Rate MAN OF STEEL......once and for all

[Tempest]

Which is why he's president material!

All right, all right. I'll vote for one of them.

 

[ThePhantasm]

But I could have sworn that I was told numerous times that Superman doesn't kill. How is this possible?

I think you were told that by someone who confused Superman with Batman... you see... Superman doesn't actually have a "no kill" rule...

 

[Rodrigo90]

Just remember every president is like the devil...you think you're voting for the nice guy who wants to do right for the people...but will only end up deceiving

 

[Tempest]

I think you were told that by someone who confused Superman with Batman... you see... Superman doesn't actually have a "no kill" rule...

I have been told by numerous Super Superman fans that he has a no kill policy. I mean, I've been reading the comics since I was a little girl, but what do I know?

 

[Rodrigo90]

I think you were told that by someone who confused Superman with Batman... you see... Superman doesn't actually have a "no kill" rule...

Exactly. Batman won't kill, because he has a pathological fear of becoming what he hates...or whatever other reason a writer decides on

Whereas Superman, doesn't have those psychological boundaries. Moral ones, perhaps. He's a peaceful guy and killing is not something he agrees on, but will do it, only as a last resort...and MOS did that and I had no problem with it.

 

[Boy Scout]

Since when does Superman not have a no kill rule?

 

[ThePhantasm]

Since always?

He doesn't normally kill but he has done so repeatedly in the comics when there was no other option.

 

[The Batman]

Like I said, intentions tend to get questioned depending on how you feel about a movie apparently. Your problem is that you only see it being flung the one way. You with all your accusations, literally spell it out in that very post. If you say 'nice things' then people (supporters that is) will like you. How is this not you outright questioning the intentions of supporters? That they will support you simple if you like the film and shame you simply if you don't?

Let's make one thing clear: You claimed that Rodrigo's intentions were about to be questioned. Rodrigo's. Not supporters in general. I don't have to question the intentions of supporters, they often make their intentions quite clear, like anyone else on this board who has an opinion on anything.

What's more, "being negative and making snide remarks" is what supporters do when they hear something they don't agree with you say

Ok, Marvin...how bout you type this in a way that actually makes sense.

As for my assertion pertaining to his opinion, I told him to get ready, now that he's gone public this is the point where he will face what I've faced for a while, people questioning all his intentions(going forward).

Rodrigo is not you. Notice how no one's questioned Rodrigo at all. Rodrigo is just a dude who's found out he likes MOS more than he thought.

This is you with more of your taking the lot of supporters and painting them in your amusing fashion. Check out Joey's post on 372 or so, for more of the same. Apparently this is what I(for example) do. And here I thought I was simply defending a film with arguments I find valid, who knew.

If thats all people were doing, me and Joey wouldnt make the type of comments that we do. "I'm simply defending this film!" Who's playing victim now?

As to your actual question, I ask my own: Did he get over defensive when people defended MOS? did he talk to his fellow detractors about how negative and snide people were because they didn't agree with him? Did he ascribe cliche reasons as to why people liked MOS(See punchings in faces), did he cry conspiracy before or question bloggers and fans have too much blind faith in WB and DC due to a track record he himself deemed weak? If he didn't do any of those things before, I doubt he'll start now. So I suppose he shouldn't worry after all. That being said I've known a few people here and there that seemingly do all that, it's not all that uncommon.

More uncommon than the type of people I described before.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Just a few examples

Superman killed quite a bit in the early years. Here he offs a terrorist...

Spoiler

Superman kills Mxzyptlk, though he does show some regret after this and suggests that he may never kill again... (Action Comics #585)

Spoiler

Superman straight up executes Zod and his lackeys... (Superman #22)

Spoiler

Superman famously kills Doomsday... (of course, Doomsday comes back later, but Superman was clearly attempting to kill him and for all anyone knew at the time he had done so, albeit at the cost of his own life) (Superman # 75)

Spoiler

Superman kills Hank Henshaw (who again comes back later, as comic book characters tend to do, but Supes clearly intends to utterly destroy him) (Superman #82)

Spoiler

Superman kills General Zod BY BREAKING HIS NECK (Action Comics #805)

Spoiler

Superman attempts to kill an alien possessed hostage. Though it ultimately doesn't work, he unleashes his heat vision with the full intent to destroy her and even apologizes for what he must do. (Superman #03)

Spoiler

 

[DA_Champion]

It was very annoying seeing the entire Internet **** on this movie which I think galvanized the defenders.

It's not the best movie ever made, i give it like a 7.5/10 or so, but the hate it got from the nerdosphere felt like tag team bullying. I was dissecting the movie myself somewhat but I went a little softer once I saw that the vastly inferior Thor 2 was given a free pass by the same haters.

There is some irrational stupidity in a lot of the criticisms which supports my diagnosis. Dumb, incorrect, comments like "Jonathan Kent had no motivations" or "there is too much male gaze in Snyder movies" or whatever suggest the critics are more interested in hating than in understanding.

 

[Boy Scout]

Exceptions don't make the rule. If Superman wasn't generally against killing, then breaking Zod's neck in MOS wouldn't have been the source of so much conflict. To say that Superman has never been against killing is blatantly untrue. If you're fine with it, that's one thing, but you don't have to rewrite history to prove your argument.

EDIT: I think it's important to note that I said that Superman has a rule against killing - not that he has never killed.

 

[Boy Scout]

It was very annoying seeing the entire Internet **** on this movie which I think galvanized the defenders.

It's not the best movie ever made, i give it like a 7.5/10 or so, but the hate it got from the nerdosphere felt like tag team bullying. I was dissecting the movie myself somewhat but I went a little softer once I saw that the vastly inferior Thor 2 was given a free pass by the same haters.

There is some irrational stupidity in a lot of the criticisms which supports my diagnosis. Dumb, incorrect, comments like "Jonathan Kent had no motivations" or "there is too much male gaze in Snyder movies" or whatever suggest the critics are more interested in hating than in understanding.

If there's one thing I believe in, it's fair, honest criticism. I may not like the movie, but I'll defend it if I think someone is bashing it unnecessarily. If you don't like a movie, cool, but don't invent things to justify your feelings.

 

[The Question]

It was very annoying seeing the entire Internet **** on this movie which I think galvanized the defenders.

It's not the best movie ever made, i give it like a 7.5/10 or so, but the hate it got from the nerdosphere felt like tag team bullying. I was dissecting the movie myself somewhat but I went a little softer once I saw that the vastly inferior Thor 2 was given a free pass by the same haters.

There is some irrational stupidity in a lot of the criticisms which supports my diagnosis. Dumb, incorrect, comments like "Jonathan Kent had no motivations" or "there is too much male gaze in Snyder movies" or whatever suggest the critics are more interested in hating than in understanding.

There is no such thing as "haters." Haters are a myth.

People dislike things for reasons. They may be dumb reasons, they may be hypocritical reasons, but they are reasons. No one arbitrarily picks something that has done nothing to offend them simply because they want to hate something. There is something about that thing's nature that they find personally offensive. That sense of offense may or may not be justified, but it's always there.

You say that the "haters" gave Thor 2 a free pass despite it being vastly inferior to Man of Steel, which they tore to shreds. Why in the world do you think that is? Are you implying that there was some kind of conspiracy or systemic bias against Man of Steel that Thor 2 was untouched by? What could that bias possibly be? What personal grudge could all of those people hold against this one movie?

I can tell you why I liked Thor 2 better. It was a more entertaining film. It had much better dialogue, it had none of the pacing problems that Man of Steel had, the banter between Thor and Loki in their little buddy cop movie schtick was an absolute joy to watch, Hiddleston, Hemmesworth, and Hopkins all gave much better performances than anyone in Man of Steel, the action sequences were not overwhelming or drawn out, and the final fight scene was much cleverer and more entertaining and actually gave Jane Foster something to do other than being a damsel that felt plausible and connected to the narrative, which I cannot say for Lois on Man of Steel. Thor 2 has its flaws, namely the incredibly weak villain, and what they were fighting over was fairly uninteresting, but that film got a lot of things right that I felt Man of Steel did not.

As for your two examples:

1) The Jonathan Kent thing may not be an example of people looking for reasons to hate the film, it may simply be an example of people not making their point articulately or not noticing details in a movie that was unable to hold their interest. Yes, clearly, Jonathan Kent had a motivation. But he was also a very poorly drawn character. He had no personality traits or personal characteristics beyond his ambivalent concern for his son (and when I say ambivalent, I am using its original definition of "not sure how to feel about something," not the more modern definition of "not caring"). He was a one dimensional character, and while he did have a motivation, that motivation felt weak due to his lack of depth.

2) Zack Snyder absolutely cranks up the male gaze in his films. That's not even up for debate, it is a fact. The male gaze is a clearly defined concept and most of his films are full of it. That being said, there isn't really any of it in Man of Steel, so it isn't a particularly useful criticism of that particular film, I agree. But, again, what you're citing as evidence of people looking for things to hate could very easily be evidence of people simply making bad arguments because they're bad at articulating their point.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Exceptions don't make the rule. If Superman wasn't generally against killing, then breaking Zod's neck in MOS wouldn't have been the source of so much conflict. To say that Superman has never been against killing is blatantly untrue. If you're fine with it, that's one thing, but you don't have to rewrite history to prove your argument.

EDIT: I think it's important to note that I said that Superman has a rule against killing - not that he has never killed.

Batman doesn't kill... EVER. Because he has a no kill rule to which he is psychologically committed.

Superman kills sometimes. He's a more pragmatic superhero. He does not want to kill, but that's different from having a no-kill rule. His philosophy is more like avoid killing at all costs... but if there is no other option then do it.

So I wasn't citing "exceptions" because there's no rule for them to be excepted from.

 

[The Question]

Batman doesn't kill... EVER. Because he has a no kill rule to which he is psychologically committed.

Superman kills sometimes. He's a more pragmatic superhero. He does not want to kill, but that's different from having a no-kill rule. His philosophy is more like avoid killing at all costs... but if there is no other option then do it.

So I wasn't citing "exceptions" because there's no rule for them to be excepted from.

Except there are just as many examples of Batman killing people in the comics as the Superman examples you gave.

And the fact is that there is a rule. It has been explicitly stated in the comics on numerous occasions that Superman has a code against killing.

 

[ThePhantasm]

It was very annoying seeing the entire Internet **** on this movie which I think galvanized the defenders.

It's not the best movie ever made, i give it like a 7.5/10 or so, but the hate it got from the nerdosphere felt like tag team bullying. I was dissecting the movie myself somewhat but I went a little softer once I saw that the vastly inferior Thor 2 was given a free pass by the same haters.

There is some irrational stupidity in a lot of the criticisms which supports my diagnosis. Dumb, incorrect, comments like "Jonathan Kent had no motivations" or "there is too much male gaze in Snyder movies" or whatever suggest the critics are more interested in hating than in understanding.

Yes, the internet hatred for this movie is very odd. I can hardly go to any movie website without finding some joke or critique about Superman killing, or how Snyder tried to make a "dark" version of Superman, etc. Its rather like the people who irrationally have already decide to hate Batman vs. Superman because "WB is going to mess it up again" even though WB has almost entirely new management, a new CEO, etc. after Green Lantern and thus the same people aren't even involved in this franchise. I was on another forum before MOS came out and they were already hating on the movie because it was being "made by Christopher Nolan," even though he had comparatively little to do with the actual film.

I don't think MOS is the most amazing movie ever... it probably is not even in my top ten superhero films. But I do enjoy it... probably because I didn't go into it with some sort of angsty prejudicial antagonism toward it.

 

[Marvin]

Let's make one thing clear: You claimed that Rodrigo's intentions were about to be questioned. Rodrigo's. Not supporters in general. I don't have to question the intentions of supporters, they often make their intentions quite clear, like anyone else on this board who has an opinion on anything.

I claimed that supporters have their intentions assumed and high jacked and that because he was showing signs of support, he was in for it. What you assert as people making such things clear I find my self not so sure of is all. Let me be clear as well, I didn't mean to imply you question supporters intentions, I meant to assert you assume them. Oftentimes based on your personal assessment on what they are saying.

Ok, Marvin...how bout you type this in a way that actually makes sense.

Ok The Batman...you said that the people on the other side of this(the supporters) tend to make snide and negative remarks towards your side(detractors). Moreover, about any and all stuff they don't agree with pertaining to MOS, it's reception and detractors. My statement was about you doing that very thing. An irony if you will.

Rodrigo is not you. Notice how no one's questioned Rodrigo at all. Rodrigo is just a dude who's found out he likes MOS more than he thought.

I told him to get ready. And I'm not so sure he wasn't questioned. Either way you're right, he's not me. But one doesn't have to be me to go through it, as I'm sure various other 'supporters' can attest. Generalizations in accusations are thrown all about.

If thats all people were doing, me and Joey wouldnt make the type of comments that we do. "I'm simply defending this film!" Who's playing victim now?

Playing the victim? My point was that my intentions, particularly and especially in this recent case, with any of this stuff is that of defending things I like about the film and confronting arguments and ideas I disagree with, period. That's me 'simply defending the film' and not actually playing at anything(victim or otherwise), yet for some strange and odd reason I'm, by association, being accused of things; my intentions as a supporter are being assumed if you will. Being lumped in with things like "trying to undermine opinions on MOS just because they're not positive.." Like I said, tiresome. At the very least call this out when it happens vs the hypothetical approach I tend to see you lean on, it would keep things a tad more honest imo. Like me addressing my thoughts on your post when you posted it for example.

It's a funny thing, that he supposedly started to get liked by people after 'liking' the film. Which implies that he was not liked by them before he did this. Or if he goes back to his prior stance, what happens then? A simple comment of agreement or support and I may find myself to inter into a snide remark of that sort. One about being hated then liked. On the matter of liking; Half the people on here that I like, TheQuestion for example, don't really fall into the parable you described, quite the opposite in various cases. Just saying.

I'll have to take your word on that last bit. To each his own and all that.

 

[ThePhantasm]

There is no such thing as "haters." Haters are a myth.

If you think this is true, you haven't used the internet very much.

 

[Boy Scout]

Batman doesn't kill... EVER. Because he has a no kill rule to which he is psychologically committed.

Superman kills sometimes. He's a more pragmatic superhero. He does not want to kill, but that's different from having a no-kill rule. His philosophy is more like avoid killing at all costs... but if there is no other option then do it.

So I wasn't citing "exceptions" because there's no rule for them to be excepted from.

Yeah, Batman has definitely killed before. They have the same rule, and they've both broken that rule more than once. That doesn't change the fact that it is a rule they've set for themselves and go out of their way to follow. In Superman's case, you absolutely were citing exceptions, but since I can tell we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this issue any time soon, let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Except there are just as many examples of Batman killing people in the comics as the Superman examples you gave.

In the early years? When he used guns? Yes. Later? I can't think of Batman intentionally killing anyone, off the top of my head.

 

[The Question]

Yes, the internet hatred for this movie is very odd. I can hardly go to any movie website without finding some joke or critique about Superman killing, or how Snyder tried to make a "dark" version of Superman, etc. Its rather like the people who irrationally have already decide to hate Batman vs. Superman because "WB is going to mess it up again" even though WB has almost entirely new management, a new CEO, etc. after Green Lantern and thus the same people aren't even involved in this franchise. I was on another forum before MOS came out and they were already hating on the movie because it was being "made by Christopher Nolan," even though he had comparatively little to do with the actual film.

I don't think MOS is the most amazing movie ever... it probably is not even in my top ten superhero films. But I do enjoy it... probably because I didn't go into it with some sort of angsty prejudicial antagonism toward it.

When people say "WB is going to mess it up again," they're referring to their dislike for Man of Steel, which happened under the current management, not Green Lantern.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Regardless, even if Superman killing is an "exception," why is such an exception permissible in the comics and not in film? In both Superman II and MOS, Superman killed Zod. But only one film gets **** for it because the death was dramatic rather than comical.

 

[ThePhantasm]

When people say "WB is going to mess it up again," they're referring to their dislike for Man of Steel, which happened under the current management, not Green Lantern.

No they aren't. They said that about MOS too, before it came out.

There's been a huge mistrust of WB ever since the Schumacher era. At one point that mistrust was well founded. It isn't anymore.

 

[The Question]

If you think this is true, you haven't used the internet very much.

I use the internet a lot, which has proven to me that people will dismiss anyone who they disagree with as "haters" instead of applying critical thought to why they hate the things they do. Haters are a myth. Everyone has reasons.

In the early years? When he used guns? Yes. Later? I can't think of Batman intentionally killing anyone, off the top of my head.

How does that make a difference?

 

[ThePhantasm]

How does that make a difference?

Because the examples I gave occur throughout Superman's history, not just in one early time period. Big difference.