I had some time at work and I was casually discussing BvS with a colleague when they mentioned a point that at first I dismissed, but the more I thought about it, the more it started to make me question: Were they right?
His point was "Superman stabs Doomsday, flat out killing him. Despite the fact the only person it tried to murder in cold blood without provocation was Lex, who created this tortured, genetic mutilation. Every other time it is reacting to attacks. My point is: Superman kills Doomsday and no one complains about that killing. Why not? It is still a life, it hasn't made any direct threats to citizens, only attempting to murder Lex after creating it, if anything it is a seemingly confused and lost creation and if conscious, there was no attempt to reason to connect with it they just beat it up and then killed it."
Now granted, as fans of comics we know Doomsday in early forms couldn't be reasoned with, nor was it all that conscious or sentient of its actions, but a movie is a self contained entity and the more I started to think the more I found myself wondering if my friend has even the smallest of points.
I just want to say, this is not going to be a critique into what the movie did or didn't do well, but more of a little debate into why Superman's killing of one person in MoS was an outrage, and in this movie no one has really discussed it.
Personally Superman killing Zod, in my opinion, wasn't a problem... his no kill rule seems to change based on who is writing him... I saw the Superman I know and love, a Superman who will do the right thing no matter the cost, but that doesn't mean the consequences of his actions are easy to live with.
In Mos, Zod, if left alive, would have killed the human race It wasn't about the family at the time, that merely represented the fact he wouldn't stop until he has killed every last one of them. Superman screaming stop, is him begging Zod to give up his vendetta, it isn't again about the family, it is about the human race when Zod states "Never" Superman is faced with the choice: Kill his only living connection to his race, or save humanity, but ultimate he'll be alone. He made the right choice, it was tough and it was great seeing how the right choices are hard to deal with, I thought great to see to be a symbol of hope, he'll be taking on that burden.
However, people (rightly or wrongly) have disagreed with his killing of Zod either saying Superman doesn't kill, which is a fair comment if the Superman you read is by authors such as Mark Waid, who wrote the terrific Birthright where his Superman can basically see and be connected to life energy, is the version you love and want to see on screen, but then this brings me to my friend's point: Why are you not outraged about the killing of Doomsday?
Does a monster, alien, or unsentient being not deserve a chance to live?
Going back to my point about Zod's death, he actually represented a threat to humanity on a global scale. This Doomsday was never going to do that, heck he actually seemed quite controllable. Batman shot him, he followed. Superman punched him, he punched back. So, his threat level to me was no where near as high as Zod's and (I haven't watched the movie since it's second week of release, but been checking leaked clips on YouTube to confirm) Doomsday attacks all seem to be in retaliation, he never goes "Hey, MoFos I am Doomsday and I am going to destroy the planet" if anything I think he would say "If you stopped hitting me, and feeding me energy, I might calm down long enough to think about this for a moment and realise I am making a huge mistake with my life, maybe I will take up an accounting position at a local insurance firm"
Nope, his growing power came from their continued assualts.
That said, if I took the movie as a separate entity, which I think is fair, are they justified in killing Doomsday, did he do enough, pose enough of a threat to warrant a stab to the heart. Could they have just held the spear near him and depowered him?
Batman's gas grenade worked, if Wonder Woman had realised her lasso and stopped recharging Doomsday, maybe that would have been enough, or Superman could have chucked the spear to WW and she could have sliced him in multiple areas weakening him. People said Superman could have flown away in the Zod battle, which as mentioned the family was merely a representation of the humanrace and Zod's unrelenting desire to murder them all, but here it seemed that actually was a justifiable action.
Superman even tried it, why not just do it again, but take him somewhere where like the Artic, where he can absorb energy? This wasn't a Zod situation where he was saying I will kill all Humans, heck at this point Bender from Futurama had posed more of a direct threat to humanity as a whole. So, Doomsday being killed as (again you have to take in purly in moive context) was almost heart breaking, a creature confused, lost and unstable is attacked by 3 Superheroes after not really doing anything other than wanting to punch the man who had made him.
I will say this, and I think this was a missed opportunity, Doomsday was a mix of Lex and Zod's DNA, or grown from his body, whatever. I think Doomsday should have been given an action or line that made Superman realise this was Zod, or a trace of Zod, and that he wouldn't stop, as he promised. Superman fighting Doomsday and him mumbling "Never" or something would have added weight to his choice to kill him, in fact the way I would have done it would have been to have Superman realise he can make up for his killing, just because in my opinion it was right doesn't mean Superman is guilt free, and chooses not to kill the creature.
He imprisons Doomsday in the ship. Takes it to the Artic and the Fortress is created. In a MoS sequel we see a Superman trying to figure out a way to help this lost soul, which Doomsday doesn't understand eventually escaping and giving us the Death of Superman storyline with added weight of Superman being killed by the very being he tried to help, but learning he should never back down by doing what is right even when it basically sucks.
So yeah, his point got me thinking: Why the lack of outrage over murder number two? Is it because we know the storyline or because simply by making Doomsday a "Monster" we don't class it as taking a life - I think Groot proved that even low level sentient beings can be empathised with?
Was Doomsday's threat level, when compared with Zod, who had tried to wipe out the planet and promised to then just kill the human race, high enough to justify killing him? Unlike Zod, did Doomsday even have the motivation or the means to wipe out the planet?
Interested to hear the thoughts.
As even those who claim Superman has a no kill rule, still accept the Death of Superman as canon, in a story where he clearly kills. Just because it isn't human, doesn't mean it isn't a life.