Marvel Studios will Go Head to Head with Batman vs. Superman

[Space Ghost]

The whole thing isn't subtle. Then it immediately cuts to a light hearted scene with the general. Don't really see how that addresses a hero killing and the repercussions.

He was obviously disturbed by what he did. That´s more than enough for us to know that killing isn´t something that pleases him. It´s not in his nature. It´s not something he will do unless he sees no choice. He is no punisher, and that was made very clear.

 

[Heretic]

What Superman did in Superman 2 is against what that character should be. What he did in Man of Steel is against what the character should be. I wouldn't use one to excuse the other.

And Cap (who for years was poorly defined as practically a Superman clone) is at his core a soldier. He shares an old fashioned worldview with Superman, but will kill when needed.

However, it is HILARIOUS when people suggest that it's okay that Superman did that stuff because it is what they would do or what they would want Superman to do. It shows such a poor understanding of the character (or at least a desire to define the character away from his definitive nature) that I am surprised that you'd even care to see a Superman film.

 

[Space Ghost]

What Superman did in Superman 2 is against what that character should be. What he did in Man of Steel is against what the character should be. I wouldn't use one to excuse the other.

The character is basically a human with super powers. It´s silly to expect "perfect" behaviour from any human.

 

[Heretic]

The character is basically a human with super powers. It´s silly to expect "perfect" behaviour from any human.

Not when it's Superman. He's so perfect that they call him The Man of Tomorrow...setting an example that we can only hope that we can learn from to improve upon our own nature. The most heroic people on earth call him the Big Blue Boy Scout for a reason. Like all Men of Today, we find the concept of a darn near Christ-like person kind of silly.

 

[Space Ghost]

Not when it's Superman. He's so perfect that they call him The Man of Tomorrow...setting an example that we can only hope that we can learn from to improve upon our own nature. The most heroic people on earth call him the Big Blue Boy Scout for a reason. Like all Men of Today, we find the concept of a darn near Christ-like person kind of silly.

You can´t objectively define perfection. That doesn´t exist. And not killing someone who is threatening the lifes of millions can´t be definied as an improvement of any sort.

And this Superman doesn´t follow the official storyline. This isn´t canon. This is an alternative universe, and if you create an alternative universe, you can also create alternative rules. That´s what happens in Elseworlds.

 

[Heretic]

You can´t objectively define perfection. That doesn´t exist. And not killing someone who is threatening the lifes of millions can´t be definied as an improvement of any sort.

And this Superman doesn´t follow the official storyline. This isn´t canon. This is an alternative universe, and if you create an alternative universe, you can also create alternative rules. That´s what happens in Elseworlds.

Wait...you mean that being perfectly moral isn't always the right path???

You see, Wonder Woman views Superman as a naive bumpkin. Her worldview is such that if someone is a threat, kill them.

Which one is right? Well...that is the point of there being two of them! Some readers will think that Superman is right, while others will side with Wonder Woman.

By giving Superman Wonder Woman's worldview, you make Wonder Woman obsolete...or worse...you turn her into a bikini model.

 

[Space Ghost]

Wait...you mean that being perfectly moral isn't always the right path???

You see, Wonder Woman views Superman as a naive bumpkin. Her worldview is such that if someone is a threat, kill them.

Which one is right? Well...that is the point of there being two of them! Some readers will think that Superman is right, while others will side with Wonder Woman.

By giving Superman Wonder Woman's worldview, you make Wonder Woman obsolete...or worse...you turn her into a bikini model.

I don´t think the movie told us that Superman thinks anyone who´s a threat should be killed. Maybe you didn´t pay attention.

 

[Heretic]

I don´t think the movie told us that Superman thinks anyone who´s a threat should be killed. Maybe you didn´t pay attention.

No, but it did teach us this...
If you can't out strategize a better strategist...if you can't come up with a way to rise above a seemingly impossible challenge...just use your superior strength to snap your problem's neck.

That is the OPPOSITE message than what Superman should be sending. Much of the reason for the character's existence is to tell people that there is hope where there is seemingly no hope. When going against a smarter opponent, rise above your imitations and outsmart them. He is meant to inspire us. Obviously we don't have his strength or powers...but the point of the character is that no matter what your disadvantages are, never give up or betray your core beliefs.

 

[Space Ghost]

I don´t like stories where the character is never put in a position where he has to make a critical decision, because that´s assuming there´s always an easy way out.

He killed Zod because he didn´t have any other option. That Superman, in that universe, in that story, didn´t have any other option. What´s the problem with putting Superman in a position where he really doesn´t have any other option? Does everything has to be convenient, pretty and clean? I don´t like that. To me he can snap all the necks he want. I could care less.

 

[Heretic]

Because first you must establish Superman before giving him a story that makes him break his own code. You have to first give him the code for it to have any weight to it. I assert that Superman should never break it, and when he has in the comics, it has been a terrible decision that everyone wishes never happened.

The thing is that you want Superman to be a different character than what he is...so Superman is not the character you should be reading. I'd like for Spawn to be a wise-cracking kid with bounce powers...so maybe I shouldn't be in charge of a Spawn movie? If you're going to write a Superman with a starkly different moral code, maybe you shouldn't be writing a Superman story.

Besides, Superman does have to make tough decisions. When he could just snap a neck, he has to find another way, because the reader is often powerless...so telling the reader "make sure you're physically stronger than your opponent" is not the right lesson from this character.

Let's say in 20 years you want to set up a Kingdom Come like story...where over a decade or two you've set where some heroes will kill and others wont, and they collide. Superman has no moral authority in that movie. He has proven that HE will kill, and then will tell others that they can't???

But who am I kidding??? DC doesn't have plans set for 2015, let alone 2035. We'll probably get another DC reboot before Marvel gets around to Thanos.

 

[Space Ghost]

Because first you must establish Superman before giving him a story that makes him break his own code. You have to first give him the code for it to have any weight to it. I assert that Superman should never break it, and when he has in the comics, it has been a terrible decision that everyone wishes never happened.

He doesn´t have a code in this story.

The thing is that you want Superman to be a different character than what he is...so Superman is not the character you should be reading. I'd like for Spawn to be a wise-cracking kid with bounce powers...so maybe I shouldn't be in charge of a Spawn movie? If you're going to write a Superman with a starkly different moral code, maybe you shouldn't be writing a Superman story.

Superman can be whatever the writer wants him to be. I like this version of Superman. I don´t care if there´s a rule in the comics that says he can never kill. To me that doesn´t seem practical in a story that takes place in a more grounded universe.

esides, Superman does have to make tough decisions. When he could just snap a neck, he has to find another way, because the reader is often powerless...so telling the reader "make sure you're physically stronger than your opponent" is not the right lesson from this character.

Nobody cares about lessons. This isn´t school. This is a movie about a super powered maniac trying to destroy an entire planet without mercy. Your idea that there´s always another option is not practical or realistic. There are situations where you don´t have another option. You either snap a neck or you see innocents die. You make the choice. It´s a pretty valid situation.

Let's say in 20 years you want to set up a Kingdom Come like story...where over a decade or two you've set where some heroes will kill and others wont, and they collide. Superman has no moral authority in that movie. He has proven that HE will kill, and then will tell others that they can't???

I don´t care about dumb moral codes. That doesn´t entertain me. I care about seeing Superman kick the bad guy´s ass. If he has to snap his neck, so be it. I don´t like fairy tales and i understand and accept the fact that there are situations where killing is the only option. I have no interest in stories where circumstances like that are completely ruled out. That´s for kids. I´m over 18.

But who am I kidding??? DC doesn't have plans set for 2015, let alone 2035. We'll probably get another DC reboot before Marvel gets around to Thanos.

Who cares? Their money, their characters, their problem. In 8 years i got 4 DC movies that i loved, so i´m good.

 

[mclay18]

No, but it did teach us this...
If you can't out strategize a better strategist...if you can't come up with a way to rise above a seemingly impossible challenge...just use your superior strength to snap your problem's neck.

Superman tried talking Zod down before that point, but Zod was enraged and had nothing else to lose after that point. I actually think more people would've been pissed had MOS ended similarly to CA:TWS than what actually happened. Redeeming Zod just wouldn't sit well with me, and I doubt the denizens of Metropolis would've been pleased either.

Maybe you should read what The Guard posted below...

I think both Cap's movies and MAN OF STEEL have done a nice job showing the relative contexts for certain actions of compassion VS violence/killing. However, I will say that MAN OF STEEL has the best "reaction to killing" sequence I've seen in a superhero film thus far, aside from maybe BATMAN FOREVER and the more recent Batman franchise, which then sort of abandoned that and brushed it under the rug when it happened. No other superhero movie has touched what MAN OF STEEL did in terms of actually addressing what it means to kill someone, IMO. This is something that, to date, the CAPTAIN AMERICA franchise has never really dealt with, and that's a shame, because I think it's a key element of Cap's makeup. The first movie should have dealt with it, and just kind of never did.

 

[Space Ghost]

Superman tried talking Zod down before that point, but Zod was enraged and had nothing else to lose after that point. I actually think more people would've been pissed had MOS ended similarly to CA:TWS than what actually happened. Redeeming Zod just wouldn't sit well with me, and I doubt the denizens of Metropolis would've been pleased either.

Maybe you should read what The Guard posted below...

I think what he is trying to say is that Superman could have found a way of defeating Zod without killing him. Like sending him back to the phantom zone or something like that.

The thing is: That´s the writer´s choice. The writer decides if he wants to provide the character with the necessary tools to do something like that. It´s about deciding what kind of options do you want to give to the character. The more options he has, the less interesting the story is for me.

If Superman had any other option, he probably would have take it. But the point of the story is that he didn´t have choice.

To say that Superman can´t kill usually means two things:

1- He is willing to let an innocent die

2- He can never be in a story where he faces a situation that gives him very few options.

 

[Heretic]

Space Ghost...you don't like Superman and are glad that they changed him. My point is that Superman is clearly not a character for you, and that is a mistake to change a character that drastically in hopes that people who dont like a character will start liking him. Next thing you know we'll get a Deadpool that can't talk but can teleport or something crazy like that.

McClay...I read that post, and I disagree with it. The movie did nothing to set up a "I don't want to kill" code in Superman...but instead it spent much of its run time devoted to Superman wanting to find out more about his home world and people. It is entirely possible that his scream was out of sadness that after a lifetime of searching, he ended up being responsible for killing everyone else from his planet. That is far different than having to break a solemn code of not killing. Besides, he was making out with Lois and cracking jokes soon after that, so no biggie. If they wanted me to think that he was devastated about having to take a life, they should have built him up better as someone who values life. Instead, we had a Clark who watched as a tornado killed his own father and did very little to save the people of Metropolis who weren't named Lois Lane.

Also, Captain America is a soldier. He kills bad guys.

 

[Heretic]

I think what he is trying to say is that Superman could have found a way of defeating Zod without killing him. Like sending him back to the phantom zone or something like that.

The thing is: That´s the writer´s choice. The writer decides if he wants to provide the character with the necessary tools to do something like that. It´s about deciding what kind of options do you want to give to the character. The more options he has, the less interesting the story is for me.

If Superman had any other option, he probably would have take it. But the point of the story is that he didn´t have choice.

To say that Superman can´t kill usually means two things:

1- He is willing to let an innocent die

2- He can never be in a story where he faces a situation that gives him very few options.

It's like a mystery or something. You know when you're watching a movie and thinking THERE IS NO WAY THEY ARE SOLVING THIS CRIME...and then they do??? That's what Superman should be. It should be a villain putting his back to the wall with no options, yet he finds one anyway because the writer cared enough to put in an option that you never thought of.

 

[Marvin]

^Yea....that's kinda what happened in the movie.

Superman tried talking Zod down before that point, but Zod was enraged and had nothing else to lose after that point. I actually think more people would've been pissed had MOS ended similarly to CA:TWS than what actually happened. Redeeming Zod just wouldn't sit well with me, and I doubt the denizens of Metropolis would've been pleased either.

I would have been interested in a story line in which Zod was kept alive and superman's captive in the fortress prison much to the dismay of the gov't and media and even Wondy. Superman's defense of the man would have been a good character opportunity in that idealism front. It would also be cool to see a broken zod, perhaps even regretful...Perhaps setting up for a redemption come Darksied or Doomsday.

Not saying that would be have been better but it's an idea I could get behind.

 

[Marvin]

Not when it's Superman. He's so perfect...

This sort of thing and people thinking it probably explains the superman book sales this last few decades. Probably explains the movies inability to connect with audiences over the years as well. Even marvel's smart enough not to let their own boy scout be such a thing. It's not conducive to engaging/relatable characterization.

Secondly, not having superman be the god that can figure his way out of any situation, regardless of how impossible it is, hardly turns him into wonderwoman(the walking Greek myth, blood soaked killer and warrior princess turned peace ambassador), nor does it make her existence obsolete for she doesn't exist to simply fill a singular role in the universe opposite superman, she exists to tell her own stories.

Superman begged zod at the very end no to let it come to that, he then broke down and cried after the fact. If you think that's wonder woman ver.2 you're kidding yourself.

Turns her into a bikini model
How you write superman turns her into a bikini model...

Let's say in 20 years you want to set up a Kingdom Come like story...where over a decade or two you've set where some heroes will kill and others wont, and they collide. Superman has no moral authority in that movie. He has proven that HE will kill, and then will tell others that they can't???

Let's say they don't want to set up a Kingdom Come like story. Problem solved.

But If I may entertain that premise. Coming out of this ordeal it's very likely superman will be bound to never take another life and with a clear motivation, as is the trope. How that doesn't play exactlly into your little Kindomcome scenario is beyond...I say that cause that's kinda the exact way it happened in KC.

 

[Heretic]

This sort of thing and people thinking it probably explains the superman book sales this last few decades. Probably explains the movies inability to connect with audiences over the years as well. Even marvel's smart enough not to let their own boy scout be such a thing. It's not conducive to engaging/relatable characterization.

Secondly, not having superman be the god that can figure his way out of any situation, regardless of how impossible it is, hardly turns him into wonderwoman(the walking Greek myth, blood soaked killer and warrior princess turned peace ambassador), nor does it make her existence obsolete for she doesn't exist to simply fill a singular role in the universe opposite superman, she exists to tell her own stories.

Superman begged zod at the very end no to let it come to that, he then broke down and cried after the fact. If you think that's wonder woman ver.2 you're kidding yourself.

Turns her into a bikini model
How you write superman turns her into a bikini model...

Let's say they don't want to set up a Kingdom Come like story. Problem solved.

But If I may entertain that premise. Coming out of this ordeal it's very likely superman will be bound to never take another life and with a clear motivation, as is the trope. How that doesn't play exactlly into your little Kindomcome scenario is beyond...I say that cause that's kinda the exact way it happened in KC.

Superman IS an easy character to love. He appeals to our desire to be greater than we are. Superman is Christlike, and Christ is one of the most enduring characters in history. The problem is that Batman is much, much cooler than Jesus...so instead of inspiring people they'd rather make people think the character is cool. Superman is not cool. He's not supposed to be. The only people who think he should be are people who don't like him. I don't like Ghost Rider, but I'm not suggesting that they appeal to me by dropping the motorcycle and flaming skull. I understand that Ghost Rider is not a character for me, and I don't demand that the company change him to possibly make me like him.

What makes the Trinity the Trinity is how they play off of each other, not the fact that one is an alien and one is a god. No, it is their outlooks that set them apart. That awesome scene where Wonder Woman snaps Maxwell Lord's neck because she recognizes the danger of not killing him? This Man of Steel would do the exact same thing. There is SUPPOSED to be a disagreement there between them. If there isn't, then they serve the same purpose. If the movies are planning to flip the script...making Superman the warrior and Wonder Woman the one who won't kill...then that is robbing her of part of makes her so hardcore. Snyder is not a good director of women...so I can easily see a scenario where Wonder Woman becomes a Fighting **** Doll whose only purpose is to look sexy.

Again...you only know that Superman feels remorse over killing because of the long history of Superman. THIS movie gave us no reason to believe that he wouldn't kill. He's a Boy Scout who watches people die. Every bit of evidence in the film suggests that he screamed in agony because the last vestiges of his home world and any chance for him to learn about it was destroyed by his hands.

 

[Marvin]

You are describing what it is about superman that appeals to you and prescribing it as some mandate. Alot of different people take away alot of different things that they love about the character, without you proclaiming what that is for us. You're also using all this talk of the Christ allegory to describe your perfect superman, when superman has never (ever) been perfect. For example if superman really was to meet this criteria one would have to look past the fact that he functions above the law given his vigilante status, we'd have to look past the daily lying he does to friends and loved ones alike, and we'd have to look past the bloody violence he resorts to on a regular occasion whilst the jesus of scripture, practiced non violence even in the face of self destruction. I can look at all of that and go on claim any particular superman story isn't christ enough to get an endorsement but that would be silly imo.

As for needing him to inspire us, you don't need to be perfect to inspire. I know for a fact that Spiderman, one of the most flawed characters in fiction, inspires all sorts of people to be better at who they are or what they do. There are columns and poems about this. So if you are going to go on about him NEEDING TO INSPIRE, A non fully formed perfect character can and will still work. Hell Cap inspires people and he's far from perfect.

The Maxwell Lord situation was very different than what you were given in MOS. For starters, it wasn't the world at sake, it was actually just wonder woman, Superman would have rather his live be taken than some evil man, there are other heroes around if worse comes to worse, wonderwoman has so many options(including living in a kryptonite ridden universe)....And most importantly, it was about how Diana acted after the fact. Very different than how superman was conveyed in MOS(see non self righteous remorse).
As for the movies planning to flip the script...again with the baseless assertion.

I know superman feels remorse over killing because of the remorse he shows after killing! But if I may,
Curious, just what do you think SUPERMAN thinks happened to the rest of zods crew? I mean surely he doesn't think them dead otherwise when he thought zod was zapped away with the rest of them he would have been crying over being alone correct? So that means he knows they are still out there somewhere and Zod being dead isn't indicative to him as being the last one(also something he was at peace with mid way through the film). Zods death affects him for one very clear and obvious reason. Like other characters that have taken a life for the first time. Unless of course you are Steve Rogers, or Wonder Woman. Superman is different, yay.

As for him being the boy scout that watches people die? I don't follow.

As for the actual topic of this thread, I should say there is no way the films are going open on the same day so it's kinda pointless. What's more, when DC announces things lately they tend to steal the show. Should be interesting seeing where the tide sits come comic con.

 

[The Endless]

It seems people feel that Superman has to have his character compromised to be interesting.

Maybe you're not fans of Superman at all.

I mean space ghost, if all you want to see is Superman "kicking ass" then well, you're completely missing the point of the character. The whole purpose of Superman is to inspire hope, to inspire people into being better than what they are. Not just in the comics, but in this movie, as Jor-El says.

It's kind of THE core aspect of the Superman character. You take that away, he's not Superman. He one of the dozen or so Superman rip offs.

 

[Marvin]

It seems people feel that Superman has to have his character compromised to be interesting.

Maybe you're not fans of Superman at all.

Compromised?

More like, there are people that feel superman needs to be perfect to be superman. Perhaps they need read some more superman books. No need to get into the breadth of live action filmography for it seemingly doesn't exist anymore...

 

[The Endless]

Superman doesn't have to be PERFECT. But he should aspire to be perfect. That is the whole point of the character. You take away the fact that he will try to defy the impossible, that he is full of hope and wishes to inspire hope... that simply isn't Superman.

If all you want is to see Superman kicking ass in super powered brawls go watch Dragonball or read Gladiator, Sentry or Majestic comics.

 

[Marvin]

We got plenty of the former in MOS.
Plenty of the latter in all the other superhero films these days.

And the whole point of the character isn't to aspire to be perfect, I would hope there is more to it than that. That's like saying the whole point of batman/spiderman/cap is to aspire to be "". When it comes to the entire point of a literary character I think there is more going on.

 

[The Endless]

Of course there is. But a key aspect of those characters can some times be one word. Batman? Obsession. Spider-Man? Responsibility. Superman? Hope.

 

[Marvin]

Describing a character in a word is veryyy different than asserting it as 'the entire point' of said character.

Secondly, when you are dealing with complex characters, I personally don't see it as so simple. From Walter White to even this batman example; I wasn't aware 'the' key aspect was 'obsession'. That being said, being imperfect hardly qualifies the superman character from attaining the this key aspect of 'hope'.

The tale of a child that shouldn't exist in the first place surviving an interstellar trip and landing in just the right place to end up a hero in spite of a nasty environment....faced with his own people and sanctuary, chooses humanity and to near impossibly save the world on 2 separate occasions and choosing to go on doing so as a living. I can see some remnant of 'hope' existing somewhere in there. If people choose to see it or now is becoming more and more a matter of prerogative

I'm glad we have moved away from 'perfection' and are now onto the matter of hope. Far more interesting and accurate imo.