Should Superman have allowed that much collateral damage to happen? No, and the entire following movie pretty much gets into that, bad as it is, and Superman does realize it. Which is *why he kills Zod*
-
Show this thread
-
Like, obviously no character with Superman’s power should act as judge, jury, and executioner over regular humans (although points have been made about how he’s pretty brutal toward injustice-doers in his earliest comics). Zod is in or above his weight class.
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
And Superman kills him to avert massive slaughter. The only reason Superman wouldn’t do that in the past is the CCA and the family targeting of the oldest movies. And bc they wanted to keep bringing Zod back.
4 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
I actually have a much bigger problem with Snyder’s decision for Batman to use guns (and to kill, I think not killing is more core to Batman than Superman, but in any case if he does kill it should be with ninjitsu, not guns)
3 replies 2 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Like, to me, Batman is the gun control superhero. Him killing barely bothers me, but I disagreed with the Batmobile in The Dark Knight having a cannon. Batman shouldn’t shoot people in the kneecaps or hold an empty gun to someone’s head or ANYTHING, because of his *trauma*
2 replies 2 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
in my mind if Batman fought an NRA member and they got into a debate, and the NRA guy said “if you saw a bunch of civilians held prisoner by a massively armed terror group, and you had a sniper rifle and could definitely shoot the hostage taker in the hand, would you” he’d say no
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
And in that situation Batman would be in the wrong! Guns traumatize him!There’s no way that him using them is anywhere close to consistent even if he’s using them nonlethally somehow. On the other hand,him just outright killing people,while not how I’d write him, isn’t as jarring
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @BootlegGirl
You're right, as far as real world/realistic depictions go. It's *hard* to disable someone without using potentially lethal violence, especially unarmed. And when it's several someones? Yeah. Of course, when you bring in comicbook/cartoon physics, it's totally different.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @XavierGRichard1
I mean, that’s beside the point - I want Batman to be an interesting character. I’m in favor of gun restrictions but Batman in my mind would be well to my left on gun control. To me what’s interesting about him is that he’s trauma driven and gives up a key weapon bc of it
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @XavierGRichard1
In my mind Bruce Wayne feels like the master of Gotham when he swoops down over a bunch of thugs, when they fire *their* guns at him and he uses smoke bombs and ninjitsu and whatever else this version of him has to take them down, but firing a gun would destroy him inside.
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes
Yes In the prologue to Batman Beyond, a 50-year-old Bruce Wayne in the Beyond cybersuit Terry will someday wear intervenes in a hostage situation and takes out all the guys but one And then suddenly his heart has a twinge of angina and he falters
-
-
And the last guy manages to overpower him and is about to kill him and the hostage, but at the last moment Bruce grabs one of the other guys' pistols and holds him at gunpoint And the guy screams in fear "No, don't!" and then the cops come
1 reply 2 retweets 10 likes -
Nothing Bruce did in this scene can be said to be morally wrong at all But you see him back in the Batcave with this thousand yard stare, ruminating on the image of him pointing the gun at the guy and the sudden fear in his eyes that he might get shot
2 replies 2 retweets 13 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.