Quote Originally Posted by Metahuman1 View Post
If I might propose some suggestions? The plot line for All Star Superman is that Superman is Dyeing and Knows he's dieing, and it's all about how he deals with and prepares for his own death which has gone from a thing he didn't think possible to a thing that is now looming and rapidly approaching. Of how a saintly man spends what he knows are to be his final weeks and days.

Alternatively, What's So Funny About Truth, Justice And The American Way is all about exploring the serious restrictions he places on himself as far as killing and inflicting harm on others, with a group of Anti-hero's who are perfectly content to kill you on your first offense if they deem you a threat and are indeed rather invested in the idea of proving there better because they don't give there enemy's quarter like superman does, and even gives you a taste of what it would be like if Superman did decided "Ok, screw it, going forward if I have to trade punches with you your ass is grass", and shows why that is not, in fact, a good thing for superman to take as a position.

Superman: For Peace, isn't really action packed but it also goes into a lot of interesting territory by showing why superman can't and/or shouldn't solve a rather long list of the worlds problems. World Hunger being a big example.

Take your pic, though if you want more I'd think Fan would be more the person to talk to then me.

I saw the All-Star Superman Animated Movie, it seemed to take a lot from the new animated series, which is far too thin and straightforward villain of the week plot for me to get into. Then again I don't normally read comic books, so when you rapid-fire present characters and like Lex Luthor's niece (first impression: really 15 and already a dominatrix?) and Solaris and Hercules without much introduction (as if it was the continuation of a very long series) I don't react well. I'm not sure how a good movie would like like, but this one was quite too busy with superman,
Spoiler
Show
who possess incredible technology at his Fortress of Solitude, somehow has to spend most of his last time personally bringing the city of Kandor to another star system.


Superman:For Peace, doesn't sound like movie material, its summary sounds like the sort of plot I thought up for it immediately (what I thought up, the actual plot is a bit more detailed and nuanced): Superman tries to solve hunger, finds his superpowers have its limits when it comes to mass scale food distribution, ends with Superman is better off as an inspiring figure and using his powers to deal with superpowered type crises rather than structural issues. The militant dictatorship opposing superman presents nuanced issues. This is more an exercise in speculative science fiction and political philosophy rather than an action movie.

What's so Funny about Truth Justice and the American way, from your description, is everything I hate about taking the No Kill Rule as a serious moral rule, complete with stawmen "kill you on first offense if they deem you a threat." These anti-villains (getting the term anti-hero/villain right is a pet peeve of mine, this group plays the antagonist to superman's pro despite having heroic traits, they are playing the villain role in the movie despite being "heroes") are going deep off the other end.

Certainly, I wont argue that it preferable to imprison, neutralize, or even rehabilitate or simply co-opt villains rather than kill them, if you can. This is true even if the hero has to take some measured risk...However, so often we are presented with the superheroes in the midst of fighting a villain presenting a clear and present danger to both the heroes and to others, often on a mass scale, and the heroes start pulling their punches or refusing to take the clear shot! And it is not terribly uncommon for these decisions to lead to the death of others on a mass scale or major characters (Doctor Who comes to mind). It isn't even uncommon to see this when the heroes are the underdogs!

The "do not kill" rule is always presented as either categorical (NEVER!) or with incredibly rare exceptions that are made only after allowing a very high degree of risk to the heroes and innocents. Man of Steel is actually no exception to the rule
Spoiler
Show
(Superman kills Zod only after they destroyed a good bit of Metropolis and only when Zod gratuitously decides to kill bystanders to force Superman's hand)
.

I recall this situation in Arrow (though I hear on the grapevine that the hero adopted this attitude in season 2 because of studio interference, he is constantly struggling and sometimes going back on them) and in Smallville. It was a real part of what made Avatar the Last Airbender disappointing for me
Spoiler
Show
in the approaching final battle which Aang isn't supposed to be capable of winning Aang is only worried about the possibility that he might have to kill the villain
, and it makes Inuyasha:The Final Act frustrating as well
Spoiler
Show
the main villain Naraku is constantly killing humans and demons, yet the main casts refusal to sacrifice even willing warriors and this allows Naraku to play all sorts games and threaten TPK, and that's just as far as I've gotten so far
.

This is a morality that I haven't seen extolled anywhere in real life in the specific way it appears with regularity in at least American, British and Japanese media. Why do we need it glorified in our movies?