MovieChat Forums > Superman vs. The Elite (2012) Discussion > so are we supposed to support superman a...

so are we supposed to support superman at the end of this.....

posted 12 years ago by brian_alleyne
43 replies | jump to latest

Because his logic falls sooooooo flat
1)Atomic skull murders tons of innocent people, supes locks him away. Only for him to re-escape and kill more people, just as the elite predicted. When Mancjhester kills him, supes seems more perturbed by his murder (cold blooded as it was) than those of the innocents.

2) Pa Ken pushes the truth Justica and American way thing, which may have been acceptable in the 1940's when America was seen as the defender of the world, but kinda falls flat when alot of the world and some Americans seem kinda disillusioned with it since the 60's.

3) Black is made to look villainous for killing the people in the train, but lets note it was an accident and his soster as going to be hit by the train. Killing the father was totally jerkish tho.

4) The elite SAVED SUPES LIFE and NURSE HIM BACK TO HEALTH!!!!!!!! He shows the least bit of gratitude and is more angry for killing the soldiers who were going to kill him.

5) If he was so concerned about them breaking international law why did he intervene in the conflict anyway??? Sure he saved lives but take a stance and stick to it.

6) For one so concerned about taking lives, injecting Menagerie with a something to stop her from breathing is kinda extreme dontcha think???what if she wasnt recusitated??

My point is this- despite being murderous and destructive, at least the Elite stucj to principle, Supes comes of as self-righteous and hypocritical

[–] Oceans300 12 years ago

1) I def agree with you on this point. Manchester executing him like that was a shade extreme but why the law didn't condemn him to death seems kind of silly.

2) I haven't read the original comic but I heard that one point of it is that Superman IS old fashioned (partially shown in the movie with his oversized chin and goofy demeanor) but that sometimes old-fashioned is what you need.

3) Pretty much, yeah. Depends if the dead people on the train died from an accident or on purpose, but then it was the first tie he used his powers, so can't hold him too accountable.

4) Yeah, +1 from me.

5) Superman def comes off as a tad hypocritical here but he does have a point that his jurisdiction lies with saving lives but not forcefully ending diplomatic conflicts. Superman should have spent more time on that point.

6) Superman was pretty careful to not kill here, with his speed and focus, I would have trusted him.

Ultimately I don't think either of them was perfect but that Superman was moooore right. Kind of like in Batman: Under the Red Hood where Batman didn't want to end Joker because of how he'd never go back on lethal vigilantism from there, Superman prob didn't support lethal intervention. Granted, the episode with Atomic Skull definitely shows the flaw in Superman's justice, concerning individuals too dangerous to be contained long-term.

The problem with Black and The Elite was what lethal action did to them. They started running the world, and since there's no going back on lethal intervention, it requires a rock-solid conscience to administer properly (despite its flaws, look at the differences in due process and the mob mentality sort of way Black executed Atomic Skull). Black and crew called themselves the good guys in their first announcement (and conspicuously nobody else) and by the end started dictating rules to the rest of the world. The episode about the kids looking up to Black showed how killing doesn't set an example to necessarily follow.

All in all I don't believe for a second that anybody here is completely right or wrong. This has been probably the most philosophically dense movie DCAU's done so far, and a job well done all around.

[–] DoctorModernMan 12 years ago

The thing about The Elite is that their way is the easiest path to take as well as the one that makes most sense. Yeah, why is it bad that they kill criminals who deserve death? It's justified, right?

But where does such authority stop before they end up taking away every freedom mankind has to meet their standards of justice? If Superman didn't stop them, just how far would the Elite have gone?
What happens when they kill an innocent person who they thought was a murderer or terrorist but was in fact framed?

Their totalism rule that "Might makes right" which automatically makes them the authority on who's a villain and who's not. That's bound to crack and the lines between justice and chaos would blur very soon.
The Elite were already willing to impose their rules on society. As they thought they were killing Superman, Manchester Black was pretty much saying that freedom was being cut out of the equation. Anyone who didn't follow their rules on right and wrong would be "dealt with" and they didn't care about the consequences.

It all comes down to ESCALATION. As the professor was saying to that TV host, "What happens when they come after you?" to which he replies "Why the hell would they do that? I'm American. We're the good guys." The moment when the Elite killed those leaders is when they took their rules too far. It's one thing if villains like the Atomic Skull die. It's another when world leaders are killed because they're involved in a war. Who were the Elite to judge which side was wrong and right?
Who says Superman couldn't have gotten them to talk peace without the loss of life?

And here's also the kicker; when Superman finally adopted The Elite's methods of killing his enemies (or so they thought), to defend himself, Manchester Black teleported to Earth and was willing to KILL INNOCENT LIVES to protect himself from Superman. Like I said, escalation. How far do you go? At what point does he consider crossing the line too far? The Elite started out pretty much okay and they had Superman's respect. Even when they killed someone like Atomic Skull, one could argue that was justified. But Superman knew that the power was quickly getting to their heads and that they were going to abuse it until there was literally nothing left.

You mentioned that they saved Superman's life (from the EMP THEY caused, of course) from getting shot by those soldiers? Well, the Elite were powerful enough to easily aprehend every one of those soldiers without killing them. But of course, they abused their power and treated it like it was justified.

Also, there is a difference between killing someone and MURDERING someone. Killing someone in self defense is totally different than murdering someone in cold blood. If say, the Atomic Skull was killed because Manchester Black was defending himself and had no other choice, that's different than flat out murdering him like he did because he thought he "deserved" to die.
Superman killed Doomsday because he had literally no other choice and he was on the verge of death as it was.

Finally, as for Superman injecting Menagerie with that needle that cleansed her of those beasts and stripped her of her powers, it was extreme indeed. But Superman had to cross a line to prove his point to the Elite. No, he didn't kill but nobody said Superman couldn't be brutal on his opponents. Was using that needle on Menagerie that temporarily stopped her from breathing as well as knocking out the Hat by suffocating him that much more severe than smacking the hell out of the Atomic Skull the first time Superman fought him to the point where he was unconscious? Debateable but not really.

How does it feel to be deconstructed?

[–] DoctorModernMan 12 years ago

A more abridged version of the post I made above answering your individual points.

1. This is the murder that seems the most justified out of everything The Elite has done. Atomic Skull probably deserved to die for his murders but at the moment, he was vulnerable. He had his powers sucked out by Coldcast and was in a good position to have justice done to him by the law.

2. That's the point of Superman and why this movie is so good. He IS old fashioned. He IS a boyscout. That's why people start doubting if he's relevant anymore. What they seem to forget is that Superman has power that rivals gods. At any time, he could have enacted his power upon the world faster than the Elite did. But once he crosses that line, there's no going back. The fact that such a powerhouse is old fashioned is a true act of humility on his part. Sometimes, there needs to be old fashioned to counteract the new otherwise there is no balance.

3. He's not made to look villainous. It's just that he LIED to Superman to make the emergence of his powers seem that much more heroic and glamourous. Superman understood it was a total accident. Killing his father, however, was not. Even if he was a total a$$hole. Black could have easily just gotten away from him. It's not like his drunk father was in any position to stop him or his sister from leaving.

4. Of course Superman is angry. The Elite just murdered more than a dozen soldiers when they didn't have to. It was unnecessary bloodshed. He was grateful that he had his life saved but that doesn't mean he has to condone their actions.

5. Just because Superman says stuff like "we are not above the law" to explain why he doesn't kill does not mean he will not intervene in a war if it means saving thousands of lives. That's not hypocrisy. When did Superman ever say he was worried about breaking international laws? He's already breaking the law as it is because he's technically a vigilante and comes and goes where he pleases.
But he has restraint on what he does with such power.

6. It's extreme indeed. But extreme is where he needed to go to prove his point. Besides, is it really worse to temporarily leave her unable to breathe as well as suffocating the Hat then it is to smash the hell out of Atomic Skull and knock him unconscious?

Superman has principles. He doesn't kill and wants to lead by example to people that there is always another way. He believes humanity is good and that they have the potential to follow through with it. Like he said to Black, "I'm not an idiot." He knows people's flaws but he also knows that he has no right to impose his views on them by appointing himself as the authority on who should live and who should die.

Because once he makes that mistake, there's no going back.
The Elite "HAD" principles that were broken all too quickly as they became more and more drunk on their own power and totalism view that their might made them right.

How does it feel to be deconstructed?

[–] ss5mmyers 12 years ago

1) Murder is never justified. No matter who it is. The point Superman was getting at was that it isn't for anyone to decide who "deserves" to die.

2) Morality may be old fashioned, but it's right. People even tend to rely on it and feel safe with it like how Manchester went to tears and the public fell in shock in the face of a Superman who looked like he could kill.

3) This was meant to be an unveiling as to the true character of the elite. They passed themselves off as heroes, but were murderers and criminals themselves. They thought "they" were doing the right thing, but when it appears Superman is killing them to protect people, suddenly he's in the wrong to them. Violence is fine as an answer until you're the target. Manshester could be forgiven for accidental deaths, but not murder. Just look at their "rules" He who has the power makes the rules=the same logic as the dictators they killed.

4) Superman would give his own life to protect others and so isn't concerned with himself if others are being killed.

5) Superman does not act above the law, that said, it doesn't mean that he won't try to change the laws so they can work out better. EX: He invades another country to protect people. Technically it's illegal, but he saves lives. He's not hurting anyone or acting as a dictator, he's only looking for a better way than what exists. The Elite does this too, but the difference is people get hurt from their way, whereas Superman does not hurt people.

6) Superman had to be extreme to make his point to the Elite. They were fine with killing when they were in power, but Superman wanted them to see what it's like on the receiving end as well as the public who supported the Elite.

[–] jmrmpd 12 years ago

Bravo! Well said!

[–] DoctorModernMan 12 years ago

Exactly.

How does it feel to be deconstructed?

[–] matt_shade 12 years ago

There's a difference between not obeying the law and being above the law. Superman can break into Luthor's office or labs and have done so, that's not the same as doing it and then telling the police to not bother reading him his rights or Luthor's lawyers to go away, arguing that the courts can't tell a Kryptonian what to do or something similar.

But that's just me.

[–] Tastentier 12 years ago

It's not exactly the same thing. But breaking into someone's private property without a search warrant, as a vigilante who doesn't have any legal authority, is on the same (wrong) side of the law as melting a suspected criminal's face off with heat vision. Not to mention the insane amounts of property damage caused by superhero/villain battles. If some flying jock were to throw a radioactive villain or an evil alien into my house or crash him into my car, I'd sue his red underpants off, because that's definitely not a good, moral or legal thing to do.

That's why I don't expect moral lessons from superhero movies. They make for great light entertainment, but the ridiculous-yet-entertaining premise with its ovsersimplified black-and-white perspectives doesn't lend itself well to moral / ethical philosophizing (with few exceptions, such as Watchmen). I mean... "truth, justice and the American way: it ain't broke, so don't fix it"? I almost threw up when I heard that. But this is what Superman is all about, and that's as morally deep as these stories get.

Superman *is* America personified. He's the guy in blue and red, and underneath his costume he's all white (and heterosexual, and probably Christian as well). You'll never see him going after greedy Wall Street bankers or oil-spilling corporations, or call out corrupt American presidents for lying to the public in order to bomb Middle Eastern countries without impunity. They're all part of the system that he stands for and fights for. Which doesn't make Superman stories any less enjoyable for me, unless the writers attempt to pass off their simple-minded good & evil plots as morally relevant lessons.

[–] sanddragon939 12 years ago

Of course, all superheroes are vigilantes, but while they may not strictly go by the book, and even break the law sometimes, they are very much on the side of the law, and the justice system. Superman may break into a villain's hideout without a warrant...but he wouldn't execute a villain, or deny him his chance at a fair trail.

Incidentally, as far as I remember, Superman is officially recognized by the US Government, and the United Nations...so he isn't technically a 'vigilante' in the classic sense of the word. Hell, the Justice League are an officially recognized organization in current DC continuity-which means that all the heroes who are its members have SOME official status. (In fact, in issue six of the rebooted 'Justice League' title, Batman explicitly mentions this as a motive to form the League).

[–] DoctorModernMan 12 years ago

When Superman says something like "we are not above the law", he doesn't mean it completely 100% literally. Every day, he breaks the law by being Superman. A vigilante going to and from different countries and in and out of "restricted" areas whenever he pleases as well as causing massive collateral damage every time he fights a supervillain.

But, you can't possibly sue Superman. I mean, honestly. There is a certain level of law that any superhero is above otherwise they can't even do their job. While Superman wastes his time dealing with a petty court case of someone suing him over their damaged property or exploded car, there could be ANOTHER supervillain wrecking even more havoc on someone else.

However, when it comes to acting as judge, jury and executioner, that's when Superman leaves that decision to the law and out of his hands because it's not his place to judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die. That's why he can't go into China and burn their leader's face off because they're not a democracy like America is.
But, when human lives are at stake, it doesn't matter where they're from or who they are, Superman will do what's necessary to save them (except kill, of course). So if a greedy corporation endangered lives, Superman would fight it.
Superman represents the ideals of America, he doesn't represent the country itself, though. "Truth, Justice and the American Way" doesn't mean "I only fight for America and everyone else can go beep themselves".

How does it feel to be deconstructed?

[–] sheeleyb 12 years ago

> 1) Murder is never justified. No matter who it is. The point Superman was getting at was that it isn't for anyone to decide who "deserves" to die.

Unfortunately by always locking up the worst of the worst only to have them escape and murder again and again and again and again and again, Superman is negligently deciding that it is better for future victims to die at the hands of the criminal instead of the criminal dying himself.

The problem is that although "the ends don't always justify the means", most people fail to realize that "the means don't always justify the ends". It's massively self-righteous to tell the mourners of those who later lose their loved ones "I'm sorry. This is a tragedy. But on the bright side my own hands are clean because I never killed anyone."

To twist a Doctor Who quote: "You may be dead, but at least I'll have the moral high ground."

Yes. There is still the issue of killing criminals who may have broken the law but where death would be a disproportionate response, or maybe even those who are innocent of their crimes or had mitigating circumstances. But the question becomes whether or not that is worse than blindly allowing these other threats to keep breathing and murdering more later on. On either side of the argument, some people who should not die will die. And here is where I think the ambiguity of the situation could had been SO much better presented.

Still, the biggest problem I had with this story is that the state doesn't execute these insane wackos. It shouldn't be on Superman or any superhero's shoulders to have to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Unfortunately the judge, jury, and executioner aren't acting as judge, jury, and executioner either.

As for Manchester conducting the public execution however, I don't blame him. At this point the state proved itself to be incompetent in protecting the public in regards to that menace. Where the state fails, the people have to do what they can. Superman was 100% WRONG on that instance. In the long run, Manchester saved many more lives by killing that a-hole.

Unfortunately they tried to twist the Elite into strawmen to build towards the pro-Superman argument at the end. If they played the story more ambiguously, things could had gotten much better. Heck, if after the execution when Superman told them to turn themselves in, I think the Elite could had undermined Superman's argument much more if they DID turn themselves in. Honestly, which way do you think a Metropolis jury would had sided, not to mention the trial likely would had been aired worldwide giving both sides one hell of a podium to make their points.

This movie raised concerns, but ultimately sides with Superman... and that was a mistake. A great movie would raise the concerns and presented both sides with both their pros and cons, while the movie itself is relatively impartial ("neither condoning nor condemning"). Hell, it's the reason why I loved Watchmen. If the end of that series doesn't make you feel sick on one level or another, regardless of which opinions you have, you obviously weren't paying attention.

______________________________________
God bless America and the 'Ignore this User' link.
1-20-13

[–] JudgeJavelin 9 years ago

You're wrong.

> Unfortunately the judge, jury, and executioner aren't acting as judge, jury, and executioner either.

A country that has an executioner (death penalty) has no concept of right or wrong or any moral ground to stand on anyway.

------------------------------
Prepare to be judged....with a FGM-148 Javelin!

[–] cyguration (3845) 3 years ago

As for Manchester conducting the public execution however, I don't blame him. At this point the state proved itself to be incompetent in protecting the public in regards to that menace. Where the state fails, the people have to do what they can. Superman was 100% WRONG on that instance. In the long run, Manchester saved many more lives by killing that a-hole.

This is an extremely interesting point, because in the one scene where Atomic Skull is sitting in the cell, the guard makes a throwaway line about how the city is using his radioactive energy to power up the grid.

So the state made their decision: Atomic Skull was better left alive so they could get free energy (while still likely charging residents a premium on their utility bills) instead of rightfully sending him a death sentence.

After Superman disabled him the first time, I actually did think about a judge handing him the death sentence, but the movie wisely shows that even while Superman was right in not killing, the state was wrong in how it handled its judicial commitments for protecting the public at large, or at least considering the public's safety.

[–] Swearengen 12 years ago

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Superman and Batman have to both be sick in the head to continuously capturing and recapturing murderous super villains. And they continue to point to and rely on the law? What a joke, our own system is broken and continues the same cycle you see in the comics by the politically correct do gooders. You can't go a day without hearing about a story of a rape or murder by an released convict who was locked away for raping some child or murdering somebody.

[–] stringle78 10 years ago

Superman did it his way and apprehended Atomic Skull alive. What happened? Atomic Skull easily escaped and killed even more people. A villain as dangerous as Atomic Skull HAS to be stopped by any means necessary. The people that Atomic Skull murdered are on Superman.

Even Batman was about to finally kill the Joker in DKR. He said that basically he is responsible for all the innocent people that the Joker murdered cause he didn't use lethal force on him long ago.

[–] Magic_313 12 years ago

1) Superman doesn't lock villains up, the government does.
2) Truth, justice and the supposed "American way" ain't that bad.
3) Black looked bad because he lied about it.
4) The soldiers were never a threat to Superman. It was the Elite guy who brought him down in the first place.
5) Superman's main objective is to save as many lives as superhumanly possible, which includes that of the threat.
6) It really isn't. Superman kills if necessary. Superman II, the comics, Lois & Clark, Smallville...

When is he hypocritical in this story?

[–] alveolate 12 years ago

1) EXACTLY.

i thought the movie sucked because its central premise is so deeply flawed: it's not about "might makes right" vs "thou shalt not kill"; it's simply "HOW TO MAKE BETTER PRISONS".

true, those are supervillians. that simply means you need superprisons. MAKE THOSE SUPERPRISONS. perhaps regarding prisons, Supes needs to work with the relevant government agencies to create proper superprisons that aren't so easy to escape from. if such superprisons are simply too expensive to build/maintain, then perhaps the death penalty (sentenced by a proper court) is the only way to maintain public safety and adequately redress justice. i doubt Supes would disagree with this (unless he's the only possible executioneer for certain unkillable supervillians.)

also, i thought it was completely unnecessary for Supes to destroy property. he has super speed right? he can mobilise an entire squad of superbots? but he decides to let a few innocent civilians get fried by Atom before he finally (trashes plenty of cars, streets, buildings AND THEN) throws him into water? he's either being flashy for the movie director, or he's lazy in a superhero way (let's not use full power on this guy. not yet.)

on this note, he COULD be construed as hypocritical, i) since he "held back" on Atom and allowed people to get killed, and ii) he destroyed a LOT of property, most of it probably unnecessarily (possibly even purposely and/or spitefully).

[–] kyle747 12 years ago

Superman is strictly a reality-TV superhero.

He's the complete bad guy, just like the Elite, who are exaggerated in the extreme in order to prove a point.

You can't just fly around spying on people and doing the other things he does and then proclaim yourself the hero. I'd shoot him down with a kryptonite bullet in a second.

Anytime I start thinking Supy is the good guy I remind myself there is no ritual combat, only actual combat.

And what's with his buddy Batman - walking around America in a demon mask, with his boy-warriors and exercising authority?

Stop trumpeting Superman as some kind of Christ-like figure DC, and I might like him again. As it is, I find him monstrous and evil, as is anyone who engages in ritual war.

[–] Green_Phire 12 years ago

:/ You don't use too many braincells on a regular basis, do you? How sad.

[–] Strazdamonas 12 years ago

1) Agree
2) Agree
3) Agree
4) it was Elites fault superman was down to begin with. it was thier trap.
5) Because he thinks he knows better than everyone else.
6) im sure he planned ahead enough not to kill her.
Superman did stuck to his principles in the end though, so you have to give him credit as well.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] stillvendetta 12 years ago

How were human soldiers going to kill Superman? They didn't save anyone, and it's their fault he was discombobulated to begin with.

[–] 3PocketCharlie 12 years ago

I found this movie even more relevant after the DKR shootings, and reading dozens of posts saying the cops should have just shot the guy after he surrendered. But I side with Superman. It is not the jobs of those who enforce the laws to carry out sentencing. And in America, everyone has the right to a trial.

All glory to the Hypnotoad