Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - - Part 11

[Superchan]

What other options do you know, without a doubt, Superman had available to him in that moment that could have saved every single member of that family from dying a horrible death?

Wrong thread and I say this because I can see how this is going to turn into yet another MOS discussion where you write essays to prove your points so if you want to do so then go to the MOS board.

Superman killing however is a relevant thread since it's about superman and not specifically about MOS so I'll answer that part.
Superman didn't kill Zod in superman II while in Whatever happened he killed Mxy accidentally since his plan was to banish him to the phantom zone not kill him and superman quit at the end of the story because he understood that a being with his abilities killing is unforgivable.

Wonder Woman has "near infinite powers," and she killed German soldiers and Ares.

Again, wrong thread! Please take it to the WW thread.



Lastly life's too short to mope like a little b***h when you look like a GQ model, have an attractive, intelligent gf, a loving mother and near god like powers.

 

[Guts]

Wrong thread and I say this because I can see how this is going to turn into yet another MOS discussion where you write essays to prove your points so if you want to do so then go to the MOS board.

Superman killing however is a relevant thread since it's about superman and not specifically about MOS so I'll answer that part.
Superman didn't kill Zod in superman II while in Whatever happened he killed Mxy accidentally since his plan was to banish him to the phantom zone not kill him and superman quit at the end of the story because he understood that a being with his abilities killing is unforgivable.



Again, wrong thread! Please take it to the WW thread.



Lastly life's too short to mope like a little b***h when you look like a GQ model, have an attractive, intelligent gf, a loving mother and near god like powers.

So what do you call it when Superman took away Zod's powers, crushed his hand, and threw him down a hole in the arctic?

 

[Superchan]

So what do you call it when Superman took away Zod's powers, crushed his hand, and threw him down a hole in the arctic?

Nothing, it was a just a movie and extra footage showed the PZ villains being whisked away by the police, end of story.

 

[misslane38]

Wrong thread and I say this because I can see how this is going to turn into yet another MOS discussion where you write essays to prove your points so if you want to do so then go to the MOS board.

Derailment 101.

Superman killing however is a relevant thread since it's about superman and not specifically about MOS so I'll answer that part.
Superman didn't kill Zod in superman II while in Whatever happened he killed Mxy accidentally since his plan was to banish him to the phantom zone not kill him and superman quit at the end of the story because he understood that a being with his abilities killing is unforgivable.

Superman killed Zod in Superman II, and he did it with a smile on his face. The Donner cut that was released years later was a different version. It's not canon. And, with regards to Mxy, he still killed him, didn't he? He saved everyone and then gave up any power he could use to save more people out of a misguided sense of guilt. That's something worthy of shame not celebration.

And life's too short to mope like a little b***h when you look like a GQ model, have an attractive, intelligent gf, a loving mother and near god like powers.

Life's too short to let yourself become bogged down by outdated toxic masculinity.

 

[Guts]

Nothing, it was a just a movie and extra footage showed the PZ villains being whisked away by the police, end of story.

Yep. A deleted showed them being taken away by the cops. But Superman still kills a de-powered Zod in both the theatrical version and the Richard Donner cut.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yep. A deleted showed them being taken away by the cops. But Superman still kills a de-powered Zod in both the theatrical version and the Richard Donner cut.

I think they are shown alive in the Donner cut. But your point stands. For literally decades the version people knew was one of Superman causing the death of the trio.

 

[Guts]

I think they are shown alive in the Donner cut. But your point stands. For literally decades the version people knew was one of Superman causing the death of the trio.

The Donner Cut does end with Zod, Ursa, and Non alive. But only because Superman reversed time to before they escaped the Phantom Zone, instead of kissing Lois to get her to forget that she knows he's Suprman.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Lol, folks in here don't know how human emotions work.

"You are attractive and people like you, therefore you should stop feeling sadness."

 

[Greenlite]

I would hope Superman would teach Billy that killing an enemy may be the only way to serve justice if there are no other options available. To always look for another way, but to know that killing can be necessary if there isn't another way. Superman should teach Billy that sometimes there aren't easy answers or simple solutions that free you from haunting guilt or sadness. He should teach him one doesn't become a perfect superhero overnight or ever. There will be mistakes. You will get things wrong. What a superhero does is learn from his or her mistakes. A superhero finds ways to make the world and all of its demands and stresses manageable by relying on friends and the people that make it all worthwhile.

Yes he should teach him nobody's perfect and people make mistakes and learn from it and move on.

I'd get Sup to teach Billy to look for all other resources first to avoid the guilt and issues you have that comes with killing though.

And to avoid endless debates post Shazam about Superman's dialogue, which would surely overshadow the actual movie if the dialogue wasn't written carefully or sensitively.

All great lessons that Clark had to learn the right way, especially killing (IMO written poorly for the sake of creating drama) because while human beings are sometimes forced to kill superhuman beings like superman and shazam with their near infinite powers should always explore other options.
Another great lesson would be to stop moping because life is short and you'll never know when a silly, cave troll looking monster will kill you.

Yup, and I'd have Sup telling him to save his loved ones even though they might insist on not revealing his power for his safety, because Sup did the opposite AND still revealed his powers later but I don't think they'd go that far.

Well he needs to teach Billy to marry the girl he loves ASAP because superhero lifespan may not be as long as you think

 

[Flint Marko]

And life's too short to mope like a little b***h when you look like a GQ model, have an attractive, intelligent gf, a loving mother and near god like powers.

This stuck out to me from day one with this Superman. Why is he constantly moping? Well, he feels different from everyone else and a kid called him dicksplash once. Mkay well... I don't buy it, because you are the most handsome person on the planet and practically invincible. It'd be different if they had done a good job developing Clark's interior life, but I felt none of it.

 

[misslane38]

I'd get Sup to teach Billy to look for all other resources first to avoid the guilt and issues you have that comes with killing though.

Isn't that kind of message inherent in what Superman did with Zod, though? There were no other options, so he did his best. It's the same message from Jonathan's talk with Clark on the mountain. You can only do your best with what's in front of you, and sometimes that might mean you have to deal with the weight of such a decision like Superman's grief upon killing Zod, or you have to deal with unforeseen consequences, like the Lang farm flooding. Sometimes when you "look" for other options, you don't see them, and not seeing them doesn't mean you're bad; no one is omniscient or infallible. These are the "nightmares" of a hero, or the truth that Diana discovered when she learned that humanity wasn't an innocent victim. The same lesson applies regardless: strive to make the best choices guided by love and what's right, and persevere with the help of friends and loved ones.

Yup, and I'd have Sup telling him to save his loved ones even though they might insist on not revealing his power for his safety, because Sup did the opposite AND still revealed his powers later but I don't think they'd go that far.

Letting Jonathan die wasn't all for Clark's safety, but for the safety of the world as well. They both -- Clark and the world --had to be ready, and when he was 17 he didn't have the powers or the maturity to be ready to handle that situation the way it required. The lesson to Billy would be to not be arrogant about what you can handle and not make decisions for selfish reasons. Besides, Clark doesn't need to tell Billy this because, as a result of Clark's trail blazing, Billy doesn't have to deal with the same pressures and concerns about being an extraordinary person in an ordinary world. He even gets a superhero mentor and role models when Clark was never so blessed.

Well he needs to teach Billy to marry the girl he loves ASAP because superhero lifespan may not be as long as you think

I don't get this. Is marriage before death important for legal, religious, or inheritance reasons? Because you don't have to be married to have loved someone profoundly and intimately.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

This stuck out to me from day one with this Superman. Why is he constantly moping? Well, he feels different from everyone else and a kid called him dicksplash once. Mkay well... I don't buy it, because you are the most handsome person on the planet and practically invincible. It'd be different if they had done a good job developing Clark's interior life, but I felt none of it.

I think this is an underselling of the depth that the character has and plays into the decades long idea among too many that he's just a square jawed, saluting the flag, naive simpleton without a complex inner life, a near Dudley Doright parody. And that's never been the actual case in his home media of comics, which even going back to the Silver Age had stories that dealt with heavy responsibility of power on the shoulders of a man with for all intents and purposes is a god, one with messianic overtones too boot.

Is he powerful, indeed good looking etc.? Yeah. He also has been living his whole life knowing that he's not free to just do whatever he likes, that his actions could have devastating and unforeseen impact in the world, not just physically but politically, even psychologically on the masses of the Earth's population. I understand not wanting to dwell on these facets. The character is a flight of fancy (as ultimately all super heroes are) and is supposed to be "fun" and "inspiring" (and this is SOOOO subjective since as I always say, for myself, digging into that aspect alongside the lighter elements, taking the character and his world seriously... That is "fun" to me, especially when speaking of live action adaptations)and the protagonist in stories that are action/adventure tales. But by not reckoning with his inner life or somewhat realistically grappling with his impact on the world and his unavoidable feelings of conflict over what his impact should be, the limits of what he should accomplish given his mission, I feel you sell him short as a character and more importantly you neuter the inherent drama in telling tales about literally the most powerful man in the world.

My whole life I have heard across the spectrum genre fans dismiss Superman as less than his fellow compatriots for the perceived "flaw" of being "perfect", unrelateable and lacking in any depth. After all, what struggles and conflicts could he have, at least so goes that line of thought? But that's just not true and is usually the conclusion of those that have never really dived into the character or his stories. It's similar to the complaint about Lois not knowing Clark is Superman due to the glasses when the actual truth through the Silver Age up to the Bronxe, decades of stories mind you, was that Lois wasn't fooled and wanted to prove that the two were one and the same. The popular perception turns out to actually be mistaken.

Finally, I highly appreciate using what is indeed a hero often held up as a shining example of moralityto explore the complexities of real world ethical conduct. Threading the needle of "the right thing to do" is actually hard, bewildering and there are few easy answers. I applaud having that reflected in Superman and his psyche. That lesson reflects the times and I think it's one we need in the world. When we look around and the conflicts and strife in the world is the issue really that too many try to balance out and compromise and again, thread the needle or is it more that everyone and his brother thinks solutions are easy, everything is black and white and there is no need for self reflection?

 

[Mindreaper21]

Lastly life's too short to mope like a little b***h when you look like a GQ model, have an attractive, intelligent gf, a loving mother and near god like powers.

So, you're suggesting he should be shallow? A complete "man pickle"?

"I'm Hot. My girlfriend is Hot. Phenomenal god-like powers. That bus full of kids burnt to a crisp, but hey, it's all good."

Yep, that's Supes alright.

 

[Flint Marko]

I think this is an underselling of the depth that the character has and plays into the decades long idea among too many that he's just a square jawed, saluting the flag, naive simpleton without a complex inner life, a near Dudley Doright parody. And that's never been the actual case in his home media of comics, which even going back to the Silver Age had stories that dealt with heavy responsibility of power on the shoulders of a man with for all intents and purposes is a god, one with messianic overtones too boot.

Is he powerful, indeed good looking etc.? Yeah. He also has been living his whole life knowing that he's not free to just do whatever he likes, that his actions could have devastating and unforeseen impact in the world, not just physically but politically, even psychologically on the masses of the Earth's population. I understand not wanting to dwell on these facets. The character is a flight of fancy (as ultimately all super heroes are) and is supposed to be "fun" and "inspiring" (and this is SOOOO subjective since as I always say, for myself, digging into that aspect alongside the lighter elements, taking the character and his world seriously... That is "fun" to me, especially when speaking of live action adaptations)and the protagonist in stories that are action/adventure tales. But by not reckoning with his inner life or somewhat realistically grappling with his impact on the world and his unavoidable feelings of conflict over what his impact should be, the limits of what he should accomplish given his mission, I feel you sell him short as a character and more importantly you neuter the inherent drama in telling tales about literally the most powerful man in the world.

My whole life I have heard across the spectrum genre fans dismiss Superman as less than his fellow compatriots for the perceived "flaw" of being "perfect", unrelateable and lacking in any depth. After all, what struggles and conflicts could he have, at least so goes that line of thought? But that's just not true and is usually the conclusion of those that have never really dived into the character or his stories. It's similar to the complaint about Lois not knowing Clark is Superman due to the glasses when the actual truth through the Silver Age up to the Bronxe, decades of stories mind you, was that Lois wasn't fooled and wanted to prove that the two were one and the same. The popular perception turns out to actually be mistaken.

Finally, I highly appreciate using what is indeed a hero often held up as a shining example of moralityto explore the complexities of real world ethical conduct. Threading the needle of "the right thing to do" is actually hard, bewildering and there are few easy answers. I applaud having that reflected in Superman and his psyche. That lesson reflects the times and I think it's one we need in the world. When we look around and the conflicts and strife in the world is the issue really that too many try to balance out and compromise and again, thread the needle or is it more that everyone and his brother thinks solutions are easy, everything is black and white and there is no need for self reflection?

You've done a great job verbalizing why I think Superman is such a great character, but we are on very different pages as to how succesful the DCEU is in capturing this. What they are going for is respectable and, in a world dominated by Marvel's four-quadrant approach, I would really enjoy a sober, in-depth character study exploring what it would be like to grapple with such immense power. But instead of really fleshing out the aforementioned complex interior life that we both agree on, they've relegated him to a glorified plot device who splits his time between silently reacting to things and listening to people give heavy-handed speeches about how important he is. They've given him very little in the way of agency, let alone personality, and what brief moments of humanity they do give him feel so perfunctory and uninspired that it just highlights how little there actually is to this character. All that to say, I don't buy any of this interior life. He's just mopey because the script can't stop talking about how important he is, but I don't feel any of it because I do not know him and the way he's sidelined in BvS makes me wonder if the film-makers ever even wanted me to care in the first place.

 

[Greenlite]

@misslane38

Isn't that kind of message inherent in what Superman did with Zod, though? There were no other options, so he did his best. It's the same message from Jonathan's talk with Clark on the mountain. You can only do your best with what's in front of you, and sometimes that might mean you have to deal with the weight of such a decision like Superman's grief upon killing Zod, or you have to deal with unforeseen consequences, like the Lang farm flooding. Sometimes when you "look" for other options, you don't see them, and not seeing them doesn't mean you're bad; no one is omniscient or infallible. These are the "nightmares" of a hero, or the truth that Diana discovered when she learned that humanity wasn't an innocent victim. The same lesson applies regardless: strive to make the best choices guided by love and what's right, and persevere with the help of friends and loved ones.

Basically that. Look for other options if you can, and if something bad happens I'm here to help because I've been there done that etc.

I'd argue Sup should ask Billy to strive to be better than him, and when Billy ends up in a similar situation he finds a way to win without killing, as a payoff to Sup's mentoring and Billy's learning.

Letting Jonathan die wasn't all for Clark's safety, but for the safety of the world as well. They both -- Clark and the world --had to be ready, and when he was 17 he didn't have the powers or the maturity to be ready to handle that situation the way it required. The lesson to Billy would be to not be arrogant about what you can handle and not make decisions for selfish reasons. Besides, Clark doesn't need to tell Billy this because, as a result of Clark's trail blazing, Billy doesn't have to deal with the same pressures and concerns about being an extraordinary person in an ordinary world. He even gets a superhero mentor and role models when Clark was never so blessed.

Pretty sure Clark let Jonathan die because dad said so, I doubt a 17 y/o was thinking about the safety of the world when a tornado was about to take his dad. Clark saved a bunch of school kids out of the drowning bus and was spotted by others. Goyer could at least got him to have a go, personally, if they wanted to kill Jonathan, I'd have Clark failing to save him instead of standing there watching, but this is starting to be a MOS debate now...

...as for the lessons from this for Billy, the writers could write what you just said and have Clark telling Billy if the same thing happens again I'd have done the same, for the greater good of the world, or have Clark weeping over it and regret he didn't even try...meaty stuff for drama either way.

I don't get this. Is marriage before death important for legal, religious, or inheritance reasons? Because you don't have to be married to have loved someone profoundly and intimately

Clark was literally going to ask Lois to marry him before he got stabbed by DS, you could ask Chris Terrio and Zack why they included that scene at the end of BvS for Clark's arc.

Martha literally cried when she gave Lois the ring, from my personal experience she was sad over "what could have been" if Clark survived, and the writers could continue with that in Shazam by having Clark telling Billy that he regretted not proposing earlier, but he had a second chance.

In our culture, a proposal is one of the highlight of a person's life, not because of legal, religious or inheritance reasons.

 

[Bren]

Superman's lesson to Billy:
"Stay away from Zack Snyder films..."

 

[misslane38]

I'd argue Sup should ask Billy to strive to be better than him, and when Billy ends up in a similar situation he finds a way to win without killing, as a payoff to Sup's mentoring and Billy's learning.

But Superman always tries to find a way without killing. There wasn't another way with Zod. Unless Billy is going to be put in the exact same situation with the exact same type of villain with the exact same mindset and the exact same power level relative to Shazam, then what Superman learned from his confrontation with Zod will be of no help to Billy. For example, Superman may know now that kryptonite could have stopped Zod, but he didn't have kryptonite. That was "another way" he could have found but didn't. Does this help Billy if and when he confronts his own Zod? Not a chance. Because Shazam's Zod won't be Zod. It will be a different villain who presents his or her own challenges that Superman cannot account for in his advice to Billy.

Pretty sure Clark let Jonathan die because dad said so, I doubt a 17 y/o was thinking about the safety of the world when a tornado was about to take his dad. Clark saved a bunch of school kids out of the drowning bus and was spotted by others. Goyer could at least got him to have a go, personally, if they wanted to kill Jonathan, I'd have Clark failing to save him instead of standing there watching, but this is starting to be a MOS debate now...

Jonathan "said so" because of the safety of the world. That was Jonathan's sole lesson to his son about revealing himself to the world. Clark literally describes this as his motivation to Lois in the cemetery. It's not a debate. Clark did not save his father because his "father believed the world wasn't ready."

Clark was literally going to ask Lois to marry him before he got stabbed by DS, you could ask Chris Terrio and Zack why they included that scene at the end of BvS for Clark's arc.

Martha literally cried when she gave Lois the ring, from my personal experience she was sad over "what could have been" if Clark survived, and the writers could continue with that in Shazam by having Clark telling Billy that he regretted not proposing earlier, but he had a second chance.

In our culture, a proposal is one of the highlight of a person's life, not because of legal, religious or inheritance reasons.

I still don't get what you are driving at here. Yes, Clark wanted to propose to Lois, but he hadn't yet. And death is always going to leave what ifs, could haves, and should haves. That doesn't mean that Clark should advise a child to get married ASAP because he could die at any minute. Clark, if anything, need only advise Billy to live in the moment. He shouldn't make decisions on fears of the future but do what feels right at the time it feels right. No man, woman, or superhero should live his or her life that way.

 

[misslane38]

All that to say, I don't buy any of this interior life.

You are confusing me. You talk about Clark's interior life, but then go on to list all the ways you want that interior life to be externalized. Once it becomes external, it is no longer internal. If you're referring to personality, or what you erroneously claim is a lack of personality, then Clark's personality is quiet and introspective. And, when he does express his feelings, it's usually through his actions and his choices. This is where "inner life" is expressed.

So, yes, Superman watches television and listens to the world criticizing his choices. What does he do? He decides it's more important to cheer up his girlfriend. He buys her flowers and wants to cook her dinner. He jumps in the tub with her. When the criticism heats up more, he channels all those questions about Superman's choices into an exploration and investigation of The Batman and his choices, his abuse of power, and his failure to care about his impact on the people he is supposed to serve.

At the library gala, we hear about what he makes of Bruce's criticisms of Superman. He believes the rest of the world doesn't share Bruce's negative opinion, and then abandons his big Batman scoop to save a little girl from a fire. Again, these choices say something about Clark and how he thinks. Criticism intensifies even more. What is Clark's inner life now? He seeks out his mother who reminds him he has a choice. What is Clark's choice? Superman chooses to speak to Finch and Keefe at the committee hearing.

After the bombing, Clark opens up to Lois. He then seeks solace in quiet contemplation, and Clark's vision of his father appears as a window into Clark's inner life. He's wondering how to cope with nightmares; how to cope with a world that's too big. His conclusion? Love.

So, I guess, ultimately, my question is: What is it that you don't know about Superman's inner life? Are you sure it isn't that you don't know enough about his inner life? Maybe you just don't like his personality, maybe you just don't like how he deals with criticism, and maybe you just don't like his inner life and wish he had a different inner life that you could relate to or empathize with more.

 

[Greenlite]

@misslane38

But Superman always tries to find a way without killing. There wasn't another way with Zod. Unless Billy is going to be put in the exact same situation with the exact same type of villain with the exact same mindset and the exact same power level relative to Shazam, then what Superman learned from his confrontation with Zod will be of no help to Billy. For example, Superman may know now that kryptonite could have stopped Zod, but he didn't have kryptonite. That was "another way" he could have found but didn't. Does this help Billy if and when he confronts his own Zod? Not a chance. Because Shazam's Zod won't be Zod. It will be a different villain who presents his or her own challenges that Superman cannot account for in his advice to Billy.

There's always a way if the writer comes up with something, this is fiction. As for Sup's situation, in MOS, he decided to snap the neck, in BvS, he said "not all men are good," showing his despair, but instead of killing Bat who was trying to kill him, he tried talking to him, even if it almost resulted in his own death, and the death of his mother, that's the growth and different approach I saw the writers gave him.

Jonathan "said so" because of the safety of the world. That was Jonathan's sole lesson to his son about revealing himself to the world. Clark literally describes this as his motivation to Lois in the cemetery. It's not a debate. Clark did not save his father because his "father believed the world wasn't ready."

He was about to try to save him until Jonathan waved to him though.

I still don't get what you are driving at here. Yes, Clark wanted to propose to Lois, but he hadn't yet. And death is always going to leave what ifs, could haves, and should haves. That doesn't mean that Clark should advise a child to get married ASAP because he could die at any minute. Clark, if anything, need only advise Billy to live in the moment. He shouldn't make decisions on fears of the future but do what feels right at the time it feels right. No man, woman, or superhero should live his or her life that way

Maybe I should have rephrased my cheeky response to Superchan to "Clark could tell Billy when he grows up and meet someone he loves and wants to spend the rest of his life with, go for it! Or if you meet someone who makes you peaceful and happy, tell them and spend time with them, don't hold it in! etc" so you don't spin it into me saying Clark should tell a child to get married.

My point is Clark could use his example of not having the opportunity to propose to Lois to teach Billy something, as a response to Superchan who said Sup's moppy and life's short, thus creating some mentor/student element into the story and beef up the characters, you seem to be missing the emotional beat of this idea. Like last time when I mentioned Lois and Clark can look after grandkids while fight crime, you missed that point and beat me up about why did I insult women by locking them up in homes and stuck with kids and not out there working.

I'll leave it there since clearly my thought process on the emotional/poetic side of Lois/Clark proposal is on a completely different wavelength to yours.

 

[matt47]

Wrong thread
Lastly life's too short to mope like a little b***h when you look like a GQ model, have an attractive, intelligent gf, a loving mother and near god like powers.

He was obviously getting his game on when he was out discovering himself. We see at that bar in MoS when he and that waitress exchange smiles that they were dating or at least...you know...smooshin booties.

Not to mention how in BvS he came home with flowers and was gonna cook dinner for Lois....that's such an obvious hint that he wants to...relieve some stress. Then he just jumps in the bath with her.

So yeah, he isn't always brooding everywhere. He's like any guy, he drinks beer while watching the footy and gets jiggy with woman.

 

[TheRedWraith]

There's always a way if the writer comes up with something, this is fiction. As for Sup's situation, in MOS, he decided to snap the neck, in BvS, he said "not all men are good," showing his despair, but instead of killing Bat who was trying to kill him, he tried talking to him, even if it almost resulted in his own death, and the death of his mother, that's the growth and different approach I saw the writers gave him.Maybe I should have rephrased my cheeky response to Superchan to "Clark could tell Billy when he grows up and meet someone he loves and wants to spend the rest of his life with, go for it! Or if you meet someone who makes you peaceful and happy, tell them and spend time with them, don't hold it in! etc" so you don't spin it into me saying Clark should tell a child to get married.

There is always another way because writers induce purposeful copouts to insulate the "hero" from real consequences and having the character make a choice. Additionally he can do that with Batman because if he fails and dies the fate of the world isn't at stake, just himself and his Mom, and that is all irrelevant as he does try to talk to him earlier in the film and he makes one last attempt in the fight but Zod remains resolute so he leaves him no choice.

For the sake of humoring you though I’ll play your game, the options available are, hope he can knock him (the skilled General who was kicking his a**) out and/or keep him away from the sun long enough to depower him, with that being high risk because if he dies then the world is f***** and even if it were successful the family in front of them and many many more people would die before that happened, option 2 is killing him, those are the options take your pick which is more heroic, sacrificing his clean conscious to prevent a mad man from wiping out the Humanity or selfishly try to preserve his own peace of mind with the death of many more innocents by hedging his bets on a shaky plan.

 

[Superchan]

So, you're suggesting he should be shallow? A complete "man pickle"?

"I'm Hot. My girlfriend is Hot. Phenomenal god-like powers. That bus full of kids burnt to a crisp, but hey, it's all good."

Yep, that's Supes alright.

Better a "man-pickle" than whiny b***h

Yup, and I'd have Sup telling him to save his loved ones even though they might insist on not revealing his power for his safety, because Sup did the opposite AND still revealed his powers later but I don't think they'd go that far.

Well he needs to teach Billy to marry the girl he loves ASAP because superhero lifespan may not be as long as you think

Great lessons also.

Yep. A deleted showed them being taken away by the cops. But Superman still kills a de-powered Zod in both the theatrical version and the Richard Donner cut.

Wrong, the donner cut shows zod and co to be alive and that's the cut that counts for me.

 

[Greenlite]

There is always another way because writers induce purposeful copouts to insulate the "hero" from real consequences and having the character make a choice. Additionally he can do that with Batman because if he fails and dies the fate of the world isn't at stake, just himself and his Mom, and that is all irrelevant as he does try to talk to him earlier in the film and he makes one last attempt in the fight but Zod remains resolute so he leaves him no choice.

For the sake of humoring you though I’ll play your game, the options available are, hope he can knock him (the skilled General who was kicking his a**) out and/or keep him away from the sun long enough to depower him, with that being high risk because if he dies then the world is f***** and even if it were successful the family in front of them and many many more people would die before that happened, option 2 is killing him, those are the options take your pick which is more heroic, sacrificing his clean conscious to prevent a mad man from wiping out the Humanity or selfishly try to preserve his own peace of mind with the death of many more innocents by hedging his bets on a shaky plan.

Ok, then, Sup showed no growth from MOS to BvS when taking on the antagonist

The main point is for Clark to grow and pass on his knowledge and experience to make it better for other youngsters.

There's a thing called prevention, like dragging the villain out to space for a starter, that's growth from Sup's part, and he might have learnt other lessons, and he could teach Billy as well, like, "this is how to avoid getting into a headlock with a bunch of civilians in front of you, because last time I did I snapped his neck, I don't want you to have that. I still can't figure out how to stop him but not kill him to this day, but there's a phantom zone and a very smart man in Gotham that you can consult"

Now don't pick apart that quote on technicality because I'm not a comic book expert, but you get the idea.

As for the MOS ending, well, there are smarter writers and artists out there that get paid millions to think up something, so I expect them to come up with a solution with fictional characters in a fictional scientific situations, or don't, and go for prevention like the above paragraph, or...

...he could just tell Billy that the way his battle with Zod ended, he'd do it over and over again if he had to, life is tough and being a superhero you have to suck it up, that's fine too.

All I want is some character building and development based on previous movies and experiences. Some fans want to defend his previous decisions and pass onto the next generation, some like me want him to learn from it and teach his kid to prevent or beat the situations, as long as they use it to build that mentor/student relationship and do it well, I'll be happy. I'm not even mad about the neck snapping lol.

Edit: you could totally translate some of this to real life too - David F Sandberg consulting Zack, and Zack could tell him that's how I'd done it and I'll stick to my guns (random e.g. Billy snapping The Rock's neck) even though you'll be s***ed by the press and some fans for at least 4 years, or you could try this to prevent it, or you could do the Nolan suggestion (random e.g. phantom zone) and some will call you a copout.

 

[Guts]

Wrong, the donner cut shows zod and co to be alive and that's the cut that counts for me.

Superman still killed him in the Donner Cut but the movie did end with Zod still alive. Because he reverses time by flying around the Earth. Which just creates a plot hole by making you ask why didn't Superman just do that earlier to solve the Zod problem rather than luring them to the Fortress, de-powering them, and then killing them.

 

[vantheman77]

Are they still talking about Henry's mustache than the JL film?