Superman vs the Elite - Review by SFDebris

[Ares]

Not sure if anyone else here follows him, but there's a reviewer of science fiction that goes by SFDebris. He recently reviewed the animated adaptation of Superman vs the Elite, which can be viewed here.

I enjoyed it immensely, and recommend anyone who enjoys a critical review to check it out.

[Ares]

For my own part, I think SFDebris does a solid job outlining Superman's morality and the reason why it's important for most superheroes to have some variation of it. Even Batman doesn't really stray far from what Superman stands for, just in a less friendly way.

Watching the film again on my own, I have to say it's one of the better animated adaptations, with my only real issue being the art style and the idea that Superman actually lobotomized Black rather than just giving him a concussion. What really stands out is how much of a tragedy the Elite are, given how they were obvious fans of Superman at the first meeting and how well they got along at the second. When it came to fighting monsters and saving lives, they worked well together. But when the Elite goes full on Mark Millar's Authority, well, there was never going to be any hope of them getting along.

When I get around to my own setting stuff, I definitely plan on having some superteam that is basically a hybrid of the Elite, the Authority and the Ultimates as basically an example of how not to be a hero team.

[Scots Dragon]

When I get around to my own setting stuff, I definitely plan on having some superteam that is basically a hybrid of the Elite, the Authority and the Ultimates as basically an example of how not to be a hero team.

I feel like it's just as important to have the 'heroes' who are really bad at heroism around as it is to have the heroes and villains themselves. Not even as actual outright villains and irredeemable types, but well-intentioned people who just have the wrong idea about how to best fulfil those intentions.

Also similarly villains who don't quite fit the irredeemably evil mould and are motivated by larger ideals. Magneto is more interesting than a half-dozen Lex Luthors.

It's also a better source of hero-versus-hero conflicts than the contrived stuff Mark Millar himself came up with for Civil War.

[Ares]

When I get around to my own setting stuff, I definitely plan on having some superteam that is basically a hybrid of the Elite, the Authority and the Ultimates as basically an example of how not to be a hero team.

I feel like it's just as important to have the 'heroes' who are really bad at heroism around as it is to have the heroes and villains themselves. Not even as actual outright villains and irredeemable types, but well-intentioned people who just have the wrong idea about how to best fulfil those intentions.

Also similarly villains who don't quite fit the irredeemably evil mould and are motivated by larger ideals. Magneto is more interesting than a half-dozen Lex Luthors.

It's also a better source of hero-versus-hero conflicts than the contrived stuff Mark Millar himself came up with for Civil War.

Agreed. There are plenty of different molds for heroes and villains, and while I prefer the majority of comic heroes actually be . . . well, heroic, there is a place for anti-heroes like the Punisher, less traditional heroes like Cable's original X-Force team and even extremists like the Authority, as well as villains who could possibly reform like Magneto or Sandman, along with the irredeemables like Lex Luthor, the "noble demons" like Dr. Doom and the simple blue collar villains like the Flash's Rogues.

The Authority were an interesting case because after Mark Millar's run on them they basically became hated even within the Wildstorm creative team. Taking down the Authority a peg, showing them to be hypocrites or monsters just sort of became the thing after a while.

But yeah, having a group like the Authority or the Elite makes for more natural superhero conflicts than something like either Civil War comics, where the heroes were at each others throats for increasingly stupid reason.

[Scots Dragon]

I also really want to do some stuff in my own material with capitalistic-controlled corporate superteams as antagonists because of my increasing disdain towards Disney's monopolistic control over... uh... everything.

[Ares]

Corporate superhero teams can definitely be a good source of tension. After all, depending if the person running the company is Tony Stark, David Xanatos or Lex Luthor, you're going to wind up with three very different superteams.

[Poodle]

I thought the comic "Kingdom Come" really highlighted the necessity for a morality, especially in regards to treatment of those less powerful than you.
I think police are a good example of same job, different moralities. The majority are basically good people, doing a tedious job. Some are cynical and think all people who aren't cops are scum. Some are basically corrupt but still trying to seem as if they are following the law. I think Supers would be the same if not worse.

With cops there are numerous constraints on their behaviour. What constraints are there on superhero behaviour apart from a more powerful superhero and then what happens if that Superhero has a suspect morality. Arguably most superheroes cannot justify any force against criminals because there is no realistic threat, certainly it is not self-defence if you go out looking for them.

If you have a huge intellect you probably realise that prison doesn't deal with criminality and can see more serious solutions working better and the powers to deal with it in a way that might not be provable in a court of law. How do you enforce lawfulness anyway if your heroes have no commitment to a national authority and do laws designed for normal humans apply to Superhero humans anyway.

[Ares]

The relative lack of oversight and power / skill / competence difference between normal police officers and superheroes are two reasons I strongly favor "codes against killing", along with just my general morality.

Police officers are generally above-average individuals who are competently trained at what they do, going up against opponents with the same level of lethality when it comes to equipment. Cops are conditioned to attempt non-lethal capture whenever possible, but are also trained to respond with lethal force in appropriate situations. And since they can't do things like shoot guns out of people's hands or kung-fu fight a small army of terrorists while unarmed, they frequently have to respond to lethal force with lethal force to defend themselves or others. And even when the use of that force is completely justified, they are investigated after the fact to make doubly sure that the officer was in the right.

Superheroes, on the other hand, generally have options police officers don't. Even the mere mortals like Batman and Hawkeye are capable of easily disarming and disabling most opponents through non-lethal means. This is especially true for vastly more powerful characters like Superman and Thor. There will almost never be a situation involving normal criminals that would require Superman to use lethal force.

Even against superhuman opponents, most superheroes are capable of dealing with them non-lethally, and should be expected to do so. But when they are genuinely in a situation where they must kill to deal with an immediate threat to themselves or others, then they should do so. I'm not a "heroes should never kill" person, I'm a "heroes should only kill when there is absolutely no other option".

In my own settings, the main reason superheroes are tolerated is because the vast majority only kill when they have to and work with law enforcement as much as they can. The ones that do kill more freely are seen as vigilantes who are dangerous wild cards, and provide an example of why restraint is so important. People trust heroes who do things the right way and are scared of "heroes" that don't.

By holding themselves accountable, heroes create an environment that ignores a lot of the logistical issues superheroes would otherwise cause.

[Poodle]

Yup... I agree that in an idealised world that would happen. I also think that a code against killing might be a good thing although cynical people would argue The Punisher has reduced more crime than Batman, who has possibly only exacerbated it.

We mere mortals need heroes to have a code because the worst-case alternative could be the extinction of the human race as we would be powerless to stop them.
We rely on Supers to maintain the status quo amongst themselves. If a superpowered indivixual goes rogue we desperately hope all tbe others would band togetherr to stop them but what if they didn't.

[Ares]

The Batman vs Punisher debate is hard to examine because of the status quo. One could easily argue that all Frank does is create power vacuums that other criminals fill, so nothing ever really changes. Plus he never goes after folks like Wilson Fisk or Norman Osborn, likely because he'd get himself killed. Meanwhile you could make the argument that Batman has made common criminals so afraid that the vast majority of crime in Gotham is performed by a relatively small number of super-criminals, and Bruce Wayne does put money into criminal rehabilitation programs.

But yes, while I consider Grant Morrison to be a very hit or miss writer, the first arc of his JLA summed up superheroes perfectly.

[Poodle]

What is up with Wonderwoman's pornstar outfit?
As for Gotham, I don't buy that. Cool, that Bruce Wayne is doing something but Batman... not so much. By Batman's own admissions Gotham is worse than when he started. He is still beating up thugs and Purse snatchers every night or so it seems. He seems directly responsible for Two-face and he inspired the Joker. Does giving someone a beating deter them from crime? I think not. I work with a lot of gang members. They are not strangers to getting beatings. Didn't deter them so much.
Any person that confesses out of fear of Batman is almost automatically walking out of any sentence as it was a confession obtained under duress. Heck, they might even be eligible for compensation. If anyone ever finds out who Batman really is there is going to be an enormous class action suit.
I do know people who have given up crime and gang life because people around them died. I don't condone the Punisher but I can see why people would think it was a pretty effective deterrent, especially anyone who is familiar with the costs of criminality and incarceration and rates of recidivism.

It is a good question though, how much should superheroes do? It seems hypocritical saving people from Natural disasters or Alien invasions but not people being tortured to death for trying to create a democratic society in despotic countries.

I guess it the moral equivalent of hate-crime laws. Who gets to decide?
'meet St Michael, the religious superhero who burns homosexuals to death.'
'meet Tulwar, the Palestinian Superhero dropping missiles on Israel.'
Etc...