![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rainwatersparkI've occasionally seen people praise CBS's Supergirl at the expense of Man of Steel by pointing out how in Supergirl, Kara explicitly has a no-kill rule, as opposed to "neck-snapping" Clark Kent in Man of Steel.
But let's unpack that for a second.
Supergirl does have killing. It's not Supergirl herself who does the killing, but members of the DEO, including Alex Danvers. I have yet to go through each episode and compile a total kill count, but the DEO is responsible for at least the deaths of Dr. Morrow (the creator of Red Tornado) and a number of Fort Ross prisoners, and no one sheds a tear for any of those deaths.
So it's hard not to feel like criticizing Man of Steel for killing a criminal, while ignoring the fact that criminals can and do die in Supergirl, is hypocritical.
Is the difference supposed to be simply that Superman and Supergirl should stand for something larger, and therefore "shouldn't" kill others, therefore Supergirl is superior to Man of Steel? In that case, why is it okay for humans to kill each other in Supergirl (at least in certain cases), if the overall message is that we should be inspired not to use violence and that every life is precious? (Also, Superman kills a fellow Kryptonian in Man of Steel and not a human.)
It's also important to note that the same rationale is used for killing in both Supergirl and Man of Steel. In, for example, the cases of Dr. Morrow and Jemm in Supergirl, both criminals ended up dead after they caused massive havoc and destruction and the protagonists needed to resort to extreme measures to stop them. Same in Man of Steel. What many who don't like the ending don't address is: what exactly would humanity have done with Zod if Superman merely subdued instead of killed him? At the time, no one knew about kryptonite. There would have been no way to imprison Zod effectively. Zod repeatedly told Clark that he would commit genocide if Clark didn't stop him, and he certainly had the power to do so. The phantom drives were all used up to send the other Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone, so it's not like anyone could have sent Zod anywhere so that he couldn't come back to Earth.
I'm not trying to bash Supergirl. I love both Supergirl AND Man of Steel. But I feel like we should at least be honest when looking at the fact that characters do die in Supergirl and it isn't quite the pacifistic utopia some people make it out to be. Plus, Clark kills a criminal who threatened (and also attempted) to commit genocide and cries about it afterward. More people should remember that.
But let's unpack that for a second.
Supergirl does have killing. It's not Supergirl herself who does the killing, but members of the DEO, including Alex Danvers. I have yet to go through each episode and compile a total kill count, but the DEO is responsible for at least the deaths of Dr. Morrow (the creator of Red Tornado) and a number of Fort Ross prisoners, and no one sheds a tear for any of those deaths.
So it's hard not to feel like criticizing Man of Steel for killing a criminal, while ignoring the fact that criminals can and do die in Supergirl, is hypocritical.
Is the difference supposed to be simply that Superman and Supergirl should stand for something larger, and therefore "shouldn't" kill others, therefore Supergirl is superior to Man of Steel? In that case, why is it okay for humans to kill each other in Supergirl (at least in certain cases), if the overall message is that we should be inspired not to use violence and that every life is precious? (Also, Superman kills a fellow Kryptonian in Man of Steel and not a human.)
It's also important to note that the same rationale is used for killing in both Supergirl and Man of Steel. In, for example, the cases of Dr. Morrow and Jemm in Supergirl, both criminals ended up dead after they caused massive havoc and destruction and the protagonists needed to resort to extreme measures to stop them. Same in Man of Steel. What many who don't like the ending don't address is: what exactly would humanity have done with Zod if Superman merely subdued instead of killed him? At the time, no one knew about kryptonite. There would have been no way to imprison Zod effectively. Zod repeatedly told Clark that he would commit genocide if Clark didn't stop him, and he certainly had the power to do so. The phantom drives were all used up to send the other Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone, so it's not like anyone could have sent Zod anywhere so that he couldn't come back to Earth.
I'm not trying to bash Supergirl. I love both Supergirl AND Man of Steel. But I feel like we should at least be honest when looking at the fact that characters do die in Supergirl and it isn't quite the pacifistic utopia some people make it out to be. Plus, Clark kills a criminal who threatened (and also attempted) to commit genocide and cries about it afterward. More people should remember that.
