Man of Steel and Superman's code of ethics - or lack thereof

There's been a raging debate going on Google+ and elsewhere on the interwebs about the conclusion to the Man of Steel movie (warning -  Spoilers ahead!).  I wrote a long response to one of the threads there, and I thought I would clone it and expand upon it here on my blog, where I have the advantage of unlimited space and also better text formatting.  Again, there be spoilers below, so stop reading now if you don't want to know how the movie ends.

First of all, as I've said before, I did not like the Man of Steel movie as a Superman film, although I thought that, absent Superman, it would have made a decent action movie.  As Superman fare, however, it was dramatically lacking, and I've already named 10 reasons why.  I'd like to expand on these points a bit, and focus on three scenes in the movie that made me want to walk out.

Walk-out Scene 1 - "Maybe"

As a teenager, Clark is on a bus that ends up sliding down an embankment and into a river.  He sneaks out the door and uses his super-strength to rescue the bus and a drowning boy.  A couple of the kids notice.  Pa Kent takes Clark aside and criticizes him, telling Clark that he must keep his powers a secret because the world "isn't ready" for him.  Clark asks what he was supposed to do. Should he have let the bus go under and all the kids drown?  Pa Kent's answer is "Maybe."

Excuse me? Maybe he should let a bunch of children die? And this coming from Pa Kent, one of the great paragons of small-town integrity in American fiction?  No, I'm sorry... this is not the Pa Kent that I know and love. There is no "maybe" about it. Innocent children are at risk. You save them now, and worry about the consequences later. Clark did exactly the right thing, but he did it against Pa Kent's advice.  Costner's Pa Kent advocated a morally ambiguous "cover your own ass" course of action for his super-powered son.  That is completely alien to the personality of Pa Kent.  Can anyone picture Glenn Ford's Pa from Donner's Superman saying "maybe" here?  Or Eddie Jones from Lois and Clark?  The whole "Smallville ethic" that Superman was supposed to have learned growing up was to help people who need it.  How does "maybe" get this done?

Back in the 1980s, Christopher Reeve was asked in an interview what advice he would give to some actor who, years in the future, would try to re-create the role of Superman.  Reeve said that the key to Superman is that he's a good neighbor.  He helps people because he can.  Reeve identified this as a core early-American value, from the time of the settlers who had no one to rely upon by each other, and who would not have survived if they hadn't been "good neighbors."  Reeve is 100% correct -- Superman is a good neighbor.  And when would a good neighbor watch a busload of innocent children go into the drink, and when someone asks "should we go in and help them," responds, "maybe?"

Walk-out Scene 2 - "Protecting your ID is more important than my life."

Following on the whole "cover your own ass" theme running through Pa Kent's advice in this movie, we see Pa's absolutely ludicrous death scene.  A tornado is coming, and everyone has taken shelter under an overpass (which, by the way, you are not supposed to do, but that's a topic for another day).  Pa Kent runs back to help rescue people but hurts his leg, and cannot get back to the overpass. The Kents all know that Clark could easily save Pa -- he could super-speed out to Pa, pick him up with one finger, and super-speed him all the way to another state in a matter of seconds, if he wanted to.  But when Clark makes a move like he's going to do just that, Pa motions him back and shakes his head.  Pa gives his life... to protect Clark's secret.  Once again, Pa's implicit advice to Clark is "cover your own ass."

Again, I almost walked out of the theater after this scene.  It once again flies in the face of the small-town American value system that Smallville and the Kents are supposed to represent -- the core values that ground Superman when he later becomes a hero.  Rather than teaching Clark that he should sacrifice everything to help people (which, by the way, is what heroes are supposed to do), the Kents teach Clark to cover his own ass, even if it means letting the people he loves die. Nothing is more important than protecting himself, not even the life of his own father. Is this, really, the lesson the Kents should be teaching Superman?

Contrast this with all the other interpretations of the Kents and Superman that have existed over the years.  This "CYOA" mentality is not simply a "new direction" for the Kents, but is at 180 degree odds with everything Ma and Pa Kent have represented since Superman's debut in 1938.  Can anyone seriously picture Eddie Jones from the Lois and Clark TV show making the same gesture? And more importantly, can you picture Dean Cain's Clark obeying it?  Not in a million years would that have ever happened.  Or compare the heart attack scene with Glen Ford in Superman from 1978, and the funeral after, where a distraught Clark says, "All those things I can do... all those powers... and I couldn't even save him."  This statement clearly shows that if Clark could have found a way to save Pa Kent with his powers, he would have done so.

This "cover your own ass" mentality that is advocated to Pa Kent, even unto his death, is at odds with everything Superman represents. It's at odds with the small-town values of the Kents. It's at odds with basic human morality, which ought to say that a life is not worth more than a freaking secret identity.  And it's at odds with what heroes are all about, because the whole definition of a hero is someone who risks his ass to help others, not someone who refuses to help others to cover his own ass.

Walk-out Scene 3 - The Killing of Zod

Superman is not supposed to kill.  It's a core element of his character -- he has a "code against killing." So when he snapped Zod's neck and then yelled in anguish, I almost got up and walked out again.

The people defending the film, and especially this scene, argue that killing Zod will teach Superman the sanctity of life.  What utter rubbish! I know killing is wrong, and I didn't have to murder someone to figure it out. What, is Superman an idiot? He can't figure out killing is a bad thing without doing it at least once?

The whole "he had to kill to decide never to kill again" argument is a rationalization.  It's probably how Snyder rationalized putting it in the movie to anyone who disagreed with it. And it's how all the people who liked the scene rationalize it to the people who didn't.  But it's a weak argument, because the vast majority of people on earth understand that you shouldn't kill without having to do it first.  By the way, I also didn't have to steal once before I figured out I shouldn't steal. Or cheat on a test before I figured out I shouldn't cheat.  Or get caught being a Peeping Thom, before figuring out I shouldn't leer at people through their windows.  I mean, come on now.

So to the Man of Steel fanboys: Look, if you like a gritty, vengeful Superman who is willing to kill, then that's fine. But don't try to defend it to those of us who don't like that type of Superman, by claiming that killing is somehow necessary for his personal growth.

"This 'Super' man is nothing of the sort."

In Superman II, General Zod mocks Superman for his heroic actions, saying to Ursa, "This 'Super' man is nothing of the sort." To Zod, the weak exist for the strong to dominate them, and if Superman were truly "super" he would rule the world.

However, to us, what makes Superman truly "super," what makes him a hero, is that he stands for all that is good and true and right. He protects innocents. He defends the weak and the helpless.  He stops crime. He tells the truth. And he always brings in his man, rather than killing.  That is how heroes do things.  That's how George Reeves did them. How Christopher Reeve did them. And how Dean Cain did them.  But it's not how Man of Steel's cast and crew decided to play things. Thus, they took the 'super' out of Superman.

The basic problem is that the people who made Man of Steel don't seem to get the character, and don't understand what makes him tick.  Superman was supposed to have gotten his morality from his adoptive parents' down-to-earth, small-town USA values. He was raised by good, honest people not to hurt others, not to tell lies, and to fight for "truth, justice, and the American Way" because that's what the Kents believe in.  Those values, ingrained into him from an early age, are the stuff heroes are made from.  Superman doesn't take over the world or do other over-the-top things (including killing) because Martha and Jonathan Kent taught him right from wrong.

Or at least... they were supposed to.  But we didn't see any of that in this movie. Instead, Jonathan Kent tells him tells him over and over again to cover his own ass, which is the antithesis of heroism.  Was it out of the urge to cover her own ass that Supergirl died in Crisis 7?   No.  Risking it all to save another person is what being a hero is all about.

And Superman is the greatest hero of all. He should not cover their own ass. He should sacrifice himself to save others.  He should die rather than let one innocent person come to harm. And every other version of Superman that has ever walked across the screen, big or small, has been that kind of hero.

But in Man of Steel, Pa Kent's advice was to let a bunch of *children* drown to protect, not even his own life, but just his secret identity? That's the kind of advice Lex Luthor would give you, not Pa Kent.  And worse, Clark followed the advice and let his own father die when he could have saved him.  There's nothing 'super' about that.

I'm glad they called this movie "Man of Steel." The character in it is not worthy of the name Superman. Or as Terrance Stamp's General Zod said back in 1981, "This 'Super' man is nothing of the sort."  You tell 'em, Stampy.

New 52 Superman - Year 1

Because I just got back into collecting comics only recently (about two months ago, see here and here for details), it has taken me a while to select which series I am going to follow, and to catch up with them.  I began with +DC Comics The New 52, which is basically a rebirth of the entire DC Universe.  All their characters have been rebooted to one degree or other (for details, check out my review of The New 52), and all their previous series were canceled, and re-launched starting at #1. Being a long-time fan of the Man of Steel, it was a slam-dunk that I would at least begin reading the first few issues of both his series -- Superman and Action Comics.  Whether I would continue past the first few issues would depend on the quality of the individual titles.

I have now read the first year's worth of Superman, which includes #1-12, and also the #0 issue, which was published after #12 (during the special "#0 month" in which +DC Comics celebrated the first anniversary of The New 52).  Not counting #0, which is an "origin" issue, the first year of Superman is divided into two distinct story arcs, and produced by two different creative teams. The inaugural story arc was called "What Price Tomorrow?" and comprises issues #1-6.  The second story arc, which doesn't seem to have had a particular name assigned to it (at least that I can discover), lasted from issues #7-12.

Story Arc 1: What Price Tomorrow (#1-6)

In the first story arc, writer George Perez and several artists (Jesus Merino, Nicola Scott, Trevor Scott, and others) dealt with the re-introduction of Superman.  The story is set "five years" after Superman's first appearance in Metropolis, and this is where some of the confusion starts.  Many references are made, in the very first issue, to a variety of events no one has ever seen (at least not yet), some of which sound very similar to events that happened before the reboot represented by The New 52.  At the very start, the old Daily Planet building is demolished, and a new building, that enables the Planet to get involved in broadcast journalism (with Lois Lane as news director of the new station) is introduced.  Superman is characterized as being "known" already to the people of Metropolis, but also seems to have "been away for a while."

As the first issue progresses, Superman ends up in a fight with a powerful fire creature that speaks in an odd language but uses the word "Krypton."  The fire creature is defeated and disappears, leaving behind the unconscious night guard who was apparently a vessel for the creature.  Several of the city's residents express the opinion that Superman's presence is inducing these super-powered attacks, and maybe it would be best for Metropolis if he weren't around.

I will admit, these mistrustful reactions to DC's flagship superhero, a hero who has always been loved and trusted by the public in prior incarnations, gave me immediate misgivings.  The reason I no longer read Marvel is the pervasive "mutant hate" that has existed in their universe since the 1970s.  I prefer when superheroes are recognized for the good they do (at least generally), and they usually have been, in the DC Universe.  That the rebooted Superman would be mistrusted right out of the gate made me very nervous for what would happen in the rest of the DC Universe.  However, George Perez is an old hand at this, and I trusted that he would not take the character into places I would hate.

As the story continued to unfold, however, it seemed like George was, in fact, headed down that path.  With each issue, new villains appear in Metropolis, specifically targeting Superman, and causing no end of trouble for the city's residents.  More and more people start blaming Superman until it seems like Lois Lane is the only one left who believes he's one of the good guys. Finally, in issue #5-6, Superman seems to turn completely bad.  He starts going after villains he has caught and attacking them, even killing some of them.  He ignores the police and starts acting just as people have feared -as judge, jury, and executioner.  Even Supergirl is unable to stop him.

It turns out, however, that this is not Superman, but a simulacrum created by nano-creatures.  Superman has been trapped in orbit by the creatures while their simulacrum has been doing all these terrible things.  Finally, he breaks free from the trap, and returns to earth to capture the nano-creatures.  Superman defeats the creatures, and at Supergirl's suggestion, hurls them into the sun, thus destroying them (at least for now).

When people realize that Superman was not responsible, they finally understand just how restrained he has been. They have seen what the world would be like if Superman really did consider himself above the law, and since the world has not been like that, they finally realize that he's one of the good-guys.

I have mixed feelings about this story arc.  I like the way it ended, and true to my trust in him, George Perez did manage to "fix it" by the end so that the world does not mistrust Superman.  The arc itself was not bad when viewed in total. However, the problem with it is that it doesn't work at all as a reintroduction story.  As I said in my critique of The New 52 as a whole, the character needs to be established first, before he's "broken."  I know that Superman is not a new character to the readers, but he is a new(ish) character to the world.  Let's establish some ground rules first, before breaking them.  This arc, then, would have worked better after the character has been around for 15 or 20 issues.

Story Arc 2: Superman #7-12

For the second story arc, a new team came on board, including Keith Giffen, Dan Jurgens, and others.  The second story arc is not really an arc, in that it doesn't follow a single story-line the way the first one does. Instead, there are three separate two-part stories.  In the first story (#7-8), Superman faces a demon-creature called Helspont.  Helspont wants to conquer earth and use it to get revenge on a cabal called the Daemonite. He offers to give Superman control of earth for the Man of Steel's aid.  Superman, of course, refuses, and eventually defeats Helspont.  In the second story (#9-10), a female villain named Anguish tries to rob a bank and Superman battles her. She has the ability to control her density, making herself hard to hit, but also able to hit hard, at will.  As part of this story, a blogger mistakenly fingers someone as Superman in "secret identity" and Anguish goes after the man's family, thinking to use the family against Superman.  In the end, Superman manages to save the man and his family.  In the last story (#11-12), a Russian sub discovers an inter-dimensional being, who then breaks free and starts slaughtering people. Superman battles him, losing the first time (#11) but then winning the second time (#12).  After returning home from Russia, he goes on sort of a date with Lucy Lane (Lois Lane's sister).

This second story arc is at the same time both better and worse than the first one.  I liked it better in the sense that this is more traditional, classic Superman.  Nobody doubts his heroism (well, the Russians do, but they're being paranoid).  He has a commanding presence. He is confident and in control of the situation (for the most part), rather than suffering from what could only be described as a near nervous breakdown the way he was in #1-6.  On the other hand, these stories were all entirely bland and seemed like they were re-treading very well-worn pathways.  At least the first arc, for all the troublesome elements, was original.

Superman #0

After 12 months, Superman #0 was published during DC's "backstory month." Here, some of Superman's backstory was revealed.  This issue was penned by Scott Lobdell, who then took over the reins of the title going forward.  It's a story of Jor-El discovering, deep in the roots of Krypton, that the world is dying.  When he returns, however, he finds out the science center where the discoveries were being made has been bombed, and he and Lara, who is pregnant with Kal-El (Superman), are attacked by a group of militants. Jor-El traps the attackers in the Phantom Zone, and finally tells Lara that Krypton is doomed.

This story was interesting, but also had many confusing elements.  Lobdell doesn't bother to explain who the militants really are or why they are attacking (he hints but does not explain).  Large gaps are left in the story -- probably because the latter parts of it had already been told in Action Comics #5.  I understand that DC publishes Superman in two books simultaneously, but I question the wisdom of them fragmenting the backstory across the two titles and at very different times (with some parts coming months after the other parts).  There is not one single, coherent re-telling of the Superman story in the comic-books (although there are two hardcover graphic novels that do seem to do the trick).

Reflections

This is a very hard series to evaluate even after a year's worth of issues.  It's hard to believe, because I can usually decide in three or four issues (max) whether I like a series or not, but I'm still on the fence about this one.  The problem is that they have changed the creative team three times now, and you don't know what the new team will do. Perez did a better job of almost everything with the first arc -- it just shouldn't have been done first out of the gate, and as a result, was confusing and difficult to follow in spots.  Jurgens and Giffen produced more "standard" Superman fare, which is good for us traditionalists, but the stories were very flat and uninspired. There was really nothing original there.  And since he just started, I honestly have no idea what Scott Lobdell will do with the stories going forward.

I think Superman, as a character, is suffering from fragmentation.  He's appearing in two books, and in one of his books (Superman) he's had three different writers in a year.  That's four writers total, in the first year of the New 52 Superman version, and I think this is unhealthy for the character. Beyond this, I think the character is suffering more than most, because he is one of their flagship characters, from a complete lack of organization or planning on the part of the +DC Comics  front offices.  As George Perez explained in some detail to a live audience back in June, DC did not have any guiding principles for what was going on in its books (and I bet they still don't). According to George, he, as writer of the new Superman starting on issue #1, was not able to discover whether Ma and Pa Kent were still alive (they're not).  The status of the Kents is a foundational element to this character, and DC didn't know what that status was?  They also didn't seem to know Superman's relationship to other characters in the DC Universe.  George was being handed orders for what to write that didn't make sense to him, and when he questioned them, the editors did not know the answers.  In George's own words, he said, "Oh my gosh, you're deciding all these things and you mean even you don't know what's going on in your own books?"

Sadly, this one sentence from George sums up the impression one gets from reading the Superman family of books during this New 52 relaunch.  The stories are presented to the reader in about as confusing and disorganized a fashion as one could imagine. I'd almost think it was deliberate except nobody in his right mind (other than maybe the Joker, who on second thought isn't in his right mind either) would be able to come up with something this disjointed on purpose.  The stories hop-scotch around the timeline, taking place in different years or even different decades.  The characters act inconsistently from title to title and even from issue to issue within a single title.  Clearly what is happening with the Superman family books is that the writers can't be consistent because their bosses, the editors, don't know what the hell is going on.

As a result, Superman has been a mediocre book at best. It's not a terrible book, but given that this is the flagship title of the flagship character for +DC Comics, mediocrity is not the target at which they should be aiming.

I will keep reading Superman for now... but honestly, if it doesn't get better soon, I will probably drop it.  There are too many other interesting titles out there for me to keep reading a mediocre one, no matter how much I like the Man of Steel as a character.