. He knowingly contributed to it, while people died below him. Now, I think this is a betrayal of his character, but regardless, he's at least partly to blame.

Second, they took the fight into space, and supes allowed the fight to continue in metropolis. He could have taken it anywhere. A desert, for instance. Instead thousands died.

Three, you underestimate people's lack of rationality. He's an unstoppable killing machine that people can't understand. And people fear what they can't control or understand.

Four, this same controversy is clearly in the film. Some treat him with religious adulation, while others hate him. It's not just one sided.

Personally, the last film was a flop, but at least they're trying to tackle interesting questions, as opposed to Marvel, which... Ugh.

 

[Fox12]

Couple of issues with that. First of all, supes never even tried to control the property damage. He knowingly contributed to it, while people died below him. Now, I think this is a betrayal of his character, but regardless, he's at least partly to blame.

Second, they took the fight into space, and supes allowed the fight to continue in metropolis. He could have taken it anywhere. A desert, for instance. Instead thousands died.

Three, you underestimate people's lack of rationality. He's an unstoppable killing machine that people can't understand. And people fear what they can't control or understand.

Four, this same controversy is clearly in the film. Some treat him with religious adulation, while others hate him. It's not just one sided.

Personally, the last film was a flop, but at least they're trying to tackle interesting questions, as opposed to Marvel, which... Ugh.

 

[Sir derp sariff]

Well they said it's the fear of what he could do that's causing all this, in the trailer Bruce Wayne as a mature experienced man witnesses what this alien young man can do and probably lost his family having more motivation to bring this guy with the power to destroy the world under control.

And people who saw him fight Zod fears the consequences in case Sup snapped and went evil so they want him under control too, but more or less I think it's just Batman trying to make sure Sup doesn't cause any more damage because Batman's seen the worst and ho don't think Sup can handle/be trusted with all his power, or at least that's what he want to confirm. Hence the movie.

Spoiler:
.
.
.
According to the leaked info Batman at the end breaks into Lex building to get Kryptonium, another Batman's future proof plan?
.
.

 

[DrOswald]

I can't seriously believe that people blame Superman for this.

Here's the thing: Kal-El didn't care about anyone getting hurt in the fight. He didn't care at all.

Except that is completely false. During the fight (immediately after the fight moves into a populated area) Superman stops fighting to look at the damage being caused, presumably to see how he can help (or maybe because he is just plain horrified at it), and is immediately punished for his momentary lack of concentration by Zod. If he ever stops concentrating on the fight for even 1 second Zod beats the shit out of him.

Superman is not an experienced fighter in this fight. It takes all his concentration to just keep Zod from overwhelming him. This part of the fight exists exactly to establish that yes, superman is aware of the damage and cares about it but that he is unable to compromise his fighting ability to do anything about it.

Second, they took the fight into space, and supes allowed the fight to continue in metropolis. He could have taken it anywhere. A desert, for instance. Instead thousands died.

Correction: Zod took the fight into space, superman managed to throw him off for 2 seconds, after which Zod tackled him back into the city. Superman did not have control of the fight when it went to space, he did not have control of where it came back down.

Now, you might say that Superman could have tried harder to influence where they came down after Zod did his orbital tackle during the descent. And maybe that is the case. But if you go back and actually watch the fight, you will notice that no one dies after they come back down from space. This is because Superman used the descent to gain the upper hand on Zod.

You see, through the fight there are two constants: Superman is stronger and more used to his powers, but Zod is smarter and can use the battlefield better. Superman is outsmarted and out maneuvered at every point in the fight, it is only when the fight devolves into a slug it out brawl or strait up contest of strength that Superman gains the upper hand.

The tackle from space was Zods major mistake of the fight. He no doubt thought that an orbital slam down would be extremely effective, but the decent turned into a falling wrestling match in which Superman had the upper hand. Superman took that opportunity to neutralize Zod.

How much longer would the fight have dragged on (and how many thousands more would have died) if Superman had messed about trying to get the fight out of the city instead of taking advantage of Zods error? Would he have even had another chance? Would Zod make such a mistake again?

And even if Superman had managed to remove Zod from the city, what stops Zod from going back to the city, where he knows he has a massive advantage over Superman? Zod is perfectly willing to make a tactical retreat to a location in which he has the advantage, he does it several times during the fight.

 

[happyninja42]

Well they said it's the fear of what he could do that's causing all this, in the trailer Bruce Wayne as a mature experienced man witnesses what this alien young man can do and probably lost his family having more motivation to bring this guy with the power to destroy the world under control.

Yes, under the control of a 1 Percenter white guy who also happens to be a vigilante, that disregards the law to exact his own street justice. Sure, that's just the guy suited to bring someone "under control" xD

And people who saw him fight Zod fears the consequences in case Sup snapped and went evil so they want him under control too, but more or less I think it's just Batman trying to make sure Sup doesn't cause any more damage because Batman's seen the worst and ho don't think Sup can handle/be trusted with all his power, or at least that's what he want to confirm. Hence the movie.

I love the fact that all of these points about why Batman feels motivated to fight Superman, can be just as easily applied to Batman. I mean, if this is supposed to be the same universe where Nolan's Batman did the stuff he did in the previous 3 movies, then he's just as guilty of massive property damage to the city. So the government would be in the right to say Batman can't be trusted with his power either, and should be brought "under control".

I'm not criticizing you for making these points, as I feel they do accurately reflect what the movie is likely going to use to justify their manhunt for Supes. I just find the hypocrisy of it when you talk about Batman in the exact same way, to be very funny.

But hey, it looks like we get to have Jeremy Irons as Alfred! That alone makes me want to see this movie. Love that guy.

 

[DrOswald]

The problem with the fight was that for most people it seems like Sups didn't even bother trying to drag Zod out of Metropolis, he could have just sniped him from afar with heat vision, forcing Zod to go after him and get out of the city (the Dark Souls tactic), instead it looked like Sups actually used the city itself against Zod, slamming him into buildings.

It's more like blaming the fire fighter after they detonated a thermo-nuclear device on you house from fear of the fire spreading to the houses next door.

Zod made it quite clear that he intended to kill all the humans, if Superman had tried to fight at a distance, Zod would have just started killing people at random.

Why? Starting to kill humans while superman attacks from afar only endangers him more, not to mention that both of them collapsing a building kills a lot more than Zod could by picking off passersby.

There are so many problems with the long range aggro strategy, not the least of which is that superman will be shooting death lasers capable of taking down a skyscraper into metropolis (we know this because the only building that collapses in the fight is the one Zod collapses with his heat vision). Not sure how turning the fight into a long range battle of sweeping mega death rays capable of cutting skyscrapers apart is going to reduce casualties. And that is assuming the heat vision is even effective over a range.

The only other way I can think of for super man to engage him over a range is by lobbing cars at him, which really is not going to work at all.

And as for Zod not being able to pick off humans fast, here is what he does: turn on heat vision, turn 360 degrees in a circle. He just collapsed every building within a city block (or more if we are to believe that heat vision is effective over a distance). Or he flies through the support beams of a skyscraper. Zod could rack of tens of thousands of deaths in a minute if he wanted.