Man of Steel vs Superman: The Movie

[The Shield]

Luke Evans! How is he not spot on for the cowl?

 

[Tra-El]

Defiantly Clark and Bruce RIGHT there....

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

New Zod would melt old Zod. The first time Superman and Zod clash, Zod gets thrown into a pepsi logo :P

That's blasphemy. Zod would never allow himself to be thrown into a Pepsi sign.

It was a Coca-Cola sign!

 

[Tacit Ronin]

That dude has some Keatonish stares going on there.

 

[Hamill-Joker]

it's good for some laughs, especially from Gene Hackman and his goon

and that's about it

Otisburg?!?!?

 

[InJustice]

Luke Evans! How is he not spot on for the cowl?

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Defiantly Clark and Bruce RIGHT there....

Just about any dark haired white dude in a suit (with a decent build) standing next to Cavill will bring to mind Bruce Wayne and "World's Finest", but, when you take Cavill out of the picture, Evans really doesn't look all that much like Bruce Wayne. Wayne, in my opinion, should be tall, broad-shouldered and square jawed.

I don't know how tall Liam McIntyre is, but he's certainly got the right cranial morphology for the role. A little black hair dye, and he's a perfect match for Bruce Wayne. It's almost as if Arkham City's Batman was designed with him in mind.

 

[Tra-El]

Just about any dark haired white dude in a suit (with a decent build) standing next to Cavill will bring to mind Bruce Wayne and "World's Finest", but, when you take Cavill out of the picture, Evans really doesn't look all that much like Bruce Wayne. Wayne, in my opinion, should be tall, broad-shouldered and square jawed.

I don't know how tall Liam McIntyre is, but he's certainly got the right cranial morphology for the role. A little black hair dye, and he's a perfect match for Bruce Wayne. It's almost as if Arkham City's Batman was designed with him in mind.

I don't think every dark haired white dude in a suite is instantly Bruce Wayne. I've seen a lot of suggestions and some, I'm just not seeing Bruce Wayne how I see him.

Take Cavill out up top, and Evans still looks like Bruce to me. I look at the Bats not tall, probably around 5'10ish so to speak and though would have a defined jawline, I see it not as squared maybe as Supes's. More round.

It's also in the eyes and eybrows as well. Evans has this cool-mans, sharp eyebrow "scowl" look that fits the Bruce image. Just my personal image in my head sees Evans as a damn good casting for the Bat.

 

[MrMaooz]

Bro you should. You missing out.

^

I'm sorry, but a certain someone shouldn't vote until he can say he's seen the genre-creating Reeve classic. Watch both, then come back later

Nope, sorry guys.

 

[PacificBoy]

If Luke Evans becomes the new Batman, it'll be a reversal of roles in the Superman-Batman movie: Luke is now a mortal (albeit a heroic one), and Henry is the god.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I don't think every dark haired white dude in a suite is instantly Bruce Wayne. I've seen a lot of suggestions and some, I'm just not seeing Bruce Wayne how I see him.

Take Cavill out up top, and Evans still looks like Bruce to me. I look at the Bats not tall, probably around 5'10ish so to speak and though would have a defined jawline, I see it not as squared maybe as Supes's. More round.

It's also in the eyes and eybrows as well. Evans has this cool-mans, sharp eyebrow "scowl" look that fits the Bruce image. Just my personal image in my head sees Evans as a damn good casting for the Bat.

Fair enough. I just think that, partly because Bruce wears a mask a lot of the time, the character's appearance isn't approached with the same attention to detail as Superman's look is. When you think about it, we've been pretty spoiled when it comes to solid actors portraying Supes -- many of them could be related. With Batman, however, it's just different. We've had a number of actors take on the character, and they look nothing like each other; and Batman's costume on film has always been quite the departure from his comic book counterpart's attire. So, I think it would be nice, for a change, to appeal to the purists on some level if at all possible.

In the comics I grew up reading, Bruce Wayne was always depicted as a really big guy. His jawline doesn't have to be as defined as Clark's, but I definitely don't see him as having a rounder face; and he should be at least 6ft tall. Evans isn't a terrible choice, but he kind of has a squirrely look to me.

 

[B]

Sure, and Superman's cape was a little shorter so it's a complete different movie based on that alone.

But no, you see, the origin of Superman, meeting Lois and Zod's coming is what happened in STM and SII in broad terms. Details of course are different, which is partially what I addressed when I said "more updated."

But I'll help you out this time: "Lex Luthor was not in it, Senator Pleasury!"

The 2/3 films though aren't as comparable though as SR was with STM. Aside from the fact that the origin stories featured are quite different from one another, the films main plot is different as well.. or it's different enough for me.

But SR didn't involve Superman's origin, nor did it involve missiles destroying California, Superman saving the president, and a long etcetera. You see, if you're going to use details as your main proof that two movies are completely different, you have to involve them when trying to say that's what make two movies completely the same.

One of the many reasons it was a glittering failure.

I didn't use any details though, nor did I say they were completely the same. The films details are what keep the films separate.

The film's plot was the thing that was similar, which was a Lex Luthor who's ultimate goal was to sell land. It wasn't a particularly thrilling plot in STM, however it was more thought out & kept a little more plausible.

And yet it was.

Superman's origin, his youth in Smallville, the way he got to the Planet, met Lois, fell in love with her and vice versa and is introduced to the world is good enough and memorable enough, that's why every incarnation has them, that's why MOS has most of them, although MOS thought Superman being an amazing awe-inspiring being in the eyes of people wasn't interesting enough.

And yet, it wasn't.

The origin story isn't part of the films plot, it's just something that is done at the start of each series of films to establish who the characters are. The movies plot is what brings the characters together.

Man of Steel's origin isn't the same as STM's.

What was realistic in Spider-man? Pretty much nothing; the romantic story, Goblin powers, bombs exploding next to Peter's face with not a burnt, Goblin having Spider-man unconscious without unmasking him (even when he was later aware that his identity could be essential to get to him), MJ's ability to fall a long distance and grab a tram car without any major damage (not to mention she managed to do it without having the speed affect his hands), etc.

And what was seen before of Spider-man on the screen? The 1977-79 TV series. And we can tear that apart but it was far more realistic.

It was about as realistic as what was involved with any of The Avengers origin stories, all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Ironically, I think the smiling picture of them together looks the most like Bruce/Clark

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The guy doesn't strike me as Bruce Wayne, like at all. That said, that doesn't mean he couldn't be a good one, even a great one.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Can we please go back to discussing Superman and MOS

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I imagine that any actor who vaguely resembles the physical appearance of Bruce Wayne and has co-starred with Cavill will seem like a strong contender for the Batman role - and considering his latest role in Man from U.N.C.L.E., I wonder whether producers are still thinking about Armie Hammer.

(My guess is not - the box office performance of Lone Ranger means that Hammer appears to be the next Taylor Kitsch, i.e. box office poison).

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The 2/3 films though aren't as comparable though as SR was with STM. Aside from the fact that the origin stories featured are quite different from one another, the films main plot is different as well.. or it's different enough for me.

For you. That's more like it.

So far Superman it's still Kal-el, born on Krypton, sent to earth before Krypton explodes. Zod still has a grudge against Jor-el and is exiled to Phantom Zone and then he gets free and comes to earth to rule it and have a revenge against Jor-el's son. Lois Lane is still a reporter and Clark Kent gets to work at the same newspaper as her.

One of the many reasons it was a glittering failure.

That's why Superman II was a failure too? Or The Dark Knight, or Spider-man 2? None of them had the main character's origin involved.

I didn't use any details though, nor did I say they were completely the same. The films details are what keep the films separate.

Yes. Same as in MOS. Details made the origin and everything else a bit different, which made it - using your very words - "a more updated telling of that same story/plot."

The film's plot was the thing that was similar, which was a Lex Luthor who's ultimate goal was to sell land. It wasn't a particularly thrilling plot in STM, however it was more thought out & kept a little more plausible.

Using a fake car accident to hack a government missile twice is far from plausible. But Kryptonian technology, as shown in STM, gets you better possibilities as (justified) fiction can buy plausibility.

That said, Zod's plan and motivation were also similar.

And yet, it wasn't.

The origin story isn't part of the films plot, it's just something that is done at the start of each series of films to establish who the characters are. The movies plot is what brings the characters together.

So what you're saying is that the origin IS part of the film plot.

In fact you can detach the origin from the rest much easier in STM than in MOS. In MOS the origin of Superman and the subsequent plot are completely attached. Zod comes to earth because of Kal-el, because he has this genetic information in him.

All the facts I mentioned happened in STM, SII and MOS (which comprised them into one movie). Try and deny that.

Man of Steel's origin isn't the same as STM's.

It's basically the same but updated.

It was about as realistic as what was involved with any of The Avengers origin stories, all of which walked a fine line between reality & fantasy.

There's absolutely nothing remotely realistic in the Avengers.

 

[B]

For you. That's more like it.

So far Superman it's still Kal-el, born on Krypton, sent to earth before Krypton explodes. Zod still has a grudge against Jor-el and is exiled to Phantom Zone and then he gets free and comes to earth to rule it and have a revenge against Jor-el's son. Lois Lane is still a reporter and Clark Kent gets to work at the same newspaper as her.

90% of what you've listed are default names & roles for the characters. None of which originated in Superman The Movie.

In Man of Steel, Zod's plan wasn't to goto Earth & simply rule, his plan was to goto Earth & retrieve the Codex that Jor-El had sent with Kal-El.. or within him. Then once he had the Codex, he planned on turning Earth into New Krypton by repopulating & thermoforming the planet to meet the needs of the the new Kryptonian population. He doesn't arrive on Earth instantly seeking revenge on Jor-El's son, I mean at one point doesn't he ask him to join them & help them rebuild?

Zod's plan in Superman II after his release, was simply to find a planet to rule. That's the point in which his plan starts & ends.

That's why Superman II was a failure too? Or The Dark Knight, or Spider-man 2? None of them had the main character's origin involved.

The difference is, none of those films you've listed were failures, whereas Superman Returns was, in addition all of the listed films are sequels. You can't reboot a franchise & reintroduce a character to the big screen after a 20 year absence without telling some form of origin story.

Yes. Same as in MOS. Details made the origin and everything else a bit different, which made it - using your very words - "a more updated telling of that same story/plot."

I already addressed this in the comment you conveniently didn't quote. See it for my reply.

Using a fake car accident to hack a government missile twice is far from plausible. But Kryptonian technology, as shown in STM, gets you better possibilities as (justified) fiction can buy plausibility.

That said, Zod's plan and motivation were also similar.

How they went about hijacking the missile is irrelevant, it was kept more plausable than Superman Returns plot simply because... well, one had growing an island out of Alien technology & the other was a missile hitting a particular point in the San Andreas fault triggering a massive earthquake destroying San Fran. In addition Luthor had already bought up the land on the other side of the San Andreas fault. Whereas compare that to Superman Returns Lex Luthor, what did he think was gonna happen? He has a crew of 3 or 4 men, imagine he had killed Superman, were those goons going to be able to stop the US Army from rolling onto the island & just arresting or killing them all?

So what you're saying is that the origin IS part of the film plot.

In fact you can detach the origin from the rest much easier in STM than in MOS. In MOS the origin of Superman and the subsequent plot are completely attached. Zod comes to earth because of Kal-el, because he has this genetic information in him.

All the facts I mentioned happened in STM, SII and MOS (which comprised them into one movie). Try and deny that.

They are no more attached. Superman had a hand & a part to play in Zod arriving in both films, both under different & coincidental circumstances.

It's basically the same but updated.

Except it isn't.

There's absolutely nothing remotely realistic in the Avengers.

There's nothing remotely realistic about Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow or Hawkeye? Surely there is about as much realism in elements of their characters, as there is with Batman in Batman Begins.

The point is, Superman for example isn't a realistic character, nor is Spiderman for that matter, however I want to see such characters kept as close to the realm of plausibility as possible. Of course there are going to be things that aren't realistic, but that's a problem you will always face when dealing with such characters.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

90% of what you've listed are default names & roles for the characters. None of which originated in Superman The Movie.

All of which appeared in STM. And MOS.

But MOS didn't have to deal with Zod and his coming to earth. But it did.

In Man of Steel, Zod's plan wasn't to goto Earth & simply rule, his plan was to goto Earth & retrieve the Codex that Jor-El had sent with Kal-El.. or within him. Then once he had the Codex, he planned on turning Earth into New Krypton by repopulating & thermoforming the planet to meet the needs of the the new Kryptonian population. He doesn't arrive on Earth instantly seeking revenge on Jor-El's son, I mean at one point doesn't he ask him to join them & help them rebuild?

Zod's plan in Superman II after his release, was simply to find a planet to rule. That's the point in which his plan starts & ends.

So you mean that was "a more updated telling of that same story/plot."

The difference is, none of those films you've listed were failures, whereas Superman Returns was, in addition all of the listed films are sequels. You can't reboot a franchise & reintroduce a character to the big screen after a 20 year absence without telling some form of origin story.

Excuse me, you just said the lack of an origin was "One of the many reasons it was a glittering failure." Now you're saying it was something else?

Care to agree with yourself?

I already addressed this in the comment you conveniently didn't quote. See it for my reply.

Well, if you say the "films details are what keep the films separate," then I say that's what keep SR and STM separate. Your words.

How they went about hijacking the missile is irrelevant, it was kept more plausable than Superman Returns plot simply because... well, one had growing an island out of Alien technology & the other was a missile hitting a particular point in the San Andreas fault triggering a massive earthquake destroying San Fran.

No, you see, when you're dealing with alien technology, then normal rules of plausibility can't be applied. And the way Lex and co hijacked that missile so easily is exactly what holds you from calling it "more plausible" or "plausible" at all.

In addition Luthor had already bought up the land on the other side of the San Andreas fault. Whereas compare that to Superman Returns Lex Luthor, what did he think was gonna happen? He has a crew of 3 or 4 men, imagine he had killed Superman, were those goons going to be able to stop the US Army from rolling onto the island & just arresting or killing them all?

That is addressed in the movie. Lois asks him and he says "Then what?"

He owns that technology. One attempt against him and he can destroy a country or continent with one of the crystals.

They are no more attached. Superman had a hand & a part to play in Zod arriving in both films, both under different & coincidental circumstances.

They are attached. Jor-el putting Krypton's DNA's in Kal-el is what makes Zod come for him, remember?

Except it isn't.

Yes, it is. It's Krypton, about to explode, Zod trying to get away with his plans but exiled to Phantom Zone, Kal-el sent to earth, Krypton explodes, Kal-el is raised by Martha and Jonathan, he becomes Superman, fights Zod, meet Lois, falls in love. Pretty similar, wouldn't you say?

There's nothing remotely realistic about Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow or Hawkeye? Surely there is about as much realism in elements of their characters, as there is with Batman in Batman Begins.

Well, no. Please name realistic elements in Avengers. Or Spider-man 1.

The point is, Superman for example isn't a realistic character, nor is Spiderman for that matter, however I want to see such characters kept as close to the realm of plausibility as possible. Of course there are going to be things that aren't realistic, but that's a problem you will always face when dealing with such characters.

And yet neither of them was kept close to the realm of plausibility.

 

[B]

So you mean that was "a more updated telling of that same story/plot."

Well no because the goals of both Zod's were completely different.

Excuse me, you just said the lack of an origin was "One of the many reasons it was a glittering failure." Now you're saying it was something else?

Care to agree with yourself?

Your reply to my comment makes absolutely no sense.

Well, if you say the "films details are what keep the films separate," then I say that's what keep SR and STM separate. Your words.

The irony with you is, you were being sarcastic when you said 'Superman's cape was a little shorter so it's a complete different movie based on that alone.' yet it's that level of detail in which you are trying to mount a reply to my comments.

No, you see, when you're dealing with alien technology, then normal rules of plausibility can't be applied. And the way Lex and co hijacked that missile so easily is exactly what holds you from calling it "more plausible" or "plausible" at all.

So let me get this straight, you believe that using Alien technology to grow an island/country in the place of an existing country is a more plausible story than redirecting a missile & sending it into a particular location to cause a massive earthquake that could in theory destroy the west coast.. ?

That is addressed in the movie. Lois asks him and he says "Then what?"

He owns that technology. One attempt against him and he can destroy a country or continent with one of the crystals.

What technology? He didn't have anything that would have prevented a 4 man SWAT team from getting dropped off from a chopper & just eliminating them all, never even mind what would happen if the military got involved.

Then he just expects to 'rent out' parts of his island..

They are attached. Jor-el putting Krypton's DNA's in Kal-el is what makes Zod come for him, remember?

Kal-El is responsible for Zod arriving on Earth in both films, one because Zod & his Kryptonians need the Codex & the other because Kal-El releases Zod, Ursa & Non from the Phantom Zone.. both of which, as I said, are for coincidental & different reasons.

Yes, it is. It's Krypton, about to explode, Zod trying to get away with his plans but exiled to Phantom Zone, Kal-el sent to earth, Krypton explodes, Kal-el is raised by Martha and Jonathan, he becomes Superman, fights Zod, meet Lois, falls in love. Pretty similar, wouldn't you say?

Everything you've listed is default for every character & every Superman origin.

Well, no. Please name realistic elements in Avengers. Or Spider-man 1.

So you don't feel there is anything 'remotely realistic', about a guy going from say 160lbs, popping a few steriods, hitting the gym & transforming himself into a 210lb tank with faster reflexes, better strength, better stamina etc?

Or an archer with an extremely good shot? A female with good reflexes, fighting skills & good with weapons?

Iron Man, fair enough is on the line of being more fiction than reality, especally in the likes of Iron Man 2/3 however some of the elements of his suit are no more out there than some of the things Batman has in Nolan's series which is considered a more realistic take on the character.

And yet neither of them was kept close to the realm of plausibility.

Perhaps not with the character(s) himself I mean we are talking about a super powered alien, but the world surrounding him? Why not?

I mean if such a being existed, do you think the US would react to Superman to the way they did to Reeve's Superman or to Cavill's? My guess would be they'd react something closer to how they reacted to Cavill's Superman. With fear & caution considering the power he demonstrates.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Well no because the goals of both Zod's were completely different.

Different how? More updated?

Or different like destroying California being different from creating a new continent?

Your reply to my comment makes absolutely no sense.

What you said didn't; according to you "One of the many reasons it was a glittering failure" was that "SR didn't involve Superman's origin." Tell me why or how since many other sequels haven't had the origin of the superhero and that hasn't ruined one thing.

The irony with you is, you were being sarcastic when you said 'Superman's cape was a little shorter so it's a complete different movie based on that alone.' yet it's that level of detail in which you are trying to mount a reply to my comments.

No, there's many others. In SR Luthor didn't have Otis, didn't want to blow up California with a missile, Superman wasn't returning, Lois didn't have a boyfriend. In that case you claim SR and STM are the exact same.

But if you list the similarities between STM/SII and MOS suddenly they're completely different. You have to clear that.

So let me get this straight, you believe that using Alien technology to grow an island/country in the place of an existing country is a more plausible story than redirecting a missile & sending it into a particular location to cause a massive earthquake that could in theory destroy the west coast..?

No, I think they're equally implausible.

But alien technology allows you more freedom as we don't know what alien technology could achieve. Whereas we know that you can't just hack an U.S. Army missile with three people and no technology (they did it manually).

What technology? He didn't have anything that would have prevented a 4 man SWAT team from getting dropped off from a chopper & just eliminating them all, never even mind what would happen if the military got involved.

I seem to remember the crystals. Did you pay attention? How crystals could occupy a space that could submerge America under the water?

Then he just expects to 'rent out' parts of his island..

Well, when people start to see their properties under the water, the most wealthy would surely pay good money to live somewhere. As opposite to nowhere.

Kal-El is responsible for Zod arriving on Earth in both films, one because Zod & his Kryptonians need the Codex & the other because Kal-El releases Zod, Ursa & Non from the Phantom Zone.. both of which, as I said, are for coincidental & different reasons.

According to you, the fact that that happens in two Superman movies would make them "exactly" the same.

Everything you've listed is default for every character & every Superman origin.

No, Batman doesn't come from Krypton, and doesn't have to defeat an enemy his father sent to a parallel dimension. Same is applicable to a number of other superheroes.

So you don't feel there is anything 'remotely realistic', about a guy going from say 160lbs, popping a few steriods, hitting the gym & transforming himself into a 210lb tank with faster reflexes, better strength, better stamina etc?

Who would that be in Avengers? Captain America? No, that guy used a serum that doesn't exist and if it could be produced they would have done it already.

Or an archer with an extremely good shot? A female with good reflexes, fighting skills & good with weapons?

Not like those. Hawkeye's aim is super-human and he certainly carries more arrows than possible back there. And no spy would reduce Russian agents like that while talking on the phone either. Lots of fun but not realistic.

Iron Man, fair enough is on the line of being more fiction than reality, especally in the likes of Iron Man 2/3 however some of the elements of his suit are no more out there than some of the things Batman has in Nolan's series which is considered a more realistic take on the character.

Iron Man armor is far more than what Batman has used in Nolan's series. I mean the guy got stuck in a giant working engine and survived. Oh, and he can fly and his suit can come flying to him and he gets dressed automatically. Lots of fun, no realism though.

Perhaps not with the character(s) himself I mean we are talking about a super powered alien, but the world surrounding him? Why not?

I mean if such a being existed, do you think the US would react to Superman to the way they did to Reeve's Superman or to Cavill's? My guess would be they'd react something closer to how they reacted to Cavill's Superman. With fear & caution considering the power he demonstrates.

You don't think people would be cheering if someone saved them from death?

 

[dpguy]

I'm probably in the minority, but I thought Man of Steel was a truly awful film and the worst big budget comic book adaptation since Batman and Robin (a.k.a. George Clooney Batman). I don't know what it is, but I can't watch scenes like this without busting out laughing (and it's clearly not intended to be funny). It's just too over-the-top, bombastic and loaded with CGI. There's almost no limit to what can be done with today's special effects, and that's not always a good thing. Having no limits often translates into directors having no restraint, and Zack Snyder is one of the worst directors out there when it comes to FX overkill.

I also thought the film was mean-spirited and sadistic. I don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod. I have a problem with the way he does it because it defies the film's internal logic. Superman throws Zod through skyscrapers and slams him around like a rag doll. This suggests that mere force is not enough to defeat Zod. I'm thinking okay, Superman is going to have to outwit him, use Kryptonian technology, open up a wormhole that will suck Zod in- something.

But no- he just snaps his neck and he does it pretty easily.

I mean wow.


Really?

How lame can you get?

 

[B]

Different how? More updated?

Or different like destroying California being different from creating a new continent?

Different how? I just told you in the post you quoted.

The goals of SII & MoS's Zod were completely different.

What you said didn't; according to you "One of the many reasons it was a glittering failure" was that "SR didn't involve Superman's origin." Tell me why or how since many other sequels haven't had the origin of the superhero and that hasn't ruined one thing.

Superman Returns isn't a sequel to anything.

No, there's many others. In SR Luthor didn't have Otis, didn't want to blow up California with a missile, Superman wasn't returning, Lois didn't have a boyfriend. In that case you claim SR and STM are the exact same.

But if you list the similarities between STM/SII and MOS suddenly they're completely different. You have to clear that.

The plot & goal of STM was for Lex Luthor to sell land.

The plot & goal of SR was for Lex Luthor to sell land.

The plot & goal of SII was for Zod to be the ruler of a planet, any planet at all. It just so happened to be that he was released by Superman, right next to Earth.

The plot & goal of MoS was for Zod to find the Codex sent with Kal-El, then rebuild Krypton using it to rebuild Krypton.

Does that separate the differences enough for you so it can finally register with you what I've been saying?

No, I think they're equally implausible.

But alien technology allows you more freedom as we don't know what alien technology could achieve. Whereas we know that you can't just hack an U.S. Army missile with three people and no technology (they did it manually).

Alien technology doesn't exist! Whereas giant missiles & the San Andreas fault problems do.

We know this for a fact do we? I mean do you know how a targeting system of a missile from 1978 was guided to it's target?

I seem to remember the crystals. Did you pay attention? How crystals could occupy a space that could submerge America under the water?

This technology is sounding even more silly, how were the crystals going to save Lex Luthor & his 4 goons from a Navy Seal team sent into the continent/island on a search & destroy mission?

Well, when people start to see their properties under the water, the most wealthy would surely pay good money to live somewhere. As opposite to nowhere.

Yea, I'm sure the US Military & indeed the rest of the world will be happy to just sit back & let a guy & his 4 friends who has destroyed half of America start up a real estate business.

According to you, the fact that that happens in two Superman movies would make them "exactly" the same.

How exactly would that be according to me given what I've just said?

No, Batman doesn't come from Krypton, and doesn't have to defeat an enemy his father sent to a parallel dimension. Same is applicable to a number of other superheroes.

So.. yea.. what do this have to do with what I said in response to your previous post?

Who would that be in Avengers? Captain America? No, that guy used a serum that doesn't exist and if it could be produced they would have done it already.

Your exact words were 'There's absolutely nothing remotely realistic', using steroids, hitting a gum, putting on substantial muscle making you bigger, stronger, faster & fitter is real world achievable. It's even achievable without using steroids.

Of course there are elements of fantasy such as the increase in height, regeneration, super human like metabolism, however as I said this is one character that walks along a fine line between reality & fantasy.

Not like those. Hawkeye's aim is super-human and he certainly carries more arrows than possible back there. And no spy would reduce Russian agents like that while talking on the phone either. Lots of fun but not realistic.

Again, you said 'There's absolutely nothing remotely realistic', I suggest you go watch archery at the Olympics next time it comes around to see how precise some of the contenders for gold are with their arrows.

Also Black Widow has no super powers, so combat wise she's a woman that has good hand to hand combat skills & good with weapons. Nothing unrealistic or out of the ordinary with that.

Iron Man armor is far more than what Batman has used in Nolan's series. I mean the guy got stuck in a giant working engine and survived. Oh, and he can fly and his suit can come flying to him and he gets dressed automatically. Lots of fun, no realism though.

I'm not saying Iron Man is more realistic by any means, he is more fiction than Batman. That being said, alot of Batman's equipment isn't realistic. Grappling hook, flexible stab/bullet proof suit, a material that can be a cape one minute & a gliding device the next, a bomb smaller than a golf ball that can blow a 6ft tall, 3 ft wide hole in a prison wall.. I mean the list goes on & on. I'll happily admit that Batman is the more realistic character, however lets not pretend that Batman Begins had a far superior realism to Iron Man 1 for example.

You don't think people would be cheering if someone saved them from death?

Of course, however would everyone globally welcome him with open arms? I'm not so sure, especially since they don't know anything about him, where he's from, what he wants, what else he is capable of doing.

I feel Man of Steel paints a far closer picture of what could happen if Superman actually existed. Some people would love him, but some would no doubt be scared & hesitant of accepting him given his immense power & capabilities, particularly people in charge of security of their country.

Even at the end of Man of Steel, even though he saved the world, he did

Spoiler

break a villian's neck in front of maybe 20 people. Something I feel that will be utilised as a story angle for Lex Luthor or even Batman himself in the sequel as a reason for not fully being sure of Superman from the outset. Despite the good he did.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Different how? I just told you in the post you quoted.

The goals of SII & MoS's Zod were completely different.

Just the same as things in SR and MOS are completely different, but with similarities.

Nevertheless in both movies Zod was present in the same circumstances: judged in Krypton, exiled, released and going to earth.

Superman Returns isn't a sequel to anything.

Yes, to STM and SII. That's common knowledge but at least your lack of information explains your posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns

"Based on the DC Comics character Superman, the film serves as an homage sequel to the motion pictures Superman (1978) and Superman II (1980), ignoring the events of Superman III (1983) and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)."



http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

"Movie Info

The Man of Steel returns to the big screen with this continuation of the icon's film legacy that picks up after the events of the first two Christopher Reeve films."


http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Superman_Returns

"In the behind-the-scenes featurettes included on the DVD release, the writers and director specifically indicate they approached Superman Returns as a sequel to the first film and, to a lesser degree, Superman II."

The plot & goal of STM was for Lex Luthor to sell land.

The plot & goal of SR was for Lex Luthor to sell land.

The plot of destroying California and the plot of building a continent are different.

But well, as Sr was a sequel to STM, then yes, the character kept the core of his original goal.

The plot & goal of SII was for Zod to be the ruler of a planet, any planet at all. It just so happened to be that he was released by Superman, right next to Earth.

Yes, if he had landed in Mars he would have been the ruler of a uninhabited world? No, right? He wanted to rule the earth.

The plot & goal of MoS was for Zod to find the Codex sent with Kal-El, then rebuild Krypton using it to rebuild Krypton.

You mean to rule the earth?

Does that separate the differences enough for you so it can finally register with you what I've been saying?

Just as much as blowing up California and sell the already existing coast separates Luthor's plan from creating his own land.

Alien technology doesn't exist! Whereas giant missiles & the San Andreas fault problems do.

We know this for a fact do we? I mean do you know how a targeting system of a missile from 1978 was guided to it's target?

Well, let's start reminding you this is a world where alien and alien technology exist. We know this for a fact, do we? The fact that you try to cherish a movie because of its plausibility and then you try to deny the very base of the main character is a living contradictory.

Anyways, people cannot just stop an army convoy and hack a missile that's top security.

This technology is sounding even more silly, how were the crystals going to save Lex Luthor & his 4 goons from a Navy Seal team sent into the continent/island on a search & destroy mission?

The way the old school James Bond-type of villain do: you destroy a country, then they know you are to be taken seriously.

Yea, I'm sure the US Military & indeed the rest of the world will be happy to just sit back & let a guy & his 4 friends who has destroyed half of America start up a real estate business.

When you can put entire continents under the water, they have to, although I doubt they'd be happy.

Now, with that power I'm sure Luthor can get more than 4 people working for him.

How exactly would that be according to me given what I've just said?

I ignored, I cannot be fixing up your contradictions. That's your job.

So.. yea.. what do this have to do with what I said in response to your previous post?

You said everything I had listed was "default for every character & every Superman origin." And it's not for every character (like Batman). And not every Superman origin contains Zod (which I listed too).

Your exact words were 'There's absolutely nothing remotely realistic', using steroids, hitting a gum, putting on substantial muscle making you bigger, stronger, faster & fitter is real world achievable. It's even achievable without using steroids.

No. What they did in the movie is not achievable.

You can have a trained woman dressed in black but not doing what Black Widow did in the movie, like jumping in the air and catching a speeding Chitauri vehicle without pulling your arms out.

Of course there are elements of fantasy such as the increase in height, regeneration, super human like metabolism, however as I said this is one character that walks along a fine line between reality & fantasy.

Elements of fantasy are everywhere in Avengers. The tone of that movie, same as Spider-man 1 which you also mentioned, have nothing realistic. You keep talking about how Hawkeye is human. Like that alone gave a whole movie a realistic tone, because fantasy can't involve humans, right?

Again, you said 'There's absolutely nothing remotely realistic', I suggest you go watch archery at the Olympics next time it comes around to see how precise some of the contenders for gold are with their arrows.

Yes, none of them have Hawkeye super-human aim.

Also Black Widow has no super powers, so combat wise she's a woman that has good hand to hand combat skills & good with weapons. Nothing unrealistic or out of the ordinary with that.

No woman, no matter how trained she could be, can jump and catch speeding vehicles like she did.

I'm not saying Iron Man is more realistic by any means, he is more fiction than Batman. That being said, alot of Batman's equipment isn't realistic. Grappling hook, flexible stab/bullet proof suit, a material that can be a cape one minute & a gliding device the next, a bomb smaller than a golf ball that can blow a 6ft tall, 3 ft wide hole in a prison wall.. I mean the list goes on & on. I'll happily admit that Batman is the more realistic character, however lets not pretend that Batman Begins had a far superior realism to Iron Man 1 for example.

Finally you kind of realize there's no realism here.

Of course, however would everyone globally welcome him with open arms? I'm not so sure, especially since they don't know anything about him, where he's from, what he wants, what else he is capable of doing.

A man saves a lot of people. People boo him because they don't know his name/address/whatever?

You have a helicopter falling over you and you'll cheer whoever saves you.

I feel Man of Steel paints a far closer picture of what could happen if Superman actually existed. Some people would love him, but some would no doubt be scared & hesitant of accepting him given his immense power & capabilities, particularly people in charge of security of their country.

Like a crowd that was saved by him would applaud and cheer, a different man like Perry White would be more interested in finding out who he is and a man like Luthor would see him as a menace. All happened in STM.

 

[eyes]

Both movies have plot holes. At STM the major mistake was the ending scene but there are also other things that are considered plot hole to me. How Lex knew that kryptonite can stop Superman and how was he sure that the stone he got was kryptonite and how did he use it in such big plan without testing the results on Superman?
At MOS the whole krypton story is crap to me. Jor El steals easily an important tool for the planet and then beats Zod who is trained army man. Then he admits that he and Lara didnt travel to earth with their special child because the are products of a wrong system (birthing control) but they send the codex with him in order to continue the krypronian race. So won't the kryptonian be products of a wrong system? It is also good for his son to decide which bloodlines will survive but for Zod no. Also the rest kryptonians doesn't really care that an important tool of their planet is going to another planet and don't care to search for it and while they know their planet is going to be destroyed they send Zod and his people to PZ to survive ... This codex thing is the main plot of the movie and really doesnt sound good to me. And if I compare with STM I find the krypton story much better and reliable. When Zod was was sent to PZ Jor El said but he will survive while we will die and another scientist disagreed with him and council theaded him not to do something that will spead panic to people and he promised that he and Lara will not leave planet.
My next point is when you make origin movie you have to develop the main character. At MOS they failed. Let's say that I watch MOS and have no idea about superman's story what will i understand when i see a spaceship with baby coming to earth, then someone saving people at oil ring and then a kid having problems with superpowers at school? What has happened to the baby at spaceship? Who has found it who has raised it and why did they keep him?
Why is superman wearing glasses at the end of movie when so many people can already recognize him? And why is government trying to locate him when they already know that Lois knows about him? Isn't it easier to make her tell them about him ? So when you make a movie to introduce Superman to audience and you have a plot hole why he comes alone to earth, you dont show Kents finding him and you somehow is common secret his secret id you have failed to make a good Superman movie and you only made a movie with good action and effects.
This is why I consider STM a much better movie than MOS.