Originally Posted by Binker
But that's the thing: none of this has any merit. Everyone is expecting Superman to be perfect, and do anything, which wouldn't create any conflict. The scout ship crashed in buildings, sure, but buildings next to those that the black zero destroyed. So either no one was there, or they were dead anyways. And preventing the building from collapsing, I don't understand that.
Besides, doesn't anyone see that by revealing that there were causalities, and collateral damage was a fact, that they were being honest and not playing it safe because it was Superman. That at least is something Marvel hasn't really done. Another example is The Avengers, where you see Manhattan get damaged, but they did not hint nor suggest that people did indeed die from those attacks.
That's why Snyder and Goyer should be given props for doing what they did: they were honest, gave us a realistic world much like ours for the characters and story to live in, and again, didn't play it safe just because it was Superman.
P.S. you can add Zod's death with that statement too.
Too right ! Kudos to Snyder/Goyer for having the balls to re-make Superman in a 21st century image, (rather than that garbage re-hash of Donner-Superman that Singer did in 2006, ugh ! -and I loved the Reeve films, but trying to remake them just did not work. ).
At least they put their own stamp on it. At least they tried to bring the character forward - he had chest hair, drank Bud, watched football and helped his mom with the dishes (and wore jeans). Yeah, he killed some people too, but he saved a whole lot more (about 6,999,995,000 more apparently) and he made some not so great moves, but hey that's what made him relatable.
Funny, that in the lead up to the film, Nolan was up front about bringing Superman into a more realistic world, so there were no surprises there.
Weird that when they actually saw it, people couldn't accept it.