How can his opinion be "completely erroneous" if there's "certain truth to his complaint"?
Because I'm a woman and I contradict myself at the same time?
His statement is one of fact: Superman doesn't kill.
This is false. It is erroneous. But there is a tinge of truth if you take his statement in a broader view. At any rate, have a little mercy on me, since I'm dreadfully sick (ok, ok, it's just a stomach bug, but let me whine about it).
I'm not arguing the morality; in fact, I agree with the ones you bring up here! Superman should kill in the right circumstances -- that works for me.
Aww, look at us agreeing! It's so much fun!
The death makes complete sense in the movie. Zod had to be taken out, no questions asked. But Waid wasn't questioning the movie logic, he was questioning the storytelling, the lack of buildup, the lack of execution of the death.
I don't remember much of Waid's review, but I do think he was literally complaining about Superman killing Zod, mainly because he feels that Superman isn't that kind of character.
It had nothing to do with plot, or buildup, or execution, which were all fine. The only real issue with Zod's death was that the fight sequence was a little too long.
This isn't true, as you yourself said his complaint had "certain truth". His initial review was a tad overdramatic, I give you that, but he clarified his points in an interview with Voices For Krypton. So a lot of the recent stuff quoted from Waid is from this, rather than his original review.
A tad over-dramatic? That's like saying I play well with others. ;p And his current criticisms of MOS may be legitimate, or they may just be more fanwanking wrapped in intelligent discourse. And yes, I do mark a difference between fanwank and discourse, because fanwank is driven entirely from emotion, and disregards the facts. Discourse is emotional as well, but it relies on fact as well.
Like your recent interactions with The_Guard.
His opinion is that Superman always finds a way not to kill, an opinion based on how Superman is portrayed in comics. Your opinion is "Superman has killed, and more importantly, has shown that he is willing to kill if he needs to", which is also evidenced by the comics. In other words, both are valid starting points of discussion.
Except his is wrong, because Superman doesn't always find a way to not kill. If Waid approached it from the view point of "Well, Superman tries not to kill, and I think they could have gone a different direction", then this wouldn't even be a point of contention with me.
But the original statement, and one he seems to cling to, is that Superman doesn't kill. I know that the distinction is small, but if we're going to hold Waid up as a source of direction on how to feel about the movie, he has to be held to a higher standard in whether he is actually correct or not.
Finally, how can an emotional reaction be held against his opinion of the movie? Isn't it like saying if somebody cried in the theatre when Superman killed Zod, his or her opinion can't be taken seriously?
It's not the emotion, it's that he continues to hammer his idea home with the idea that Superman does not kill. That's a statement of emotion, not fact. So it does dilute the weight I would give to that opinion.
A good (but over-the-top) example is jury duty. You can be emotionally involved in a case, but you still have to rely on the facts of the evidence. The emotions cannot and should not override the facts, even if the facts don't mesh with what you want to happen on an emotional level.
To dislike Superman killing is one thing. To say that he has never killed, or won't kill, or doesn't kill is not a fact, and no amount of passion or emotion is going to change that.
Mark Waid was wrong about Superman, either on purpose, or by employing the use of fanon amnesia to forget about the inconvenient stories he didn't like. Wherever the confusion comes from, his opinion is clearly biased, and is of no use in the discourse about MOS.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
And we all know about opinions by now on this thread, don't we?
Since we touched on the codex, anyone think the codex will be referenced in future movies? I thought it was contrived BUT if it's mined in the sequels could be a rich plot devicey source.
I do think it will be brought up again. It's possible Lex, or some other Bad Guy will use the codex to try to create a Kryptonian to control, or some other nonsense.
The comics are full of silly things like clones and weird creations that go terribly awry, so I'm fully prepared for some sort of idiocy involving the codex later on down the line.
Didn't anyone else find likes like "I have uploaded the codex", "I have downloaded the codex", "I put it on the ship's harddrive" remarkably silly and just off putting.
This was a pseudo medieval society which was very advanced nonetheless and had a different display technology (that 3D screens ****). Wouldn't they have different information sharing mechanism rather than pen drives and uploading and downloading. It all sounded very silly.
I don't remember the codex being uploaded or downloaded into the computer. It was embedded in Clark's cells. He's literally the Codex now. He's such a special Kryptonian.
Marty Stu, thy name is Clark Kent. I love Superman and Batman, but seriously, their pasts, abilities, and all the other stuff are seriously silly if you think too hard on them. And that's without taking into account the movies.
t:
