The Double Standards Against Superman

I admit, while i don't think The Man of Steel was very good, i really liked their version of Zod, his motivations were interesting and well thought out, and i'm not sure we've seen somebody like this in an action film yet. That genes bit was definitelly an interesting addition, which is why Zod does all he does.

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...77805878607:mf_story_key.-7539666677679565420

SR didn't get a sequel because it didn't make 500M. MOS didn't get a sequel because it didn't make 700M. It's just frustrating.

 

I agree. Zod was one of the things I really enjoyed about MOS.


***********************

I knew it. I mean, not everything, but it was really odd to me that they wouldn't give Superman his own sequel.

 

Exactly. It's understandable for SR as it's in a bottleneck. But MOS has so much great potentials, the sky is the limit. Yet they are switching the course. Just annoying...
f. .. greedy.

 

I think it's awesome! It's time for both Superman and Wonder Woman to get some serious development and traction now. Hopefully one day Batman would be viewed as boring.t:

MOS is getting a sequel which is coming out 2016, it just happens to feature Batman and Wonder Woman. It's no secret WB had been itching to expand on the DC universe on film with a Justice League ever since the Avengers boomed, they're using this as a way to. WB knows that solo films no longer cut it with the GA anymore, otherwise TDKR would've beaten The Avengers at the box office. They don't want to repeat history by being that year's Amazing Spider-Man or The Dark Knight Rises. They want $$$ and they're not going to get it by doing another solo film.

As for SR, please do try to remember a good number of the audience hated it and ever since 2006 to now, people have been crying out for a movie like MOS for Superman. Just look at the archives here on this forum.

 

He will be. It's a cycle thing.

It's a new film as per the WB announcement. I think we should better adjust ourselves to it. Most likely superman will be like getting the ironman treatment in the avengers.

 

I doubt so. I think the fact that Batman is in MOS sequel is precisely because of how NOT boring he is. And it makes me think they aren't feeling Superman alone is enough to keep things up.

It doesn't just happen. It's a decision. What is behind this is to be discussed, but I don't think they just happened to throw in the other two most popular DC characters just by chance.

This could be a reason. Although I suspect that if MOS had made bigger numbers, Superman would have had his own sequel first, just like any important superhero out there.

Really?

If they want $$$ they might as well want to be The Amazing Spider-man or The Dark Knight Rises, as both movies made considerably more money than MOS (TDK made 400+ million more than MOS and TASM made 84+ million more) and both did much much better with critics.

Solo films cut it very well, just look at Nolan's bat-movies or most of Marvel movies.

Then again look at the numbers. In both cases (SR and MOS) they wanted more money. When SR failed to make as much, they ruled out a sequel; when that happened to MOS, they turned a Superman sequel into a Justice League assemble movie.

Many people think that Transformers 2 was a horrible or at least very silly movie. But it has had two sequels so far, because it satisfied the executives' financial expectations. Not because of what people said.

 

Of course not, it's the same with most of the other superhero movie franchises today. Unless you're not planning a team-up for said character then it's automatically underwhelming now that audiences had a bite of that Avengers Cake. Again refer to the Summer of The Avengers vs The Dark Knight Rises, people are hungry for big crossovers now. We live in a different world now and I like it.

Of course it's a decision. It's a decision they've been brewing for some time now. Unfortunately they've hit a snag delaying the movie 10 months. Henry Cavill slightly hinted at a Batman team up months before MOS.

Again we live in a different world now, where audiences have seen the Avengers and are tired of every countless attempt on solo films after the 2000's. Doing a solo sequel just doesn't do it well for audiences anymore, WB has seen the competition with Avengers and Star Wars films on the horizon. A solo movie just doesn't work in this day and age.

That's because Spider-Man and Batman are more popular superheroes and have more audience goodwill compared to Superman, hence the greater numbers. As for those Nolan Bat films and most of Marvel's solo movies pre- and post-2012, The Avengers says sup.

They ruled out a sequel for SR because the people who actually pay for movie don't like it and wanted their money back after watching Stalkerman: The Movie. Again, they've planned those movies ages beforehand, it's not a response to "bad"(as in you classify bad by beating out every Marvel Phase I solo and Batman Begins?) box office return.

Transformers 2 only got that amount of traction from the previous movie which a good amount of people liked. It's called momentum.

 

Yet Nolan made the most acclaimed and successful superhero trilogy while stating that his Batman lived in his own universe and would never cross paths with any other superhero, and so it happened.

And TDKR might have made less money than Avengers, but still over a billion dollars. I don't know anyone in the industry calling that 'part of the past' or something that shouldn't happen again.

I didn't know Cavill had said it. But my question is not whether DC was planning a JLA movie or not, but if they would make just one Superman film and then jump directly to it. Because so far this has been defined as a Superman movie with Batman and Wonder Woman (you did it yourself), not a JLA movie. No other franchise has included two other superheroes just to spice things up.

No, they're not tired of solo movies. That's why after Avengers, many successful solo superhero movies have been made. They didn't jump to Avengers 2 as it should have happened in this "new world" where TDKR is seen as a failure or "not as good as Avengers."

Not to mention those were better movies. Because last time I checked, Superman is still the most recognizable superhero of them all.

But, as you see, nobody in the industry would suggest that being TASM or TDKR is something they don't want to be, as you claimed.

And Thor 2 and Captain America 2 say "you were cool, Avengers, but solo movies are still happening. It's not over by a long shot"

No. A sequel to SR was discussed for at least a year time after SR release. When it was eventually cancelled, the official word was that it hadn't met financial expectations.

Some momentum. Transformers 2 had had two sequels so far and counting. That's not called momentum, that's called financial success, regardless of the general opinion about the movie itself.

 

Doesn't matter that it made over a Billion, Avengers still won. General Audiences want ambitious crossovers rather than the same old stuff the 2000's gave us.

I'm sure they'll make another Superman solo movie soon.

No not really. Sure, they made money but they pale in comparison and many have criticized Marvel's Phase II so far and Wolverine was extremely boring. I don't need to mention the faults of Iron Man 3, Thor: TDW and especially Agents of SHIELD.

Superman was boring until MOS. No studio really wants to settle for second best with their movie, they want to see their films reach for the stars.

Solo movies may continue and they will be making less than the team ups, but we all know the audiences just want more of that Avengers cake.

Discussed or not, no one was happy with it.

Where are they getting the money from? Audiences willing to see the movie after the last one. Although I suspect the new one will tank.

 

That doesn't mean they don't want solo moves, as numbers and critics have shown.

Only after they spice things up with Batman and Wonder Woman (and if that works financially first), as apparently the new Superman is not enough in their eyes. Any other important superhero would have had their proper sequel first.

The Wolverine, Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 made big numbers. Iron Man 3 made 1 billion and 200 million. That's not to pale.

But that's just irrelevant to my point: solo movies are still being made. If they wanted only crossovers, they would be doing so. And they're not.

On the contrary, the most common criticism is how MOS was lacking of fun, specially for being a Superman movie.

No studio wants to settle for second place. But they know enough to accept that as long as they make good profit everything's okay. And so, they keep making solo movies because the risk is less if you don't have to pay many big stars for one movie.

You don't know if they'll be making less and less money, that's a mere assumption.

But let's say they will. As long as they keep making a good profit (with a smaller risk), they'll keep making them. This is not by far the "only crossovers" world you claim it is.

Apparently someone was, as SR had a good 76% with critics and MOS a very low 55%.

No one knows. But the fact remains: Transformers 2 was found to be silly, but it keeps spawning sequels because it made good numbers.

 

I think the problem of Man of Steel is that Superman has never been the reluctant superhero and making him one in MOS is a mistake (in my opinion).

Superman should be someone everyone aspires to be, not a murderer!

 

Superman was not reluctant. He saved people since he was young. He was not aware that he was supposed to be a hero.

All he wanted to do in his life was just fit in. Clark was not born, raised, nor trained to be a hero.

Definition of Murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

Lets forget the fact the Zod was human. First Superman had no intent to kill Zod. Had no malice aforethought. Even if he did have intent, he had a legal excuse and authority as he was defend those who could not defend himself.

Superman should not be defined as someone everyone should aspire to be. Because In Superman 2 he gave up his responsibility to save people just to be with Lois. In STM he messed around with human history just to save Lois.

Superman at his core is a superpowered being with great humility and heart. Anything more is not a definitive characteristic of the character, just a version.

 

Jesus christ thats all i hear about this film , Superman's a killer Superman's a killer. He should be saving people,****ing sick and tired with the double standards this film gets. ****ing humans and there hang up on a superhybrid alien saving humanity. Stupid homosapiens *****. Human bastards. Your worlds gonna end sooner than later anyway.

 

Calling Superman a murderer in this movie is an insult to police officers, armed forces, etc.

 

well, there are many people calling the police officers, armed forces a murderer.

 

Those people don't know the definition of murder.

(unless of course we're talking about bad cops who murder...)

 

I love the hypocrisy. A lot of the same people calling Superman a Murderer aren't calling Batman a Murderer and He Pushed Harvey Dent (Two Face) to his death to save Gordon's son from being shot in the head.

Batman kills Harvey dent (Two face)
[YT]dJma8pVAvH4[/YT]

 

No, they love to justify that buy saying Batman didn't have a choice.....

Then go on to say Superman could have done this and this and that but NEVER think say Batgod could have done it differently, which I think is genuinely more plausible than Superman doing anything different.

 

I originally didn't have a problem with the knee-jerk reaction, because Man of Steel brought super-heroes killing front and centre. It was shocking. I get that.

But it's been nearly eight months since the film was released, I'd expect people would've gone over it by now. The presentation was a first (which is why I think it's important and the movie doesn't get the credit it deserves for it), but the actions of the character weren't. It's not just that there is precedent for Superman, there is precedent for several big super-heroes that have popped up on screen. The bad guy dies, unless they need to be brought back at a later date. It's usually the hero that kills them one way or another.

I've said this several times before and I'll say it again: I'd rather have Superman drop to his knees in despair after a genocidal demi-god forced his hand, than have rocks flatten mere henchmen, former DAs dropping off ledges, environmental terrorists blowing up in trains, other terrorists blowing up wherever and whatever other "easy solution" or "accidental deaths" every other movie has offered me.

I don't hold it against Batman that he killed Dent. I understand why he acted the way he did. The point is that the movie kind of glossed over that and instantly led in to a memorable conclusion, so nobody paid attention. Man of Steel specifically called attention to Zod's death and everybody lost it. It's not a double-standard against Superman (except perhaps some very hardcore fans that have cemented their ideal of version of Superman as the only possible version of the character), but it's not a warranted response either.

 

Every MOS scene i look at its the same **** , on every forum its the same crap. People are simple minded as **** these days they think every things black and white. Im glad half of these people moan it helps me iron out there shallowness as a person . Seing there world in a bubble makes me pity them. Yea the film had it flaws but this movie turned me into a Superman fan . His upbringing scenes touched a cord and from there i was hooked. His outlook on where he fits in life is also what im going through. Also where the hell is all this computer game talk coming from it started on this film then went over to TASM2 trailers. " It looks like a computer game blah blah " such lame reasoning.

 

About this Superman killing vs Batman killing. Hey, at least in MOS they addressed it.

 

Anyway, I won't let one user derail this thread with his trolling.

I think the double standard boils down to those with their ONLY knowledge of Superman bneing the Reeve films refusing to see beyond them. They want THAT Superman, and no other iteration will suffice.

 

Tired of the Reeve excuse, didn't like the Superman take on The Man of Steel and i never enjoyed Reeve's version due to being too campy for my liking. Best take is in the golden age, the Fleisher cartoons and animated series

 

Hi guys.....tell you what....stop the petty arguments and I won't ban anyone....how's that sound?

As to who is trolling....when someone creates a user name that is intended to piss off certain posters at a site....I call that trolling.....so the name calling will stop, the snarky comments will stop....the acting like respectable adults shall begin.