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

[Heretic]

The funny thing is that Man of Steel paid huge lip service to what Superman is, and then never actually showed it on screen. It's like "hey, you know what he's all about...but we're too lazy or uninterested to write that...so just accept it and we'll do something else that seems more interesting to us."

Not all of us can be aliens empowered by a yellow sun. Not all of us can be raised by the perfect family. The point is that when watching or reading Superman you should come away feeling that YOU can be better than you are...that YOU can become the Man of Tomorrow. Our most powerful hero is meant to inspire the weakest of his fans. You don't do that with brute strength snapping a (presumably since he was not exposed to our sun as long) weaker man's neck.

Superman would not stand there and watch as a tornado killed a man, forget that it's his dad. Heck, the Kents never would have considered the concept of "maybe you should let people die." The movie takes the point of view that what makes him special is the fact that he is Kryptonian. No, no, no. What makes him special is that he is THAT good of a man. You and I shouldn't make the same decisions that he makes. He sees things on another level that Men of Today can't see. The argument that the Man of Tomorrow should be changed to match the opinions of Men of Today robs him of what makes him such a great character. But I get it...neck snapping is cool.

 

[Marvin]

Not all of us can be aliens empowered by a yellow sun. Not all of us can be raised by the perfect family. The point is that when watching or reading Superman you should come away feeling that YOU can be better than you are...that YOU can become the Man of Tomorrow. Our most powerful hero is meant to inspire the weakest of his fans. You don't do that with brute strength snapping a (presumably since he was not exposed to our sun as long) weaker man's neck.

That's really the point when reading Superman? For point of reference, could you explain what the point is as you see it when reading Captain America?
You are right however, you don't attain such things with simple brute strength and snapping of necks you do it with other things. See the rest of MOS plot, imagery and allusion for these such things. As for this 'weaker than' argument. Few of superman's opponents are actually stronger than him(including doomsday) yet that doesn't stop him from beating on them/unconscious. Guess that's another failure of character out right he's a 'bully'. But if we must go there, Zod was the superior warrior and there was the little bit of the film just prior when superman was seemingly out of power and reaching for the sun? Out of power....

Superman would not stand there and watch as a tornado killed a man, forget that it's his dad. Heck, the Kents never would have considered the concept of "maybe you should let people die." The movie takes the point of view that what makes him special is the fact that he is Kryptonian. No, no, no. What makes him special is that he is THAT good of a man. You and I shouldn't make the same decisions that he makes. He sees things on another level that Men of Today can't see. The argument that the Man of Tomorrow should be changed to match the opinions of Men of Today robs him of what makes him such a great character. But I get it...neck snapping is cool.

1) Superman wasn't on the scene, a young boy was. I'm certain this is the crux of the issue. You folks and your endless preconceptions about the perfect all star god have very little to do with the 17 year old boy that would become superman. I can only imagine what you would have expected of a 6 year old superman in the same situation.
2) He was actually diving in to save his dad till his father told him not to. I'd imagine superman is a good son as well given how perfect he is an all that..

How does the movie make the point that what makes him special lies in his genetics? All those heroic choices he makes seemingly derive from who he is as a person. The kid that saved all those kids on the bus is 'a good man' Period, nothing else. If any other kid on that bus had those powers, namely pete ross....
When kids bully him and he doesn't hit them back what is that? His kryptonian powers? I'd argue it's a matter of his disposition...It's all there for you but you are choosing to see it your own way.

Unless you are willing to sacrifice your life tomorrow, than you aren't making the same choices as superman did.

 

[dark_b]

CA3 will move to april and BvS will go to july (WB likes july) . everyone is happy and both movies brake records. the fanboy world is saved.............for now.

 

[Heretic]

First of all...this is all opinion. However, I personally feel that when a character has been given a "definitive" take, then that should remain intact. It would be "wrong" to write a Batman story where he uses guns, despite him doing exactly that many years ago. It's generally accepted that a definitive Batman has been created. I feel that a definitive Superman has also been created, and while you can play around with certain things, those core aspects should be there.

Obviously the primary point of any fiction is to entertain...but yes, Superman should inspire the reader. Captain America has often been portrayed as Marvel's Big Blue Boy Scout...but I've never felt that this was an accurate portrayal. However, Captain America (to me anyway) is an excellent vehicle for showing what is great and bad about America. His worldview is from a more innocent time, but a time of war. Therefore, he can easily be shown as rah rah Americana...or just as easily be used as commentary against drones and spying on citizens (which was done quite well in The Winter Soldier).

I never said that Superman should never use his strength. However, the stories tend to be less impactful when Superman destroys a bank robber. Superman has severe weaknesses that can be exploited. Zod could have made a habit out of throwing civilians out of windows, and as Superman went to save each one, blasted him. Use his high morality against him. However...you mention that Zod is a great military mind, which according to the film is in his DNA. However, a man who is a scientist (again, encoded in his DNA) stands toe to toe against him on Krypton. Zod's plan was kind of silly, considering the other, smarter options...and in fact his plan ended up killing him, destroying everything his people had left and sending his army back to the phantom zone. Not such a military genius after all.

That last part reveals a lot about how you view Superman though. You claim that Superman didn't watch his dad die, a young Clark did. Yeah, and thats a huge problem with the movie. In the film, Superman is special because he is of Kryptonian birth, and he must slowly learn to become a hero through trial and error, making mistakes etc. In fact, Superman was RAISED a hero. A normal family would have raised a bully, a tyrant...but the Kents were the EXACT right family to raise a man so selfless, so dedicated, that he would spend his life saving the world instead of ruling it. The assertion that he must somehow learn to be a hero is wrong because the REAL Kents taught him to be a hero from the day they found him as a baby. The Kents are screwed worse than Clark by this film.

And for the record...I have put my life in danger for others. I don't have super powers either. In fact, I can honestly say that I am a BETTER man than Clark Kent in Man of Steel. I have been so down on my luck in the past that I would be ashamed to discuss it on a public forum, yet I would never consider stealing someone's belongings like Clark did. If I did have power, I would not destroy untold thousands of dollars in property because some guy was a jerk, especially considering that it would be impossible for him to even know that someone had done it because he was being rude. I should not be a better man than the Man of Tomorrow.

 

[Space Ghost]

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.

If Superman is never put in a position where he has no other option, we can´t really know if he is willing to kill or not. It´s easy not to kill when you don´t have to. What if you don´t have a choice? What would Superman do? That´s the dilemma Zack Snyder wanted to present to us. He wanted to present us with a situation where Superman would only have two options. That´s something we rarely see, since writers always try to facilitate things for Superman. Personally, i don´t like that.

You say Superman is meant to inspire hope, and that´s exactly what he does by saving people from situations like that. Do you think that by showing that there´s a god on earth that´s willing to protect them, he isn´t inspiring hope?

"Oh, he inspires hope by being a good person"

WRONG! That´s not what the comics are all about. That´s not why we buy them. That´s not why they exist. For most people Superman is a guy with super powers that beats up bad guys. That´s what they take from the stories, because that´s the prevailing image of Superman. That´s what we see the most. We see him saving people and beating up punks. That´s what entertains.

Now, let me ask you something:

You think killing is morally wrong and Superman shouldn´t do it. He is perfect, so he should always find another way, because killing sends the wrong message. What about kicking and punching and destroying? Is that morally right? What message does that send to people? If he is so perfect, shouldn´t he also find another way instead of resorting to physical violence?

Following your logic, Superman should simply be a humanitarian as peaceful as a monk. He shouldn´t use violence at all. That doesn´t send a good message. That´s not my idea of a "perfect man". A perfect man would never lay a finger on anybody, good or bad.


BTW: A character with no flaws is as interesting as a story with no conflict.

 

[mclay18]

CA3 will move to april and BvS will go to july (WB likes july) . everyone is happy and both movies brake records. the fanboy world is saved.............for now.

If WB wanted this out in July, they would've pushed it back a full year. Whoever budges will ultimately move up to April.

On one hand, I can't see WB moving this back to June or July... June 2016 is getting as packed as it was in 2013. WB already has Tarzan slated for July 1, which they can move back two weeks for their mid-July release.

The reception to MOS was mixed, but it turned in a nice profit even with the intense summer competition in 2013. WB can easily move BvS up to April and stake claim as the first major blockbuster of 2016. Take advantage of the off-peak month and rake in the dough. The casting news, plus the novelty of the concept, has people talking. Good or worse, it has that in its favor.

 

[LordofhouseEl]

The funny thing is that Man of Steel paid huge lip service to what Superman is, and then never actually showed it on screen. It's like "hey, you know what he's all about...but we're too lazy or uninterested to write that...so just accept it and we'll do something else that seems more interesting to us."

Not all of us can be aliens empowered by a yellow sun. Not all of us can be raised by the perfect family. The point is that when watching or reading Superman you should come away feeling that YOU can be better than you are...that YOU can become the Man of Tomorrow. Our most powerful hero is meant to inspire the weakest of his fans. You don't do that with brute strength snapping a (presumably since he was not exposed to our sun as long) weaker man's neck.

Superman would not stand there and watch as a tornado killed a man, forget that it's his dad. Heck, the Kents never would have considered the concept of "maybe you should let people die." The movie takes the point of view that what makes him special is the fact that he is Kryptonian. No, no, no. What makes him special is that he is THAT good of a man. You and I shouldn't make the same decisions that he makes. He sees things on another level that Men of Today can't see. The argument that the Man of Tomorrow should be changed to match the opinions of Men of Today robs him of what makes him such a great character. But I get it...neck snapping is cool.

Awesome post and couldn't agree more.

 

[Heretic]

Space Ghost,

1. You're not getting it. Superman is the guy who finds a way when there is no way. That's why you need a good writer who understands the character. It's just such a cop-out to have him snap a neck because I'm not good enough to imagine another way to win.

2. People who see Superman as just a guy who beats people up don't get Superman. Yes, he does that, but he's more than that. Being the first and best hero, he deserves to be more than that.

3. Who said that I think that killing is wrong? If I were Superman, I'd kill. That's the difference between me and someone called the Man of Tomorrow. You aren't getting that Superman's morality is not necessarily correct in everyone's eyes. As I mentioned, that is why he has an opposing morality to Wonder Woman. The difference is that while I agree with Wonder Woman's code, I look to Superman as the man I wish I could be...the man I wish we could all be. At the moment though, we're not, so Wonder Woman's tactics make more sense to me. Superman is not a realist. He lives in a world that he wishes existed. He's naive and frankly, I think that his code puts people in needless danger. You say "has no flaws" without understanding that being close to perfect is his greatest weakness, his biggest flaw.

But total nonviolence isn't the answer. Even Jesus got violent once in the Bible, and Superman is not quite Jesus.

 

[Space Ghost]

1. You're not getting it. Superman is the guy who finds a way when there is no way. That's why you need a good writer who understands the character. It's just such a cop-out to have him snap a neck because I'm not good enough to imagine another way to win.

Bad writers present their characters with limitless tools, so they never have to find themselves in a tough spot.

The only thing different between Clark and any other human is that he has powers. In this film that´s the difference. He is an alien, not a god. He is stronger than regular people. That´s all.

What did you want him to do? Send Zod to jail? There is no prison that could hold him. Send him back to the phantom zone? Clark doesn´t have the scientific knowledge nor the technical resources to do that. He was raised by humans, so he is similar to them in almost every aspect, except he is stronger and faster.

2. People who see Superman as just a guy who beats people up don't get Superman. Yes, he does that, but he's more than that. Being the first and best hero, he deserves to be more than that.

Then people who write comics and cartoons should do a better job, because the thing that defines superman for most people is not the idea that he is kind and unable to kill. And you know why? Because he spends more time crashing and baging than reinforcing those values. The idea of Superman sells because he has super powers and fights evil, not because he doesn´t kill.

3. Who said that I think that killing is wrong? If I were Superman, I'd kill. That's the difference between me and someone called the Man of Tomorrow. You aren't getting that Superman's morality is not necessarily correct in everyone's eyes. As I mentioned, that is why he has an opposing morality to Wonder Woman. The difference is that while I agree with Wonder Woman's code, I look to Superman as the man I wish I could be...the man I wish we could all be. At the moment though, we're not, so Wonder Woman's tactics make more sense to me. Superman is not a realist. He lives in a world that he wishes existed. He's naive and frankly, I think that his code puts people in needless danger. You say "has no flaws" without understanding that being close to perfect is his greatest weakness, his biggest flaw.

I think you´re too hung up on your own personal idea of Superman.

You said he doesn´t kill because he is so perfect. He always finds another way. He is perfect. No flaws at all. Too kind and too perfect to kill.

And why is he perfect? Is he a god? No, he is an Alien. His race was not perfect, so why should he be? Are kryptonians perfect? No! Are humans perfect? No! So, why should Clark Kent be perfect?

But total nonviolence isn't the answer. Even Jesus got violent once in the Bible, and Superman is not quite Jesus.

The story of jesus is not made of him kicking people´s ass. Superman´s is. Superman beats people up in his stories. He is an ACTION hero. He solves problems by inflicting physical pain. That´s his main appeal. You take that away and there´s no Superman.

Is that your Man of Tomorrow? Aren´t you contradicting yourself quite a bit? The Man of Tomorrow, the perfect man, spends 80% of his time beating up punks? Is that the great message that The Man of Tomorrow sends to people?

Why can´t he find another way? If he is Superman, if he is so perfect, if he is The Man of Tomorrow, why does everything with him ends up with a fist fight? You know, solving things through violence is a pretty human behaviour, so by doing it, Superman isn´t being that different from any other man.

So, is he The Man of Tomorrow or what? The Man of Tomorrow is basically a guy who solves his problems through physical violence but doesn´t kill? Maybe i´m The Man of Tomorrow too. Sometimes i do the same thing. I´m violent but i don´t kill. I´m Superman. And most people i know are Superman too. Sometimes they end up in fist fights, but they don´t kill.

 

[Heretic]

Killing your bad guys is the ultimate "limitless tool." That's why most superhero movies end with the villain dead. You think its lazier to actually put in the effort to come up with another solution???

EVERY superhero has huge fights (except Lethargic Lad, I suppose). We all buy the books for the fights. However, you seem to be suggesting that because all superheroes fight, that they are all basically the same. Superman in particular should not be the same. He's the guy that when he walks in the room, every other superhero's jaw hits the floor.

This isn't MY idea of Superman. It is the definitive take on Superman. People who don't like Superman want to change that, and I say...go read Wolverine or Ghost Rider or thousands of other characters. Superman is one of the few who shouldn't fit into that little box of "cool" that everyone else does. The assertion that he should be like everyone else is just not what the character is. Had he landed in ANY OTHER field he would be a bully or tyrant. It is his SPECIFIC upbringing that makes him the way he is. By reducing him to a Man of Today, you are robbing the Kents of what make them special, and stealing Superman's rightful place as the Big Blue Boy Scout who makes every other hero's jaw drop.

Superman fights to defend. There is nothing immoral about that. As I mentioned before, had Zod routinely thrown people out of windows, Superman would be forced to save them, and then Zod could just wail on Clark, and Clark would be unable to defend himself because he'd rather endure the attack than drop a person. But as I said...even Jesus used violence in one of the very few stories we have about him. Superman isn't Jesus, though there is clear biblical connotations to his character.

 

[Space Ghost]

No. You asked me what message does snapping a neck sends. And i ask you: what message solving things through violence sends?

Remember that you said: "Superman is the guy who finds a way when there is no way"

So, are you contradicting yourself or not? He doesn´t kill because he ALWAYS finds another way, no matter what. However, he can´t find another way besides fighting? I´m sorry, pal, but that´s a big double standard.

One more thing:

There´s no definitive version of Superman. We have thousands and thousands of stories about the man. Not every single one of those stories tell us that he can´t possible kill and that he always finds a way. Yeah, almost ALL characters always find away, but that´s simply because they were originally created to entertain kids. That´s all. Many times writers are forced to write a character in a certain way. And not because that´s the character´s nature, but because doing it any other way would be controversial.

So, the idea behind Superman isn´t: "well, let´s create a man so pure and perfect that he doesn´t kill and always finds a way. Let´s inspire people. Let´s create hope."No! The idea was: "Let´s create a cool character with superpowers so we can sell some comics, but make sure he doesn´t kill too often, cause you don´t want to piss people off."



There are many takes on Superman. In some of those takes he is, indeed, exactly what you said. In other takes, he isn´t, and sometimes he even kills. You´re basically choosing the takes and storylines that please you the most and trying to pass them as the only valid approach to the character, wich pretty much makes you wrong.

Remember that DC and Warner own the character. They decide who the character is and what he can or cannot do. Zack Snyder´s approach was well received by DC. To the owners of Superman, Zack Snyder´s character IS Superman. So, what are you complaining about?

 

[Hush]

I don't want either studio to budge, I like the idea of both coming out on the same day. I really don't know if one will budge, if DC REALLY wants to hurt Marvels BO they will stay.

 

[Heretic]

No. You asked me what message does snapping a neck sends. And i ask you: what message solving things through violence sends?

Remember that you said: "Superman is the guy who finds a way when there is no way"

So, are you contradicting yourself or not? He doesn´t kill because he ALWAYS finds another way, no matter what. However, he can´t find another way besides fighting? I´m sorry, pal, but that´s a big double standard.

One more thing:

There´s no definitive version of Superman. We have thousands and thousands of stories about the man. Not every single one of those stories tell us that he can´t possible kill and that he always finds a way. Yeah, almost ALL characters always find away, but that´s simply because they were originally created to entertain kids. That´s all. Many times writers are forced to write a character in a certain way. And not because that´s the character´s nature, but because doing it any other way would be controversial.

So, the idea behind Superman isn´t: "well, let´s create a man so pure and perfect that he doesn´t kill and always finds a way. Let´s inspire people. Let´s create hope."No! The idea was: "Let´s create a cool character with superpowers so we can sell some comics, but make sure he doesn´t kill too often, cause you don´t want to piss people off."



There are many takes on Superman. In some of those takes he is, indeed, exactly what you said. In other takes, he isn´t, and sometimes he even kills. You´re basically choosing the takes and storylines that please you the most and trying to pass them as the only valid approach to the character, wich pretty much makes you wrong.

Remember that DC and Warner own the character. They decide who the character is and what he can or cannot do. Zack Snyder´s approach was well received by DC. To the owners of Superman, Zack Snyder´s character IS Superman. So, what are you complaining about?

It's not a double standard. When someone seeks to harm others, you often are forced to restrain them. But just as a cop will try to talk a criminal out, sometimes they have to wrestle them to the ground. They dont always have to shoot them. You believe that this idea of Superman is so simplistic that you think its a double standard, but I dont. No wonder you want Superman to be more like every other character.

There are many different versions of Superman...but when I say Big Blue Boy Scout or Man of Tomorrow you instantly know who I'm talking about. Thats because he has been defined. If I say The Dark Knight, you know I'm talking about Batman...so he has to be a darker character or it no longer makes sense. The goofy Batman of days gone by no longer fits and should not be forced into existence. If characterization doesn't matter, then why does it ever matter? Why can't Deadpool be a merc with no mouth who teleports and shoots eye beams? Why can't we turn The Punisher into a happy go lucky guy?

And what do you mean most characters find a way to not kill? Most villains end up dead in the movies, and many heroes (especially in the past few decades) will kill at the drop of a hat.

However, one of my big problems with DC is that they can't embrace who they are. They have been desperately trying to become Marvel for decades. They are ashamed of their own characters and fresh out of ideas, which is why they make money off of logos rather than stories and characters.

 

[Space Ghost]

It's not a double standard. When someone seeks to harm others, you often are forced to restrain them. But just as a cop will try to talk a criminal out, sometimes they have to wrestle them to the ground. They dont always have to shoot them. You believe that this idea of Superman is so simplistic that you think its a double standard, but I dont. No wonder you want Superman to be more like every other character.

Killing isn´t the first option for any police officer. But they do kill if they don´t see any other way. The same can be applied to Superman. He doesn´t want to kill. To him, that´s not the first option. That´s why you see a look of desperation on his face. That´s why he screams STOP!!! STOOOOP!!! He wants Zod to stop. He doesn´t want to kill him. He only kills him because he sees no other option.

Like Zod said: "There's only one way this ends, Kal. Either you die, or I do."

Zod is powerful, and this is a new situation for Clark. At that point, he is just a regular guy that not too long ago discovered he is an alien. What was he supposed to do, in this situation and in this story? He used the only tool he had to save people, and that´s his power. By that time, he wasn´t even Superman.

And like i said, it is a double standard because you said Superman always finds another way, but then you seem fine with him not finding another way to solve problems without fighting. If he is The Man of Tomorrow, he doesn´t need to fight.

There are many different versions of Superman...but when I say Big Blue Boy Scout or Man of Tomorrow you instantly know who I'm talking about. Thats because he has been defined. If I say The Dark Knight, you know I'm talking about Batman...so he has to be a darker character or it no longer makes sense. The goofy Batman of days gone by no longer fits and should not be forced into existence. If characterization doesn't matter, then why does it ever matter? Why can't Deadpool be a merc with no mouth who teleports and shoots eye beams? Why can't we turn The Punisher into a happy go lucky guy?

Characterization matters and we saw it in MOS. Like in the comics, he is Clark Kent, kryptonian who develops super powers on earth and fights evil forces. Like in the comics, he is a good guy. Like in the comics, he has a blue and red suit with a cape. The main characteristics that defines him are all there. Killing or not killing is simply a circumstantial issue. And he HAS Killed in the comics, so your argument isn´t even valid. The comics already told us that he can kill. He avoids to, but if he has to do it, he will do it.

And what do you mean most characters find a way to not kill? Most villains end up dead in the movies, and many heroes (especially in the past few decades) will kill at the drop of a hat.

Movies have a more liberal approach. Comics were originally created with kids in mind and some of the most popular stories were written in times where killing someone in a comic book wasn´t very well accepted. That´s why we rarely see Batman or Superman kill someone in the comics. It´s not because they´re too perfect to do it. It´s because the publisher company doesn´t wanna get into trouble. Can you even understand that?

 

[Heretic]

Your knowledge of Superman's character is either rudimentary, or you just don't like the definitive take on the character. It's not that he's a good guy. He's the best guy.

But you're right. Zod put Superman in a position where it was "compromise your principals or you can't stop me." Superman compromised his principles. Again, Superman should out-think a smarter guy, not fall into the guy's trap and play by that guy's rules.

And characters in both DC and Marvel kill on a regular basis. Batman and Superman don't kill because that isn't how they do things. Neither company is afraid of getting into trouble. Wolverine will stab a guy in the face. There is a different set of rules for certain guys.

 

[Space Ghost]

That wasn´t Superman. That was Clark Kent. That wasn´t the established character. That was the character in his first fight ever.

You didn´t answer my question. If Superman always outsmarts people, why does he need to fight? If he finds a way out when there´s no way out, why does he need to fight?

I answer you that: Because that´s not part of the characterization of the character. Superman can´t outsmart everyone. Superman can´t always find a way out. That´s why he needs to punch people in the face. He needs to punch people in the face because he wasn´t smart enough to find another way of dealing with the threat.

You´re basically looking at the stories you love the most about the character and deciding that those are the ones that matter. But the FACT is, Superman wasn´t created with the purpose that you mentioned. The FACT is, Superman´s hypothetical moral values are not his most distinct characteristic; his strenght and power are. The first Superman issue in Action Comics is about him beating people up and being strong. It´s not about him being The Man of Tomorrow. It´s not about him being what we should be. It´s not about him being a genius that always finds a way.

So, as you can see, you can do it the Zack Snyder way and still be faithful to the comics, since there are many portrayals of the character, and the fact that you like one better than the other doesn´t make you right and everyone else wrong.

 

[venom892]

First of all...this is all opinion. However, I personally feel that when a character has been given a "definitive" take, then that should remain intact. It would be "wrong" to write a Batman story where he uses guns, despite him doing exactly that many years ago. It's generally accepted that a definitive Batman has been created. I feel that a definitive Superman has also been created, and while you can play around with certain things, those core aspects should be there.

Obviously the primary point of any fiction is to entertain...but yes, Superman should inspire the reader. Captain America has often been portrayed as Marvel's Big Blue Boy Scout...but I've never felt that this was an accurate portrayal. However, Captain America (to me anyway) is an excellent vehicle for showing what is great and bad about America. His worldview is from a more innocent time, but a time of war. Therefore, he can easily be shown as rah rah Americana...or just as easily be used as commentary against drones and spying on citizens (which was done quite well in The Winter Soldier).

I never said that Superman should never use his strength. However, the stories tend to be less impactful when Superman destroys a bank robber. Superman has severe weaknesses that can be exploited. Zod could have made a habit out of throwing civilians out of windows, and as Superman went to save each one, blasted him. Use his high morality against him. However...you mention that Zod is a great military mind, which according to the film is in his DNA. However, a man who is a scientist (again, encoded in his DNA) stands toe to toe against him on Krypton. Zod's plan was kind of silly, considering the other, smarter options...and in fact his plan ended up killing him, destroying everything his people had left and sending his army back to the phantom zone. Not such a military genius after all.

That last part reveals a lot about how you view Superman though. You claim that Superman didn't watch his dad die, a young Clark did. Yeah, and thats a huge problem with the movie. In the film, Superman is special because he is of Kryptonian birth, and he must slowly learn to become a hero through trial and error, making mistakes etc. In fact, Superman was RAISED a hero. A normal family would have raised a bully, a tyrant...but the Kents were the EXACT right family to raise a man so selfless, so dedicated, that he would spend his life saving the world instead of ruling it. The assertion that he must somehow learn to be a hero is wrong because the REAL Kents taught him to be a hero from the day they found him as a baby. The Kents are screwed worse than Clark by this film.

And for the record...I have put my life in danger for others. I don't have super powers either. In fact, I can honestly say that I am a BETTER man than Clark Kent in Man of Steel. I have been so down on my luck in the past that I would be ashamed to discuss it on a public forum, yet I would never consider stealing someone's belongings like Clark did. If I did have power, I would not destroy untold thousands of dollars in property because some guy was a jerk, especially considering that it would be impossible for him to even know that someone had done it because he was being rude. I should not be a better man than the Man of Tomorrow.

I'm not a huge Superman fan, but I completely agree with this. If someone wants to see how Superman should be potrayed they should watch Superman vs. The Elite. It shows you everything the Man of Steel is and the ideals he stands for.

 

[Heretic]

He fights because he isn't a pushover.

And Clark Kent is the reason why Superman doesn't kill. Clark Kent IS his true personality. He was raised that way from birth. He doesn't have to kill to realize that he shouldn't kill.

However, Zod basically said "I want to die and will make you kill me" and Superman killed him. In other words, Zod won. Zod outsmarted a dumber opponent. He backed Superman into a corner and Superman gave up.

People always bring up that Superman used to torture etc in the comics. Yes...and Batman used to shoot a gun. That doesn't mean that either are correct just because they are old. Characters often take decades to truly find their footing.

But I understand that there is no way to convince you. You don't think that Superman is inherently any different from Spawn or Wolverine or The Punisher or anyone else. You like what you like, and you want all characters to fit into that little box. I want all characters to be unique, and that means that each will have their own defining characters besides "S on his chest."

 

[Marvin]

^Clark Kent is the true personality? Is this another definitive or simply your preference?

I'm not a huge Superman fan, but I completely agree with this. If someone wants to see how Superman should be potrayed they should watch Superman vs. The Elite. It shows you everything the Man of Steel is and the ideals he stands for.

That wasn't superman on his first day, it was very much the opposite of that. Moreover that superman has a bunch of robots and a hyper control of his powers. Contrast that with a, just learned he could fly the day before superman. Wanna see how many lives spiderman saves fighting the Lizard or Goblin the day after inventing his web shooters? Circumstance doesn't all of a sudden disappear just cause it's Superman. I'm sure if he had his fancy robots in mos he could have had them wreck the world engine and save all the civilians(like in The elite) for him. Circumstance!
A driving idea behind the conflict resolution in MOS is: what would happen if superman was alone and green! How this will mold the superman to come as he strives to (meet hyperbolic expectations) become his namesake.

Superman doesn't have to start perfect to be Superman.

Solaris is maybe superman's toughest enemy. If that thing showed up in MOS, and the story was written with some truth, it's safe to say half the world would be wrecked by the time it's over and superman would no doubt be finished, any lives he stops to save along the way inconsequentially wiped out regardless. That's because of the ultimate circumstance of the situation. Something fans seemingly don't care about. Superman always wins and gives the thumbs up whilst sipping a glass of boy scout milk doing it. And people wonder why the audience has found the character unengaging all these years. Something has(had) to give.

That's what MoS was about, and they were smart to do it in an origin under the simple and understandable premise that, even superman has to start somewhere!

 

[Heretic]

That wasn't superman on his first day, it was very much the opposite of that. Moreover that superman has a bunch of robots and a hyper control of his powers. Contrast that with a just learned he could fly the day before. Wanna see how many lives spiderman saves figting the Lizard or Goblin the day after inventing his web shooters? Circumstance doesn't all of a sudden disappear just cause it's Superman. I'm sure if he had his fancy robots in mos he could have had them wreck the world engine and save all the civilians(like in The elite) for him. Circumstance!
A driving idea behind the conflict resolution in MOS is: what would happen if superman was alone and green! How this will mold the superman to come as he strives to (meet hyperbolic expectations) become his namesake.

Superman doesn't have to start perfect to be Superman.

Again, the first day of Superman was the day he met the Kents. Once again you are boiling him down to "Kryptonian" and forgetting that his Earth parents had a far greater impact on him that his Kryptonian parents. That is why MoS had to ruin the Kents. The film only cared about him being a strong guy who fights. It had no concern about the man in Superman.

 

[Heretic]

Look at it this way...

Bruce Wayne's parents did not die. Also, they weren't rich.
Is that a fair portrayal of Batman? When watching that movie, would you say "it's just a different take on the character, as long as he punches people and has a bat symbol on his chest, it's Batman"???

Uncle Ben never died. He never told Peter that with great power comes great responsibility. Heck, he wasn't even around Peter much, since Peter's parents are still around. Is a Spider-Man movie based around that concept a legitimate take on the character?

It's the same way with Superman. When you devalue the Kents and alter their contribution to the character, it is no longer the same character...even if he looks exactly the same and punches people.

There are thousands of superheroes who have to learn on the job. Superman is one of the few who didn't. I'd rather celebrate what makes him unique instead of making him like everyone else.

 

[Marvin]

^You are talking about one example in absolutes whilst the superman one you are making an absolute. Simply put:
Batman without parents that die vastly changes things vs Superman that isn't perfect or isn't raised to have all the perfect answers on day one.........

It's not the same thing. Now, say superman was born on earth and has nothing to do with krypton, that's a big fat change. The kents raising a man that is great but learns to be better with each new challenge is hardly different let alone a destruction of mythos.

Again, the first day of Superman was the day he met the Kents. Once again you are boiling him down to "Kryptonian" and forgetting that his Earth parents had a far greater impact on him that his Kryptonian parents. That is why MoS had to ruin the Kents. The film only cared about him being a strong guy who fights. It had no concern about the man in Superman.

You are once again overlooking and throwing away all that is present, in favor of some misplaced idea of perfection. A strong guy who fights, really? If the kents raised a man as good as Steve Rogers imo, that's not worth over looking simply cause they didn't raise someone who is perfect on day one.

Speaking of a strong man who fights That's who they raised. That man and that self sacrificial sentiment right there, that's all Kent farm.
It only requires we remove our hands from our ears and stop overlooking what is present vs what isn't.

They raised a boy that saves a bus full of kids that aren't his friends(and sees no other choice in the matter) and spends 20 years of his humble life helping/saving people in need(waitress or otherwise). Unlike Pete Ross with powers, the Kent's did their job as the mythology requires. They raised a man with the heart of hero. The mythology doesn't dictate that they raise the smartest most flawless individual as you seem to think. He can learn to be an even better hero with time, but they played a huge part.
You know who else was raised to be a hero? Steve Rogers. He probably had great parents, he's not perfect and he does take lives for the greater good as he understands it. However, like with everything else superman that's not good enough for you, that level of being a good man and hero is DC settling for trying to be cool. Kents raised a great hero, there is no two ways about it.

 

[Heretic]

No they didn't. He was a hero DESPITE their upbringing. In fact, it seems to support the movie's concept that we are genetically geared for something and can't break free of that. Of course, the movie is claiming that we CAN, but where's the evidence? His parents raised him to ignore people in need. They didn't want him to save the kids in that bus (or were at least conflicted over it). Rather than risk his secret being revealed, Pa Kent intentionally put himself in the path of a tornado (instead of letting Clark save the dog) and then he wanted Clark to stand there and watch as he was killed. Despite this, Clark felt a need to help others. His genetic make-up made him the most powerful person on earth...so, he used that strength to snap Zod's neck. Somehow we are supposed to take away the idea that we AREN'T tied to our intended lot in life??? He followed his exact genetic course DESPITE the best efforts of the Kents.

 

[Space Ghost]

He fights because he isn't a pushover.

This doesn´t address my issue. If he fights because he isn´t a pushover, that puts him on the same level as any other person.

You said killing doesn´t send a good message. Does beating someone up sends a good message? "Use your strenght to solve your problems".

You are contradicting yourself. If he is so perfect, he shouldn´t need to fight. If he fights, he is telling us that he can´t come up with any other option.

"He finds a way when there´s no way"

These are your words, kind of.

And Clark Kent is the reason why Superman doesn't kill. Clark Kent IS his true personality. He was raised that way from birth. He doesn't have to kill to realize that he shouldn't kill.

I think he realizes he shouldn´t kill UNLESS he sees no other option. The Kents never told him to never kill anyone, even if it is to save a life. That´s in your imagination. It´s a fantasy of yours.

However, Zod basically said "I want to die and will make you kill me" and Superman killed him. In other words, Zod won. Zod outsmarted a dumber opponent. He backed Superman into a corner and Superman gave up.

Another fantasy of yours. You´re free to make all the interpretations you want. But that´s what your head is telling you and not what the movie told you.


Zod wants to let him know that he is not gonna stop. Nothing Superman can do or say will stop him. He will only stop when he is dead. This is not a story about the villain trying to corrupt the hero. That happened in TDK, not in MOS.

People always bring up that Superman used to torture etc in the comics. Yes...and Batman used to shoot a gun. That doesn't mean that either are correct just because they are old. Characters often take decades to truly find their footing.

1- That´s your opinion, wich is fine. But the fact that you prefer a certain version of the character doesn´t mean every other version is wrong.

2- The equivalent to Batman using a gun would be Superman adopting the killing approach as his first option. That doesn´t happen. He fights the kryptonians and he tries to make them stop. He tries to do everything he can. He only kills zod when sees no other way.

But I understand that there is no way to convince you. You don't think that Superman is inherently any different from Spawn or Wolverine or The Punisher or anyone else. You like what you like, and you want all characters to fit into that little box. I want all characters to be unique, and that means that each will have their own defining characters besides "S on his chest."

Yeah. By your logic, there´s no difference between a cop who kills a criminal to save a kid and the criminal itself. They´re both the same, since they both kill.

Honestly, this discussion is getting ridiculous. I will advise everyone else to not to give you much attention because you´re simply ignoring the context and some key elements of the plot. If you think Superman acted like Spawn, Wolverine or Wonder Woman, you didn´t pay attention at all. Are you sure you´re not trolling us? You don´t seem serious at all.

 

[The Guard]

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.

I don't think you quite understand what I mean by subtle. At all.

Or the scene, come to think of it.