BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread.

[hopefuldreamer]

Next time Morrison has himself and family attacked by someone with deadly force in said attacker's possession..... Let me know.

This is fiction. Fiction doesn't have to have an unhappy ending. That's the beauty of it.

dont want to derail this but what would you suggest superman do with zod

phantom zone is gone,no prison on earth can hold him,he was'nt going to stop since he had nothing to live for since his new krypton plan is dead

say he drags zod away from that family then what? the fight isn't going to be over because he moved him

it was the definition of suicide by cop

Yet again, you are entirely failing to understand my problem with the ending.

And for the record, i've already posted my ideas of how the film could have ended. I keep reposting them when people like yourself demand them, but I'm not going to do it here, because it's not the place for it.

And I have no idea what Morrison is talking about with bloodlust. Just because I approve of the ending to MOS doesn't mean I want Superman or any other hero killing people left and right. That is not my desire at all!

He's talking about the same thing i've been talking about, and the same thing Waid was talking about post MOS. He's not saying people all want our heroes to start mass murdering... he's just saying it's sad that we currently seem to have such an obsession with things being pessemistically realistic, that we want our heroes to only be capable of an ending that police officers or soldiers would be capable of in the real world... not an ending that goes beyond that.

And like he said, it's sad that in this kind of 'realism' attitude, we can only concieve of an ending in which death is the only answer.

Why can't an ending that ISN'T death be realistic when you're dealing with a man as incredible as Superman?

Snyder and Goyer felt that Superman killing Zod was the only believable thing to happen.

Morrison is point out the same thing I feel - that this is a sad way of looking at believability in modern fiction, and realism taken one step too far.

I dread the ending to MOS 2. I have literally no idea where they plan on going with these characters.

Is Batman going to be the more flippant one about killing, and Superman will realise that he needs to take a more solid position on taking a life?

Or will Batman be the one with a rigid no kill policy, worried that Superman's actions mean he can't be trusted not to be corrupted by his own power?

Or hey, maybe they'll just team up together to kill the villain? Or maybe they'll be trying to kill each other? Who knows

This isn't a fair question though. Zack and David Goyer wrote Superman into that corner. They could have written the final fight an infinite number of ways but they wrote it to allow for Superman to kill. That's the problem.

Yup.

 

[HeroInMe]

I understand where people are coming from with the whole Superman was written into a corner so he had no choice but to kill. However, I say this to the very same people, Superman is meant to do the impossible. No matter how bleak or how futile the outcome is for him there's always another solution that he would find to solve the problem that wouldn't involve taking a life. If that's the case than it shouldn't matter if Goyer wrote him into that realistic corner he's still should've found another way, but he didn't because there was no other way. It's just the way life is. Sometimes it's just unfair.

People claim that there were a variety of ways this battle could've gone down that wouldn't have ended in the way the movie ended for us. That it could've been written differently, well even if it were to be done differently somewhere down the line even Superman may end up finding himself backed against that corner that will cause him to make that ultimate choice (and please spare me the "But he would never allow himself be backed into that corner. He's Superman he always finds another way").

Now before I get hassled by some of you let me just say I too am a huge Superman fan like you guys (well most of you at least) I enjoyed all ages of him. And I have to say after seeing this movie not once but twice I loved it. I was ecstatic my friend who watched it with me was surprised and was enjoying the hell out of my excitement with the movie. Did I like when a majority of Metropolis was falling apart because of their battle? definitely not. Did I like what Supes had to do to Zod to save the people of earth hell no of course not, but it was the only way and I can respect that. And after seeing his reaction to what he did to Zod the pain written on his face, the sorrow it held for taking a life it showed (to me at least) that at his very core he is still "our" Superman he just got dealt a bad hand. My 2 cents.

To get back on topic, I'm soooo looking forward to "Worlds Finest". 2 years is going to be a long wait for me.

 

[TheBat812]

Well that's two of my favourite Superman writers who share my opinion on the matter.

TBH, I feel like that's really all that matters.

IMO his quote kind of supports their decision. None of us (including Clark) have had to be in that situation so its very easy to just say 'you don't kill no matter what cuz it's wrong.' But in a real context, if we/Clark were out into a similarly impossible situation, I think most of us would do what Clark did, no matter how much it killed us to do so. He had the weight of humanity on his shoulders for the first one in his life and he knew that would be his only opportunity to have the advantage over Zod, so he dug down deep and did the only thing knew would put the destruction to a conclusive end.

 

[hellblazer103]

my only big concern is that 2015 seems a little too soon. they might end up rushing it.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

*Ra's Al Ghul voice* He finally learned to do what is necessary!

 

[BestGirl]

I didn't mind the whole Superman killing bit, I only wish his no killing philosophy had had greater emphasis in the movie. I don't recall Clark ever explicitly saying that he wouldn't, or being lectured that he shouldn't, kill. Maybe I'm not remembering MOS correctly and it was in there, but when I was watching the movie, it felt like his despair at killing Zod came out of nowhere.

 

[The Question]

I didn't mind the whole Superman killing bit, I only wish his no killing philosophy had had greater emphasis in the movie. I don't recall Clark ever explicitly saying that he wouldn't, or being lectured that he shouldn't, kill. Maybe I'm not remembering MOS correctly and it was in there, but when I was watching the movie, it felt like his despair at killing Zod came out of nowhere.

That's a big part of it, too. If they were trying to create a scenario where Superman was forced to break a strong moral code he fiercely believed in, and focus on how tragic and emotionally harrowing it is for him and how much of an impact it makes on who he is and how breaking his code and seeing how awful it is first had reinforces how much he believes in it, they did a pretty poor job setting it up.

 

[regwec]

I think his restraint and avoidance of any physical confrontation throughout his earlier life told us all we needed to know. At the age of 33, despite his awesome power, he had never before killed anyone, and had always avoided a fight. Of course having to kill was harrowing and upsetting for him. I don't think it needed a dull, leaden, Nolanesque exposition scene, personally.

 

[The Question]

I think his restraint and avoidance of any physical confrontation throughout his earlier life told us all we needed to know. At the age of 33, despite his awesome power, he had never before killed anyone, and had always avoided a fight. Of course having to kill was harrowing and upsetting for him. I don't think it needed a dull, leaden, Nolanesque exposition scene, personally.

Not murdering a guy who's being rude to a waitress doesn't tell an audience that this character has a strict moral stance against killing people, even in combat scenarios. Hell, it doesn't even tell us that he opposes the death penalty. And audience are used to heroes killing bad guys in the heat of battle in action movies without being too bothered by it, especially largely one dimensional genocidal aliens like the villains in Man of Steel.

 

[regwec]

That's a rather disingenuous appraisal of what the film showed you. There was a scene devoted to Clark's restraint while being bullied by other kids, and his father's explanation of why that was necessary. There was then the scene with the waitress, where you falsely characterize the only available physical response from Clark as murder- in fact there was none, and he vented his frustration on something inanimate, instead. Then we got that huge chaotic mash up during the denouement, and a clear depiction of Clark's reluctance to kill his enemies and his grief at finding himself forced to do so.

I'm not arguing that MoS is a perfect movie or anything, but I don't know how many more scenes would have been necessary to convince you that killing was a big deal for Clark. It seemed obvious, really.

 

[The Question]

That's a rather disingenuous appraisal of what the film showed you. There was a scene devoted to Clark's restraint while being bullied by other kids, and his father's explanation of why that was necessary. There was then the scene with the waitress, where you falsely characterize the only available physical response from Clark as murder- in fact there was none, and he vented his frustration on something inanimate, instead. Then we got that huge chaotic mash up during the denouement, and a clear depiction of Clark's reluctance to kill his enemies and his grief at finding himself forced to do so.

I'm not arguing that MoS is a perfect movie or anything, but I don't know how many more scenes would have been necessary to convince you that killing was a big deal for Clark. It seemed obvious, really.

I don't think it would seem obvious to someone who wasn't already familiar with the character.

 

[The Question]

where you falsely characterize the only available physical response from Clark as murder- in fact there was none, and he vented his frustration on something inanimate, instead.

Also, I don't understand what you're accusing me of here.

What I did was that I said showing us that he won't hurt a rude bully at a bar doesn't demonstrate to the audience that he isn't willing to kill a genocidal alien in a combat scenario. I don't see how I falsely characterized something.

 

[regwec]

"Hurt" and "murder" are different words meaning different things.

 

[Ethermatic]

In my opinion, Man of Steel tried to follow a lot of the Batman Begins formula and didn't do nearly as good of a job. The latter had a lot more depth and complexity while the former was paper thin. While none of us will ever really know, I'd say that blame goes to Goyer more than anyone else.

One example is the killing issue.

Throughout Batman Begins Bruce is faced with the dilemma. It's built up by him wanting to kill Chill and Rachel scolding him, it's developed when he's trained by Ducard then later refuses to kill the farmer, and the payoff comes at the end when it's brought up during the final fight.

In Man of Steel there is no development or set up for that moral issue at all. That's why Superman's emotional scream at the end does absolutely nothing for me. I know why he did it but it didn't resonate with me at all. To me, like the rest of the film, it reeks of poor writing.

 

[Vaibow]

In my opinion, Man of Steel tried to follow a lot of the Batman Begins formula and didn't do nearly as good of a job. The latter had a lot more depth and complexity while the former was paper thin. While none of us will ever really know, I'd say that blame goes to Goyer more than anyone else.

One example is the killing issue.

Throughout Batman Begins Bruce is faced with the dilemma. It's built up by him wanting to kill Chill and Rachel scolding him, it's developed when he's trained by Ducard then later refuses to kill the farmer, and the payoff comes at the end when it's brought up during the final fight.

In Man of Steel there is no development or set up for that moral issue at all. That's why Superman's emotional scream at the end does absolutely nothing for me. I know why he did it but it didn't resonate with me at all. To me, like the rest of the film, it reeks of poor writing.

That my friend... is the difference between having Nolan involved by Name only and having him as director

 

[Micromind]

Goyer and Snyder should have listened to Nolan, and they should have avoided killing Zod, they could have done what Star Trek Into darkness did, put Zod back into Cryo-sleep (just like Khan was put back into cryo-pod.)

 

[Ethermatic]

That my friend... is the difference between having Nolan involved by Name only and having him as director

Exactly. It amuses me when people point to the fact that Nolan was a producer on Man of Steel and will executive produce the sequel. They don't realize that his involvement is becoming less and less and that he's basically just collecting a check for the use of his name.

 

[PacificBoy]

My major worry is Goyer and the plot needed to make any Superman vs Batman clash plausible will overshadow character and story development.

Thought the codex/scout ship/world engine plot devices and macguffins were overplayed and dragged. A minute or two could have been shaved from the action in the final third for more character moments.

He's great with the big picture, just not so with the nitty gritty of the story. Hope help is brought in, a co-writer, a consultant.

 

[Herolee10]

My major worry is Goyer and the plot needed to make any Superman vs Batman clash plausible will overshadow character and story development.

Thought the codex/scout ship/world engine plot devices and macguffins were overplayed and dragged. A minute or two could have been shaved from the action in the final third for more character moments.

He's great with the big picture, just not so with the nitty gritty of the story. Hope help is brought in, a co-writer, a consultant.

Agreed on all accounts. Plus, I'm not the biggest fan of the concept of this film being more about them fighting as opposed to them learning to become friends and partners in their common quest.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Goyer and Snyder should have listened to Nolan, and they should have avoided killing Zod, they could have done what Star Trek Into darkness did, put Zod back into Cryo-sleep (just like Khan was put back into cryo-pod.)

Nolan said no?

 

[PacificBoy]

Yup. But Goyer and Snyder convinced him otherwise.

 

[PacificBoy]

Agreed on all accounts. Plus, I'm not the biggest fan of the concept of this film being more about them fighting as opposed to them learning to become friends and partners in their common quest.

The versus angle is certainly being hyped. From the TDKR quote to the tentative working movie title to Goyer saying it's a "rematch" of the two.

 

[tomoe]

The versus angle is certainly being hyped. From the TDKR quote to the tentative working movie title to Goyer saying it's a "rematch" of the two.

Whatever that means. Unless he's referring to the comics about their 'previous' match, which the majority of people don't know much about.

 

[Visualiza]

Exactly. It amuses me when people point to the fact that Nolan was a producer on Man of Steel and will executive produce the sequel. They don't realize that his involvement is becoming less and less and that he's basically just collecting a check for the use of his name.

I wouldn't trivialize the role of a producer; he's essentially the head of the entire production, hence the name. He may not be driving the bus(director), but every single decision made has to have his seal of approval.

That isn't an attempt to place more or less blame on Nolan; however, he does share the responsibility to some degree.

 

[Gianakin_]

Again, not what I meant. You made it sound like Marvel don't try to put substance into their movies and embrace the shallowness of their movies. That is not the same as thinking their movies have no substance. I would defend SM3 (which I don't like) if someone said Raimi didn't try to put substance into the movie.

Then it's even worse. I was actually paying Marvel a compliment when I said they weren't trying. If they're really trying to put substance... then wow. And I'm strictly talking MCU, btw.