Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU - Part 10

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]519371[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]518733[/split]

 

[CaptainWagner]

Why is it stupid? It worked. He gets to intimidate and potentially kill a woman who is poised to expose his crimes while at the same time use her to get to Superman. It's a mind game. It's a way to enrage and toy with Superman before the main event. Classic villain stuff.



You've pretty much described nearly every Lex Luthor created monster in the history of the character. You've also described Tony Stark and Victor Frankenstein. Lex Luthor was blinded by his hubris. He arrogantly assumed, because of his own experience with his father, that the act of creation would make his monster subject to his will.

Yes to both these points. Lex was nearly as well-explained or developed as he could have been, but it's, well, "stupid" to call stuff like that stupid when it fits exactly with how he operates as a character.

Same with Superman using the spear. It may seem "stupid" to us, but it makes sense with his character. Superman isn't the guy to go "Hey, this could hurt me so how about YOU risk your life stabbing the monster". It doesn't matter that he could die, all that matters is that he can save everyone else, he doesn't stop to think of himself, that's what makes him Superman.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yes to both these points. Lex was nearly as well-explained or developed as he could have been, but it's, well, "stupid" to call stuff like that stupid when it fits exactly with how he operates as a character.

Same with Superman using the spear. It may seem "stupid" to us, but it makes sense with his character. Superman isn't the guy to go "Hey, this could hurt me so how about YOU risk your life stabbing the monster". It doesn't matter that he could die, all that matters is that he can save everyone else, he doesn't stop to think of himself, that's what makes him Superman.

It fits Lex's stupid character. So you have to operate from the idea that is okay that Lex is a complete idiot. It is also the same logic that would make any bad movie good, because you know that is the way it is in the movie. So it is good.

And that isn't Superman's character in the movie. You know the guy that less then a half an hour before put Batman through a building to establish some sort of physical dominance for no reason. Because talking is hard.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

One of obvious flaws of Batman vs. Superman arguments imo is that if you don't like it, those supporting it ask you to take their filling in of the blanks as if that was in the movies.

And ignore how this boring presentation of characters is the in name only kind.

 

[That9neGuy]

Lois gets kidnapped, Superman is instantly aware and on the case. Martha get kidnapped, Superman finds out once Lois is kidnapped.

 

[TeeKay]

BvS threw logic out the window. The characters are complete idiots especially Batman. One has to look at the Batmobile dumb chase scene.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Lois gets kidnapped, Superman is instantly aware and on the case. Martha get kidnapped, Superman finds out once Lois is kidnapped.

I didn't even think of that.

 

[TeeKay]

Lois gets kidnapped, Superman is instantly aware and on the case. Martha get kidnapped, Superman finds out once Lois is kidnapped.

And thats why that scene is stupid. Lex does it to get Supermans attention. It was idiotic and illogical for a supposed "smart" movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And ignore how this boring presentation of characters is the in name only kind.

Yep. Come for Batman and Superman, get Illogical Murderman and Sad Guy with a Temper.

 

[misslane38]

Examples?

Lex Luthor has created Bizarro and lost control of him in animated stories and on Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. Lex on Smallville spent the entirety of Season 6 working on various 33.1 projects that went rogue, including the brainwashed super soldiers of Project Ares and later Bizarro. In S:TAS, Lex Luthor loses control when he foolishly toys with Brainiac; something similar happens to Lex in Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?. Those are the ones just off the top of my head. Some other ideas are presented here.

Stark never intentionally created a monster he couldn't control. Lex Luthor is supposed to be a genius. Only an idiot would assume he could control an alien monster just because he made him.

Lex didn't intentionally create an uncontrollable monster. He assumed that he would be able to control the abomination because he was his creator. If I recall correctly, Stark believed Ultron could also be controlled. Lex believed in the controlling power of blood because that was how he was raised. He was raised to believe that fathers have autocratic power over their sons. It's a belief that naturally flows from the way Luthor understands the role of god. For Luthor, creating life makes him godlike, and godlike power means godlike control. Sometimes belief and emotion cloud reason and judgment. This hubris is the hamartia or tragic flaw of Lex's character. During the creation of Doomsday, Lex even foreshadows his downfall by referencing the Icarus story: "You flew too close to the sun. Now look at you." Lex, the father of Doomsday, couldn't control his son, and like Daedalus, he loses both his invention and his creation. It's a tale all about the tragedy of over-ambition in brilliant men.

Lois gets kidnapped, Superman is instantly aware and on the case. Martha get kidnapped, Superman finds out once Lois is kidnapped.

Superman is more attuned to Lois because she involves herself in the action. She plays with snakes and doesn't feel alive if she's not wearing a flak jacket. Since it's in his girlfriend's nature to play with fire, Superman is always on guard to make sure she doesn't get burned. Superman also understands that the public has some idea that he and Lois are connected somehow given the events of Man of Steel. He has no reason to believe anyone knows about his life in Smallville, including that Martha Kent is his mother. In short, he doesn't apply the same hypervigilance to his mother who is safe and sound pouring coffee in Smallville, and we know he has to focus his vigilance considering how his powers work; he has to make things "small" so as to not be overloaded with sensory input.

 

[The Joker]

Lex Luthor has created Bizarro and lost control of him in animated stories and on Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. Lex on Smallville spent the entirety of Season 6 working on various 33.1 projects that went rogue, including the brainwashed super soldiers of Project Ares and later Bizarro. In S:TAS, Lex Luthor loses control when he foolishly toys with Brainiac; something similar happens to Lex in Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?. Those are the ones just off the top of my head.

That's totally different. That's Luthor losing control of things he did originally have control of in the first place. In BvS he never had control of Doomsday and never had any reason to believe he would be able to control him.

Lex didn't intentionally create an uncontrollable monster. He assumed that he would be able to control the abomination because he was his creator. If I recall correctly, Stark believed Ultron could also be controlled. Lex believed in the controlling power of blood because that was how he was raised. He was raised to believe that fathers have autocratic power over their sons. It's a belief that naturally flows from the way Luthor understands the role of god. For Luthor, creating life makes him godlike, and godlike power means godlike control. Sometimes belief and emotion cloud reason and judgment. This hubris is the hamartia or tragic flaw of Lex's character. During the creation of Doomsday, Lex even foreshadows his downfall by referencing the Icarus story: "You flew too close to the sun. Now look at you." Lex, the father of Doomsday, couldn't control his son, and like Daedalus, he loses both his invention and his creation. It's a tale all about the tragedy of over-ambition in brilliant men.

Luthor had no basis to believe he could control Doomsday, so he either intentionally created an ucontrollable monster, or he just assumed for no valid reason that he could control him. Either way he is an idiot.

Stark was creating an A.I. program. He had no idea Ultron would become self aware and rebel against them.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Superman is more attuned to Lois because she involves herself in the action. She plays with snakes and doesn't feel alive if she's not wearing a flak jacket. Since it's in his girlfriend's nature to play with fire, Superman is always on guard to make sure she doesn't get burned. Superman also understands that the public has some idea that he and Lois are connected somehow given the events of Man of Steel. He has no reason to believe anyone knows about his life in Smallville, including that Martha Kent is his mother. In short, he doesn't apply the same hypervigilance to his mother who is safe and sound pouring coffee in Smallville.

If only Man of Steel didn't have a scene where Clark is miles away and hears people threatening his mother, so he shows up to kick their asses...

 

[TeeKay]

Yeah but when his mother was threatened by Zod in MoS....





EDIT: Dammit Darth you beat me to it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's totally different. That's Luthor losing control of things he did originally have control of in the first place. In BvS he never had control of Doomsday and never had any reason to believe he would be able to control him.



Luthor had no basis to believe he could control Doomsday, so he either intentionally created an ucontrollable monster, or he just assumed for no valid reason that he could control him. Either way he is an idiot.

Isn't the line, "the devil will do it". Implies a God level being he thinks he is creating. Why would he assume he control that, when couldn't control Superman?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah but when his mother was threatened by Zod in MoS....

Oh, I just beat you there TeeKay.

 

[All-Father]

Lex didn't intentionally create an uncontrollable monster. He assumed that he would be able to control the abomination because he was his creator. If I recall correctly, Stark believed Ultron could also be controlled. Lex believed in the controlling power of blood because that was how he was raised. He was raised to believe that fathers have autocratic power over their sons. It's a belief that naturally flows from the way Luthor understands the role of god. For Luthor, creating life makes him godlike, and godlike power means godlike control. Sometimes belief and emotion cloud reason and judgment. This hubris is the hamartia or tragic flaw of Lex's character. During the creation of Doomsday, Lex even foreshadows his downfall by referencing the Icarus story: "You flew too close to the sun. Now look at you." Lex, the father of Doomsday, couldn't control his son, and like Daedalus, he loses both his invention and his creation. It's a tale all about the tragedy of over-ambition in brilliant men.

Again, there's nothing like this in BvS.

 

[Greens]

Don't villains usually fail because their ideas don't hold up to scrutiny? I'd say the same thing was going on there with Lex and Doomsday.

 

[TeeKay]

Isn't the line, "the devil will do it". Implies a God level being he thinks he is creating. Why would he assume he control that, when couldn't control Superman?

By one second.

 

[All-Father]

Isn't the line, "the devil will do it". Implies a God level being he thinks he is creating. Why would he assume he control that, when couldn't control Superman?

Yeah, Lex created the devil, as he says, and thinks he can control it... It doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Lex Luthor has created Bizarro and lost control of him in animated stories and on Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.

I forgot Bizarro in Man of Steel 5.
But in the case of that one he wanted to make something he CAN CONTROL, but it became a puppet of flesh, and then got animated post disposal to die.
In all these cases Lex was comensating for not having control over Superman, he had control over the clone for a while, and the one in Lois & Clark believed Lex to be his dad.

With Doomsday in the movie, he wanted a powerful being to kill a powerful being cause he doesn't trust powerful beings as a whole.
You know what? He didn't need to go through this elaborate plan to grab Superman's attention to call him by his real name to tell him to kill Batman while he works inconspicuously on making a monster to kill Superman that could have killed Batman as well in the process.....

 

[Predator jp]

Yeah but when his mother was threatened by Zod in MoS....

ha, so true.
btw i love that scene so much.

 

[TeeKay]

Lex didn't intentionally create an uncontrollable monster. He assumed that he would be able to control the abomination because he was his creator. If I recall correctly, Stark believed Ultron could also be controlled. Lex believed in the controlling power of blood because that was how he was raised. He was raised to believe that fathers have autocratic power over their sons. It's a belief that naturally flows from the way Luthor understands the role of god. For Luthor, creating life makes him godlike, and godlike power means godlike control. Sometimes belief and emotion cloud reason and judgment. This hubris is the hamartia or tragic flaw of Lex's character. During the creation of Doomsday, Lex even foreshadows his downfall by referencing the Icarus story: "You flew too close to the sun. Now look at you." Lex, the father of Doomsday, couldn't control his son, and like Daedalus, he loses both his invention and his creation. It's a tale all about the tragedy of over-ambition in brilliant men.

Not compareable. Stark has created working A.I that he has full control over before. Him assuming he could control Ultron was in character and understandable. He's done it before. Lex however hasn't created life before. That's the difference. The first thing Doomsday does is try to punch him.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Don't villains usually fail because their ideas don't hold up to scrutiny? I'd say the same thing was going on there with Lex and Doomsday.

In badly written films, yes. Or even simply badly written villains. The Joker's plan in TDK doesn't fail because of it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it is because in his first meeting with Batman, the Joker has underestimated the goodness in Bruce and people in general. It is why he assumes the people on the boat will kill each other. He couldn't break him, no matter what he did. He terrorized his city, took his love from him, turned Harvey mad and almost made Bruce responsible for the Joker's death. And yet he never broke, instead taking on the persona that he did, to save Gotham.

That is the brilliance of something like TDK, the direct comparisons to Bruce and Harvey. That is why it is a great movie, and great Batman story in general. And where BvS is pretty awful and has little to nothing to do with the characters of the Dark Knight or the Man of Steel.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

By one second.

Still counts. t: