The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Superman > Man of Steel

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-25-2006, 01:51 AM   #51
Motown Marvel
Crimson and Clover
 
Motown Marvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 20,720
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

i cant believe anyone here thinks its worthwhile to argue over superman III....its SUPERMAN III!!!! who gives a f**k?!

__________________
Dear Prudence, won't you come out and play?
Motown Marvel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2006, 04:24 AM   #52
dude love
Pissin fire is awesome!
 
dude love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Val Verde
Posts: 9,061
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
you're arguing plausibility while discussing a flying alien in a red cape who shoots heat from his eyes? right.
What was that term again? Versititlitude?

__________________
Excited for Batfleck, Wonder Gal, EisenLuthor, Fishborg, Aquamomoa, Ezflash and Harley Robbie!
dude love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2006, 06:04 AM   #53
Dope Nose
Side-Kick
 
Dope Nose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

verisimilitude

Dope Nose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2006, 08:24 AM   #54
Superfreak
Gramaton Cleric
 
Superfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Puppies Are My Kryptonite
Posts: 10,754
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
so your perspective relies on the source material even though, as I stated previously, Superman has been split in two dozens of times in the comics (i.e. the source material)? do you see the contradiction?
you're an idiot. SIII is the source material. Not the comics. The comics may be the original source material which was used to generate the movie. But the movie itself is the source material, not that stuff it was based on. Why is this so? Because we are discussing SIII, not the other stuff. What happens in the movies, don't affect the comics. They are seperate universes.

I keep saying that you are making stuff up, because you keep asking the question 'but you don't know what synthetic kryptonite can do?" Well guess what, NO ONE does. It was an explanation omitted from the film. Conveniently tossing out there that synthetic kryptonite can split him in two is an assumption.

When I say my perspective deals with the source material (ie. SIII and only SIII) I mean it. It doesn't rely on, AGAIN, on some little amendment to the movie, that helps explain why he splits in two.

I'm done with the arguement here, it's sad that an 'educated' Superman fan can't, or won't accept the truth about a blatantly obvious scene.

__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Superfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2006, 09:25 AM   #55
Dope Nose
Side-Kick
 
Dope Nose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

god, I can hear you stomping your feet and pounding your little fists from here. the reason I keep asking you to explain what synthetic Kryptonite does is that you've stated vehemently that it would not split Superman in two. so which is it? "NO ONE" knows what it can do, or you know for certain what it can do. once again you're contradicting yourself.

as for the term 'source material', I'm not even sure you have a remote understanding of what that refers to. seriously, before you go calling people idiots perhaps you should actually have an inkling of what you're talking about.

I find it laughable that you consider the idea of a physical battle preposterous yet we're supposed to believe that elements of the scene such as the remaining Superman wearing Clark's clothes, his uniform returning to its original colours, and the fact that his stubble disappears somehow reinforce the notion that it was purely psychological.


Last edited by Dope Nose; 12-25-2006 at 09:45 AM.
Dope Nose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2006, 09:54 AM   #56
Superfreak
Gramaton Cleric
 
Superfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Puppies Are My Kryptonite
Posts: 10,754
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
god, I can hear you stomping your feet and pounding your little fists from here. the reason I keep asking you to explain what synthetic Kryptonite does is that you've stated vehemently that it would not split Superman in two. so which is it? "NO ONE" knows what it can do, or you know for certain what it can do. once again you're contradicting yourself.
right, no one knows what it can do, other than what is stated in the movie, that it makes him evil (according to the villains in the movie). That's what we know it can do. Assuming that it can do other things, is just that, an assumption, with no proof whatsoever behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
as for the term 'source material', I'm not even sure you have a remote understanding of what that refers to. seriously, before you go calling people idiots perhaps you should actually have an inkling of what you're talking about.
The source material of this argument, is SIII, not the comics. Why? Because it is an elseworlds tale (ie. the superman movies are narritively seperate from the comics. The movies may be based on the comics, but they exist in a seperate universe, one does not affect the other) The source material in this case is limited to the Superman movies and SIII in particular (the comics would come into play, if the events of SIII were directly influenced by what happened in the comics, and visa versa. But that never happened, and so, they are not directly linked.)

and lastly, this is a game of he said (me) she said (you). You can believe what ever you want. Regardless, from my perspective, you're still stupid IMO for clinging to an infantile literal view of the scene.

if you can't deal with it, I'll meet up with you at the Silver Snail, we can go ask the comic/comic movie gurus, and if you still can't deal with it, we can thump each other in the parking lot across the street

__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur

Last edited by Superfreak; 12-25-2006 at 09:58 AM.
Superfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2006, 10:18 AM   #57
Dope Nose
Side-Kick
 
Dope Nose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

yes, yes, I'm stupid, I'm an idiot. how old are you? 12? 13?

I can't believe you of all people are arguing the logic (or lack thereof) behind making assumptions when that's all you've done throughout this entire thread. it was your statement that synthetic Kryptonite would not seperate Superman in two that started this entire argument.

and seriously, go look up the term 'source material' because you're using it incorrectly. as for your comment about this being a he said/she said situation, that's been my point the entire time - that the scene is open to interpretation. again, not once have I stated that my opinion is definitive.

regardless of what you may believe I do understand your viewpoint, but there are just as many arguments (i.e. the costume changing colour, the disappearing stubble) that support the opposite.

Dope Nose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2006, 10:59 AM   #58
Superfreak
Gramaton Cleric
 
Superfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Puppies Are My Kryptonite
Posts: 10,754
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
yes, yes, I'm stupid, I'm an idiot. how old are you? 12? 13?

I can't believe you of all people are arguing the logic (or lack thereof) behind making assumptions when that's all you've done throughout this entire thread. it was your statement that synthetic Kryptonite would not seperate Superman in two that started this entire argument.
There is no proof that synthetic kryptonite can split superman, not in SIII (the source material for this argument)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
and seriously, go look up the term 'source material' because you're using it incorrectly. as for your comment about this being a he said/she said situation, that's been my point the entire time - that the scene is open to interpretation. again, not once have I stated that my opinion is definitive.
source material, is any material that pertains directly to the question. In this case, the comics do not apply, because the superman movies are independent of the comics. Using the comics as an explanation of what synthetic kryptonite can do, is like explaining why Romeo kills himself, with a quotation from Hamlet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
regardless of what you may believe I do understand your viewpoint, but there are just as many arguments (i.e. the costume changing colour, the disappearing stubble) that support the opposite.
Synthetic Kryptonite does not explain those either pal. How does synthetic kryptonite clean his costume, and shave his beard?

Really, what it all boils down to is Luke Skywalker in the Cave on Dagobah. It all happened in him mind

__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Superfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2006, 11:28 AM   #59
Dope Nose
Side-Kick
 
Dope Nose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

uh, no, source material refers to the original material the films derive their elements from. the Superman comics are the source material for the films because that is where the characters and their personalities originated from. in other words, they're the source.

again, I'm not trying to prove anything other than that the scene is open to interpretation. I honestly have no idea what caused the stubble to disappear or the costume to self-clean, nor do you as you stated in your response to GreenKToo. but given said physical changes remain throughout the remainder of the film it certainly does raise questions, doesn't it?

look, what I took issue with from the start was your resorting to petty name calling after I questioned the certainty of your statement. now, assuming you can carry yourself with a modicum of maturity, can we at least agree that neither of us knows for certain whether the scene is meant to be taken literally or metaphorically? again, I'm not trying to disprove your opinion which you are more than welcome to, I'm merely trying to illustrate that at best our individual explanations are tantamount to guesswork.

Dope Nose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2006, 03:58 PM   #60
project13
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx,NY
Posts: 364
Post Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Question
Why not just have The Eradicator create a body for itself?

Because the Eradicator might be a protoplasmic energy being.

project13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2006, 08:11 AM   #61
Superfreak
Gramaton Cleric
 
Superfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Puppies Are My Kryptonite
Posts: 10,754
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
uh, no, source material refers to the original material the films derive their elements from. the Superman comics are the source material for the films because that is where the characters and their personalities originated from. in other words, they're the source.
actually, source material, refers to anything relevant to the conversation. If were talking about the writing of a superman movie, the source material to generate that script, is the comics.

but lets say we are arguing a point within superman III. The source material is Superman III.

your understanding of source material is correct, in a broad context. But we are not talking about a broad context. We are into a refined question. In this case, the source material for this argument is SIII.

an analogy, back to shakespeare: If I'm writing an essay about the affects of love and death in Romeo and Juliet, the source material is Romeo and Juliet. But if I'm writing an essay about the affects of love and death in the works of Shakespeare, the source material is any number of his works.


Back to the question of the day: If I'm arguing the effects of different types of kryptonite in any and all Superman universes, then the source material for that argument will come from all Superman related media (comics, film, TV, books) that deal with different types of kryptonite. But in this specific case, we are arguing the affects of synthetic kryptonite in SIII. We are there for limited to SIII (and maybe the previous 2 Reeve's films) as source material. This is because the narrative of the Superman films run seperate from the comics. They are in essence in a self contained universe that does not interact with other universes, such as those of the books, comics and cartoons. Yes, that universe may be generated from earlier source material (such as the comics and whatnot) but it has be reorganized, and re conceptualized to fit the movie world. They are independent universes.

In the end, the source material for this argument (what are the effects of synthetic kryptonite in SIII?) is SIII and maybe the preceding 2 films.


as for the rest: you may be right, the scene is open to interpretation, but I'm still gonna think people are stupid for not seeing that the whole Clark Kent vs. Evil Superman is an internal mental battle b/w the two personas generated by the synthetic kryptonite, for dominance and control of Superman's body.

__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Superfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2006, 12:53 PM   #62
Dope Nose
Side-Kick
 
Dope Nose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superfreak
an analogy, back to shakespeare: If I'm writing an essay about the affects of love and death in Romeo and Juliet, the source material is Romeo and Juliet. But if I'm writing an essay about the affects of love and death in the works of Shakespeare, the source material is any number of his works.
your analogy is faulty. I get what you're trying to say - that in the context of this argument your posts would be considered the essay while Superman 3 would take the place of Romeo & Juliet. the problem is that while Romeo & Juliet is the source material as that's where the characters orginated, Superman 3 is once removed. the very word 'source' refers to the place something begins. if we were discussing an aspect of the film Romeo & Juliet starring Leonardo Dicaprio and Claire Danes, the term 'source material' would still refer to Shakespeare's original work.

and yes, while the films are a self-contained universe, the basis of said universe is the comics, regardless of whether it was re-conceptualized. the characters of Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Perry White etc. weren't created for the film. nor was Kryptonite (the regular variety) or its effects. the problem is that you've put a pre-defined limit on how much information has been appropriated from the comics.

if memory serves, heat vision isn't used at all in the first film. but is it reasonable to assume that the he still possesses the ability? of course it is.

Dope Nose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2006, 11:45 AM   #63
Superfreak
Gramaton Cleric
 
Superfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Puppies Are My Kryptonite
Posts: 10,754
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
your analogy is faulty. I get what you're trying to say - that in the context of this argument your posts would be considered the essay while Superman 3 would take the place of Romeo & Juliet. the problem is that while Romeo & Juliet is the source material as that's where the characters orginated, Superman 3 is once removed. the very word 'source' refers to the place something begins. if we were discussing an aspect of the film Romeo & Juliet starring Leonardo Dicaprio and Claire Danes, the term 'source material' would still refer to Shakespeare's original work.

and yes, while the films are a self-contained universe, the basis of said universe is the comics, regardless of whether it was re-conceptualized. the characters of Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Perry White etc. weren't created for the film. nor was Kryptonite (the regular variety) or its effects. the problem is that you've put a pre-defined limit on how much information has been appropriated from the comics.

if memory serves, heat vision isn't used at all in the first film. but is it reasonable to assume that the he still possesses the ability? of course it is.
yes, but as far a discussing any of the Superman movies, just because it happened in the comics, doesn't have any effect on wether things happen in a/the movie.

I also don't think heat vision was used in STM. So, up to the point in the franchise where superman uses it for the first time, he doesn't have it. It must be defined within the relevant universe that we are operating in for it to even exist. Basically saying that he doesn't have that power, until it is given to him by the writer. (see, what if the producers of the supeman movies had never given superman heat vision, then within the universe of the movies, he wouldn't have the power, even though the comic superman may have it)

So, synthetic kryptonite, regardless of the number of different kinds of kryptonite (and their effects) touched upon in the comics, must be defined within the universe that the films are operating within. Because the movie universe is a new one, generated from older source material, all important aspects of that new universe must be redefined to fit this new universe.


Basically Comics does not = Movies. So if you are arguing a point about the movies, the argument must be limited to the available source material for that argument (namely the movies, and any literature that is directly tied to the movies through narrative). Why is this so, because the universe of the movies, and the comics, although similar, are very different.

__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Superfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2007, 08:45 AM   #64
project13
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx,NY
Posts: 364
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

What I meant by "Eradicator is the new Evil Superman" is that the Eradicator could bring out Superman's dark side. It could make him violent,aggressive and coldhearted. Eventually he will break free of the Eradicator's influence.

project13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2007, 09:40 AM   #65
Superfreak
Gramaton Cleric
 
Superfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Puppies Are My Kryptonite
Posts: 10,754
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by project13
What I meant by "Eradicator is the new Evil Superman" is that the Eradicator could bring out Superman's dark side. It could make him violent,aggressive and coldhearted. Eventually he will break free of the Eradicator's influence.
k, here is who the eradicator is (to me atleast).

The eradicator is the artificial intelligence that runs the fortress. It's purpose is to help Kal'el create new krypton on earth. Kal'el doesn't like this, they fight. The Eradicator is a glowing energy being. HE DOES NOT LOOK LIKE SUPERMAN. Eventually, Superman and the eradicator duke it out, and Superman throws him into the sun.


Later in the comic history, the eradicators energy form is stolen, and adapted to look like Kal'el by Dr. what's his name. This was done to take advantage of Superman's apperant death. The eradicator's body remained in this form until he withered away, after taking a full hit of kryptonite radiation to save Kal'el.



So, what I don't get Pro. 13, is what all your talk about the eradicator being Superman's dark half. It doesn't make any sense. The eradicator is not superman, and superman is not the eradicator. They shouldn't even look like each other (because as I said, it was a human who took the eradicator remains, and made them look like superman, in order to take advantage of his apparent death)

__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Superfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2007, 09:56 AM   #66
Dope Nose
Side-Kick
 
Dope Nose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

actually you've got it wrong. it was the Eradicator itself that created a body which resembled Kal-El and was mistaken for a darker Superman during the Reign of the Supermen storyline. it was only until after the Eradicator had sacrificed itself and recharged Kal-El in the process that it merged with Dr. David Connor.

Dope Nose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2007, 08:10 AM   #67
Superfreak
Gramaton Cleric
 
Superfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Puppies Are My Kryptonite
Posts: 10,754
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope Nose
actually you've got it wrong. it was the Eradicator itself that created a body which resembled Kal-El and was mistaken for a darker Superman during the Reign of the Supermen storyline. it was only until after the Eradicator had sacrificed itself and recharged Kal-El in the process that it merged with Dr. David Connor.
yeah, I was trying to remember that, I hate the reign of the supermen (I'm superman, no, I'm superman, no, I'm superman, no I'm superman bla bla bla).

either way, the eradicator is not the evil half of superman a visa versa. They're seperate beings. One just takes superman's shape. So I still don't understand project 13 and all this crap about the eradicator being Kal'el's evil half

__________________
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Superfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2007, 09:48 AM   #68
crazycuban
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

It's been a while since I've read the comics with Eradicator in them, but can anyone post a good/clear pic of him?

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2007, 10:06 AM   #69
GreenKToo
In the fire
 
GreenKToo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In the fire.
Posts: 11,179
Default Re: Eradicator is the new Evil Superman(is it?)

http://www.answers.com/topic/eradicator
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycuban
It's been a while since I've read the comics with Eradicator in them, but can anyone post a good/clear pic of him?

__________________
''Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.'' ~ John Wayne


GreenKToo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2007, 09:06 AM   #70
bosef982
Side-Kick
 
bosef982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,212
Default How about The Eradicator be a woman?

This to me makes more sense. Having a Mother of Krypton who wishes to keep the kryptonian bloodline pure seems logical and symbolically relevant, also it'd mesh nicely with the Lois/Superman love triangle and defintely produce some ironies for the Jason relatioship?

__________________
Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?
-- Unknown

Two Films, One Review, No Holds Barred.
Comic books, fantasy, drama, romantic comedy -- all are put to task!

bosef982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2007, 09:37 AM   #71
SamuraiSon6
Side-Kick
 
SamuraiSon6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Smallville
Posts: 1,534
Default Re: How about The Eradicator be a woman?

interesting actually, but i doubt it will happen since it seems like the one thing we are guaranteed in this movie is superman punching something, and they probably dont want that to be a woman (in any form)

SamuraiSon6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2007, 10:14 AM   #72
Brainiac 2009
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 904
Default Re: How about The Eradicator be a woman?

Yup it wouldnt be a good idea.

Superman shouldnt beat up women.

Brainiac 2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2007, 10:16 AM   #73
FlawlessVictory
Side-Kick
 
FlawlessVictory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,246
Default Re: How about The Eradicator be a woman?

Then again, Singer did have Wolverine fight a woman two different times, so you never know. I'm against the idea though. We need to pump as much testosterone into this thing as possible.

FlawlessVictory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2007, 11:41 PM   #74
KrypJonian
The Last Son of Krypjon
 
KrypJonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 2,316
Default Re: How about The Eradicator be a woman?

BLEEEEARGH!!!!!

Though I get the logic, I just don't like picturing the Eradicator as a femme

__________________
"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker"
KrypJonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 05:50 AM   #75
Hunter Rider
**** SHH's Lawyers
SHH! Administrator
 
Hunter Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Snow-covered Mountain top
Posts: 140,939
Default Re: How about The Eradicator be a woman?

Personally i want some big Terminator like Badass for Eradicator

__________________
"Now this life is etched in black but I wont be looking back, the rain washed out the tracks, I'll never find again"
Hunter Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:31 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.