Why does everyone dislike Man of Steel? Rank your movies.

[Eric The Scruffy]

I don't know what arch you can possibly be referring to that's not a 40's comic or alternate universe Batman because I assure you Batman has not killed anyone recently with a gun(the mainstream Earth Batman) aka in New 52 if it was something retconned then it's retconned. I'm referring to the canon, current however.

What do you mean you're referring to current Canon? Wasn't Superman killing Zod retconned entirely from continuity then? So what's your point....
It was a pre new52 Batman/Superman storyline where he travels back in time and shoots his parents murderer in the head. It was canon, he did it, but it screwed up the timeline so damn bad (think Flashpoint lite) that he and Supes had to work together to undo it.
It was also a stupid story and would not justify a similar thing happening in a movie.

Why would Superman show up in a random blue electrical suit exactly? But if he did and it was clearly based on that arch, yes I'd say why are they complaining. But that's not going to happen.

That Arc should never ever ever be adapted into a film because it was *STUPID*. It was stupid in the comics, and it would be stupid on the movie screen. The clone saga from Spider-man comics was also incredibly stupid and they should never do a movie about it, and if they did I am not going to accept a defense that starts with "well, it happened in the comics". Lots of stupid stuff happens in the comics. If anything the movies should learn from the mistakes of the comics, not repeat them.

Yes, people in the 80's weren't as anal as they are now with that sort of thing. If that's what you're trying to say. That door swings both ways, in this case this is the MOS/Superman of 2014...not 1970's....

Yeah, and again, no need to repeat past mistakes.

 

[Compbros]

What do you mean you're referring to current Canon? Wasn't Superman killing Zod retconned entirely from continuity then? So what's your point....
It was a pre new52 Batman/Superman storyline where he travels back in time and shoots his parents murderer in the head. It was canon, he did it, but it screwed up the timeline so damn bad (think Flashpoint lite) that he and Supes had to work together to undo it.
It was also a stupid story and would not justify a similar thing happening in a movie.

Isn't that the same arc where Clark's parents are killed and he and Bruce are raised together by a "three parent household" type thing? That sucked.

 

[Peckapowa]

No, he has to be a good guy. Superman, in all forms of media, has flaws and makes mistakes but he's a good person when it's all over. What makes MoS Superman a good person? Just saving people doesn't make a person "good".


"If Clark wanted to, he could use his superspeed and squish me into the cement. But I know how he thinks. Even more than the Kryptonite, he's got one big weakness. Deep down, Clark's essentially a good person... and deep down, I'm not."

Batman saves people too but he knows he's not a good person so, again, what makes MoS Superman a "good person"?


Edit:

Here's a better way to put it: Is Injustice Superman a good person? He essentially takes over the World and even kills people so that the streets are safe. He's saved thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands from thievery, injury and/or death from common criminals to super villains through this initiative so does that make him "good"? Let's even take away the killing people part, is he a good person?

by virtue of not abusing his powers he is good


batman is a good person, he rarely/doesn't kill, and he makes insane sacrifices for his city and puts himself on the line, batman is an amazing person.

lets not turn this into an altruism debate.

 

[Compbros]

by virtue of not abusing his powers he is good


batman is a good person, he rarely/doesn't kill, and he makes insane sacrifices for his city and puts himself on the line, batman is an amazing person.

But, he did abuse it by sending logs into a truckers truck. Also, the absence of doing bad is not the same as being good. Lex Luthor does a ton for humanity, he's advanced technology by decades and has invented many great things. People of the World believe he's a good person but, deep down, he is not.

Again, simply saving people doesn't equal a good person. Bruce Wayne is not a good person, he's a lonely sociopath that employs children into his "holy war" and never trusts them to the point where it blew up in his face in Death of the Family. Batman is a Hero, but he's a bad person.

 

[Peckapowa]

But, he did abuse it by sending logs into a truckers truck. Also, the absence of doing bad is not the same as being good. Lex Luthor does a ton for humanity, he's advanced technology by decades and has invented many great things. People of the World believe he's a good person but, deep down, he is not.

Again, simply saving people doesn't equal a good person. Bruce Wayne is not a good person, he's a lonely sociopath that employs children into his "holy war" and never trusts them to the point where it blew up in his face in Death of the Family. Batman is a Hero, but he's a bad person.

You could argue anybody is a sociopath, you could argue superman is a sociopath, unless you are claiming batman lacks empathy.

 

[MKF30]

@ Compos: The N52 is far more edgy then Pre 52, in fact he's boarderline dick at times and the future Superman in JL 3000 IS a dick flat out....so I'd say MOS is actually a little comparable, but at least MOS wasn't a dick without being provoked first....

I agree with the modernizing but also take into considering, I disagree due to the fact that we're in 2014. Nobody wants to see Superman catching Cats in trees and preaching world peace. That's not the reality we live in today even on a fictional level....I don't see it as changing Superman's character overall, just him finding himself. Example, MOS 2 clearly he'll be more of that Superman you want i'm sure. This movie was an origin film and rebooted/new take on Supes.

That's just the thing, Singer continued after the first two movies ignoring the latter 2. Which was dumb in a way because, given how Returns ended its as if 3rd and 4th never existed...even though they did within the same universe of that of his superman was based on...still, I'd prefer MOS over SR. One thing you seem to be forgetting about Superman is he is the way he is BECAUSE he was adopted and RAISED by humans....thus to a degree he's very human, unlike oh say Zod, Supergirl etc other kryptonians/his people.

I disagree, the difference is DP does it for "shits and giggles and for attention" and Hancok was talked into it, Superman was neither talked into it nor doing it for attention. In fact the opposite, he did it cause he knew it was right and bounced because he wanted to be left alone. He even says this to lois in the film. Before he was convinced to be "Superman" per-se. The Bus save etc, he even says he didn't want to let them die so I couldn't disagree with you more....DP And Hancock have agendas, Superman doesn't...Clark was just confused as to "why am I here, what's the reason" then gets clarity once Jor-El tells him and even John to a degree....so yes deep down he's a good guy as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to judge him because he "stole someone's shirt or spiked a truck" because the good he's done heavily outweighs the bad(an minor at that)

I agree on Perry and John to an extent, but everyone else from Supes to Lois were done well. Lois has several different interpretations, she's always fiesty but take Lois in SR....dull, bitchy and judgmental. That's NOT lois, the Lois in Returns was FAR more off then Lois in MOS...the Lois from comics or Smallville, Lois & Clark etc would be supporting Clark or wondering why he flew away, not betray him by hooking up with another guy and hating him....that is not Lois at all...Even the older movies, Lois wasn't like that.

MOS was again a newer, modernized take but kept true to the overall origin of Superman....Returns made no sense, and only at the end did Lois "see the light in that movie" it only took Superman saving her(again and realizing her kid was his kid) if not for those two elements, she wouldn't have cared for Superman....with the hospital etc. MOS was believable to me because it made sense based on this individual story, with the whole everyone is genetically engineered for something etc except for Superman who was born naturally. Krypton was always technologically superior to Earth and other worlds so to me this made sense.

Superman in Returns didn't hunt Lex cause of just people in danger, he also wanted his stolen crystals back from the FOS....who he knew Lex took it since he would be the only one to take them. Superman in the older films never fell for Lex's plans that badly, he thought things through first before doing something. The one in Singers version was plain, dumber and came off as more Superboy then Superman honestly. Seemed to do things without thinking first...

Your last part again is really your opinion, in mine I feel MOS was more enjoyable, accurate and overall better plot given a modernized version on Superman. SR was based on an entirely different era of Superman and had way more issues with it then MOS if you ask me. I don't feel MOS fails as a Superman movie, perhaps if you're expecting a "experienced, older Superman" but that's not what it was about, it was about a newer, modern take on Superman, learning who he is, where he's from and what he's sent there to do while offering action, plot and just a fresh take on Superman.

@ EricZ 19:

So is Classic Dr. Strange feats and pre retc beyonder in marvel, but NOT all of pre 52 is retconned example the main batman continuity is still canon and the GL stories...point is in recent canon stories Batman has never killed anyone much less shooting them. Point is until DC decided to reboot DCU via N52 that was considered canon and DID happen, and Superman HAS killed before. Being my point...so who cares if he does so on screen?



Ok, while I'm sure it won't be brought on film the fact that you feel it's "stupid" is entirely your opinion, as well keep in mind. Maybe someone else likes it or would like it. But I will agree that in all comics some plots are dumb. While a good story should be solid, it should also be some what accurate to the comics or why bother? Obviously it's not their intentions to do a "bad job". But movies have their own issues anyway, straying off don't help though....still dumbest arch of all time has to be pre retconned beyonder and Dr. Doom stealing power cosmics and Beyonders powers like candy. So lame...

Well, that's why MOS was made because SR failed in so many ways from box office to reception...sure MOS had "mixed reception from the "pros" but it brought people in and the numbers, that's all that matters to the makers.​

 

[Compbros]

You could argue anybody is a sociopath, you could argue superman is a sociopath, unless you are claiming batman lacks empathy.

Clark Kent is essentially Superman, it's not a facade. Steve Rogers is essentially Captain America, it's not a facade. Catwoman, Ms. Marvel, Hawkeye, Spider-Man, Supergirl, etc. Bruce Wayne is a complete character separate from "Batman", other characters are extensions. There are exceptions of course.

Let's go with the empathy thing because I don't think he's empathetic a vast majority of the time.

 

[Peckapowa]

But, he did abuse it by sending logs into a truckers truck. Also, the absence of doing bad is not the same as being good. Lex Luthor does a ton for humanity, he's advanced technology by decades and has invented many great things. People of the World believe he's a good person but, deep down, he is not.

Again, simply saving people doesn't equal a good person. Bruce Wayne is not a good person, he's a lonely sociopath that employs children into his "holy war" and never trusts them to the point where it blew up in his face in Death of the Family. Batman is a Hero, but he's a bad person.

just because a person does bad things doesn't make them a bad person, same as the reverse. But what motive does bruce wayne have to fight against crime and evil???? Revenge??? In the latest dark knight he discusses getting power for everybody, philanthropic things, i guess you could argue that those are self-motivated in nature but i ask you what action is not motivated for the self and can't selfishness not be good?

 

[Euphoric]

What about when Hulk was smashing through buildings in Avengers?

 

[Rathalos]

I'm not a huge fan of MoS, for a lot of reasons, but I don't really want to get into it again.
I just don't think it's a good movie, let alone a good Superman movie.

As for other Super Hero movies, Winter Soldier just came out last night in NA. I thought that was a fantastic movie. Probably the best Marvel studios production. Was a fun spy thriller disguised as a cape comic, with a good cast and great chemistry, and probably the best action in a Super Hero movie.

 

[Compbros]

@ Compos: The N52 is far more edgy then Pre 52, in fact he's boarderline dick at times and the future Superman in JL 3000 IS a dick flat out....so I'd say MOS is actually a little comparable, but at least MOS wasn't a dick without being provoked first....

I agree with the modernizing but also take into considering, I disagree due to the fact that we're in 2014. Nobody wants to see Superman catching Cats in trees and preaching world peace. That's not the reality we live in today even on a fictional level....I don't see it as changing Superman's character overall, just him finding himself. Example, MOS 2 clearly he'll be more of that Superman you want i'm sure. This movie was an origin film and rebooted/new take on Supes.

That's just the thing, Singer continued after the first two movies ignoring the latter 2. Which was dumb in a way because, given how Returns ended its as if 3rd and 4th never existed...even though they did within the same universe of that of his superman was based on...still, I'd prefer MOS over SR. One thing you seem to be forgetting about Superman is he is the way he is BECAUSE he was adopted and RAISED by humans....thus to a degree he's very human, unlike oh say Zod, Supergirl etc other kryptonians/his people.

I disagree, the difference is DP does it for "shits and giggles and for attention" and Hancok was talked into it, Superman was neither talked into it nor doing it for attention. In fact the opposite, he did it cause he knew it was right and bounced because he wanted to be left alone. He even says this to lois in the film. Before he was convinced to be "Superman" per-se. The Bus save etc, he even says he didn't want to let them die so I couldn't disagree with you more....DP And Hancock have agendas, Superman doesn't...Clark was just confused as to "why am I here, what's the reason" then gets clarity once Jor-El tells him and even John to a degree....so yes deep down he's a good guy as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to judge him because he "stole someone's shirt or spiked a truck" because the good he's done heavily outweighs the bad(an minor at that)

I agree on Perry and John to an extent, but everyone else from Supes to Lois were done well. Lois has several different interpretations, she's always fiesty but take Lois in SR....dull, bitchy and judgmental. That's NOT lois, the Lois in Returns was FAR more off then Lois in MOS...the Lois from comics or Smallville, Lois & Clark etc would be supporting Clark or wondering why he flew away, not betray him by hooking up with another guy and hating him....that is not Lois at all...Even the older movies, Lois wasn't like that.

MOS was again a newer, modernized take but kept true to the overall origin of Superman....Returns made no sense, and only at the end did Lois "see the light in that movie" it only took Superman saving her(again and realizing her kid was his kid) if not for those two elements, she wouldn't have cared for Superman....with the hospital etc. MOS was believable to me because it made sense based on this individual story, with the whole everyone is genetically engineered for something etc except for Superman who was born naturally. Krypton was always technologically superior to Earth and other worlds so to me this made sense.

Superman in Returns didn't hunt Lex cause of just people in danger, he also wanted his stolen crystals back from the FOS....who he knew Lex took it since he would be the only one to take them. Superman in the older films never fell for Lex's plans that badly, he thought things through first before doing something. The one in Singers version was plain, dumber and came off as more Superboy then Superman honestly. Seemed to do things without thinking first...

Your last part again is really your opinion, in mine I feel MOS was more enjoyable, accurate and overall better plot given a modernized version on Superman. SR was based on an entirely different era of Superman and had way more issues with it then MOS if you ask me. I don't feel MOS fails as a Superman movie, perhaps if you're expecting a "experienced, older Superman" but that's not what it was about, it was about a newer, modern take on Superman, learning who he is, where he's from and what he's sent there to do while offering action, plot and just a fresh take on Superman.

New 52 is more edgy? That's misinformed, no offense. Pre-52 had decades of HORRIFIC stuff going on, a couple years of monthly releases isn't even close to the edge of pre-52. Supes is less...hopeful maybe? Inspiring? That's closer than "more edgy".


Superman doesn't need to do that stuff, again, refer to the comic pages I posted:

http://imgur.com/gallery/Ijdxh

Much more than a cat in a tree. Things like this can be done without sacrificing what Superman is and MoS fails at that. All of a sudden MoS2 will have a Clark Kent that cares about pepole's lives and is a good person based off what? His growth from MoS 1? There's nothing that happened in that movie that shows he's changed who he is considering that right after snapping Zod's neck he drops a 12 million dollar drone in front of an army general (so he's still doesn't care about property damage) and tells him where he grew up (so he didn't get smarter), what's gonna make him closer to "Superman"?


That's not my point, saving people doesn't make you a "good person", it can make you a "Hero" but not a "good person". Heroes are not inherently good people simply because they save a bus of people. My entire argument is "Hero" is not equal to "Good Person". But even going by my example, what about Punisher, who kills villains to take the "scum off the planet"? Is this a "good person"? Making sure villains can't kill more people can be seen as the "right" thing to do but is he a good person?

Again, minus saving people, what makes him a good person? Clark cares about people, he's having people help themselves and helping those that can't do that. He's a reporter because he knows he can do "good" by showing the truth of corruption and the nonsense of the World. He's a nice guy that shows tough love when needed and is compassionate.

This is your "good person"

He was angry after that drink was spilled and was ready to go after that guy before the girl stepped in, so he settles for destroying his truck. This shows that Superman is willing to abuse his powers and pierce a truck several times to settle a petty dispute. Clark is not a good person in MoS, he's a guy that uses his powers to do good things (and bad things at times).

You argue a refreshing take on Superman and then hate a "refreshing"take on Lois. Superman isn't Superman in MoS and Lois isn't Lois in SR but you like one of those.


You're again arguing an origin story vs. a "Part V". When she was kidnapped she still believed in Superman, Lois was upset, it's understandable:

How is this not a believable character arc? It's Lois being really hurt that Supes left without a single word to his lover but later learning she still cares for him. 5 minutes later she's fine with Supes again after flying around with him and was even about to kiss him. They're not together but the relationship is amicable:

They didn't change everything about Lois, they showed a woman scorned and she wrote about the World not needing Superman but when they finally talked she backed down and was back to being "Lois Lane". Movies take liberties with characters and that's understandable, but a fundamental change in a character is unforgivable a la The Mandarin.

What? Didn't he fall into a Kryptonite trap with Lex simply saying "the detonator is hidden" and he opened a Lead Box to reveal Kryptonite? And what does MoS Supes do that isn't him rushing in head first without a plan?

It was better because it was a better movie and the plot was better but it wasn't more "accurate" to the Superman verse. I don't care about the "inexperience", I care about the film feeling like a Superman movie and Superman/Clark Kent feeling like those characters. When you can plug in Aquaman/Arthur Curry into that role and with a few switches have the same character then it's not a good Superman movie and, in all honestly, this movie would work better as an Aquaman film because Arthur is more of the lost/finding himself character caught between two worlds than Clark.

just because a person does bad things doesn't make them a bad person, same as the reverse. But what motive does bruce wayne have to fight against crime and evil???? Revenge??? In the latest dark knight he discusses getting power for everybody, philanthropic things, i guess you could argue that those are self-motivated in nature but i ask you what action is not motivated for the self and can't selfishness not be good?

Are you agreeing with me or arguing? If your point is that a person doing bad things doesn't make them but and the reverse is true then that's my point, a person saving people (doing good) doesn't inherently make them a good person. I honestly doing know his motive considering his time and resources could be better allocated to recruiting/hiring a special task force with advanced weapons to incapacitate criminals than patrolling the night as a Bat. If I had to say anything I'd say Batman keeps him functional otherwise he'd go insane.

Here's the argument to that though: Is he doing this because it's a good thing to do or to keep up the facade of Bruce Wayne so no one suspects he's Batman? Is he willing to build this infrastructure to help the lower class or is it because he'll have extra places for "Bat things" because of this? I honestly don't know because Bruce Wayne or, rather, Batman as Bruce Wayne is not a good person. It's hard to tell what he means or what's necessary to keep up "Bruce Wayne".

What about when Hulk was smashing through buildings in Avengers?

Hulk is practically a mindless, destructive monster. Superman is an intelligent being.

 

[Eric The Scruffy]

So is Classic Dr. Strange feats and pre retc beyonder in marvel, but NOT all of pre 52 is retconned example the main batman continuity is still canon and the GL stories...point is in recent canon stories Batman has never killed anyone much less shooting them. Point is until DC decided to reboot DCU via N52 that was considered canon and DID happen, and Superman HAS killed before. Being my point...so who cares if he does so on screen?

You seem so held up on the fact that Superman has killed before, have you ever stopped to ponder whether or not he SHOULD have? Why is this such a hard concept to convey?
Besides, even though I don't agree with your logic, how is it even consistent since, correct me if I'm wrong, Zod is still alive.

Ok, while I'm sure it won't be brought on film the fact that you feel it's "stupid" is entirely your opinion, as well keep in mind. Maybe someone else likes it or would like it. But I will agree that in all comics some plots are dumb. While a good story should be solid, it should also be some what accurate to the comics or why bother? Obviously it's not their intentions to do a "bad job". But movies have their own issues anyway, straying off don't help though....still dumbest arch of all time has to be pre retconned beyonder and Dr. Doom stealing power cosmics and Beyonders powers like candy. So lame...

I don't mind them staying close to the comics. I don't mind them straying off. I just want them to tell good stories. My favorite version of Superman isn't even from the comics, its from the minds of Bruce Timm and Paul Dini, and they changed a lot of stuff from the comics and....gasp...maybe actually made it better.
I know that me thinking its stupid is “my opinion”. I don't have to clarify that it is everytime I make an opinionated statement.

Well, that's why MOS was made because SR failed in so many ways from box office to reception...sure MOS had "mixed reception from the "pros" but it brought people in and the numbers, that's all that matters to the makers.

Still doesn't make it good, anymore than the transformers movies are good.

For the record though, I hated Superman Returns also and think Man of Steel repeated a number of the same things that made it so bad (including embarrassing over the top christ imagery).

What about when Hulk was smashing through buildings in Avengers?

Lol, what about it? What's next, are we going to start comparing Superman's actions to Wolverine?

 

[SonicBoomBrad]

1. Watchmen
2. Man of Steel
3. Batman Movies
4. X-men First class
4. Iron Man 1
5. Avengers
6. Amazing Spiderman
7. Other X-men movies

Everything else kinda sucked IMO. The Thor movies were ass, the actors are the only thing that saved them from being complete garbage. The first Captain America sucked. And don't even get me started on the GL movie. Goodness. I get why people didn't like the new Superman movie but

Spoiler

I've always hated super heroes that don't kill villains that obviously have to be killed. So I didn't really care.

EDIT: Also I'm extremely biased toward my first pick. So you can ignore that if you want.

 

[MKF30]

Compos, That is not misinformed, it's fact. DC writers even admitted this in interviews, Superman isn't as "goody goody" as he was pre N52, perhaps you're not reading him across all N52 mediums? Cause if you were you'd know this, no offense. But it's so obvious, same for Kara aka Supergirl....

There's upset and annoyed, and then there's flat out stupid and bitchy holding grudges....Lois was the latter, for no reason. Oh cause he didn't "say bye" again, the old Superman WOULD say goodbye so you want poor writing, well Singer wins the cookie there...

Yes, a story arch that has Superman annoyed and not holding back as much. I have every DCA movie and some of those archs even, edgier as in "not as nice" as he was pre N52. He's not mean but what I mean is he has a more edgier attitude, a lot of them do. Shazam for example, Superman to name a few off hand. Take the first encounter with the JL well GL, Batman and Flash....pretty sure Superman had the "please...you guys think you can beat me" attitude....pre 52 wouldn't act like that. He's try to reason with them first.


I disagree and refer you to @Peckapowa s post. Concerning the being good or not, which clearly Superman is. You're just talking about minor technicalities that are trivial not for nothing(the trucker spike, taking someone's clothes) I mean that doesn't make him bad...If you watched the movie, he DOES tell the people in Smallville in that fight to go inside it's not safe....his persona. Again it's an origin story, emphasis on the origin...that means to begin, start being something a hero in this case. I don't see with the "aside from saving people" as if it's picking up someone else's garbage you make it sound like, so saving lives means nothing to little to you? But yet you have issues with him taking someone's shirt who clearly didn't need it after he was practically naked AFTER saving people? This logic doesn't make sense to me. He's Superman, not a Priest or the President so I don't know where you're going with this.

I'm arguing flawed story archs that don't coincide with the original arch that Singer is basing his version of Superman off of....pretty much if Returns takes place after Superman 2, as he stated...that doesn't make sense to the 3rd and 4th film being as how Lex never mentions him with the other chick with the dogs at all, nothing referencing being stuck on an Island nor explaining how he escaped it....

You seem to be confusing Superman love stories from the 40's and 50's era with that of modern day Superman, the thing that sucked about Returns aside from ridiculous plot elements is everyone was looking forward to seeing a NEWER updated Superman, fighting someone, fighting for Earth instead it's Lex..again, same old song and again flying with Lois(who is pissed at him no less) flying over moutains, oceans etc which we've seen now twice, 3 times if you count the 4th movie....how is that not boring? VS. MOS which offers something new, fresh and exciting. As for the "Superman one he fell for the kryptonite in a box" few things, you see one he has no clue who Lex Luthor is all he knows is that this guy has a gripe with him, two Lex exploited the fact that Superman can't see through lead after the public interview with Lois so Lex took advantage of that, two first encounter with Lex. Notice Superman two, Superman outsmarted Lex and 4 also outsmarted Lex figured out immediately what Lex did with his DNA a la Nuclear Man....and how to shut him down.

Superman Returns why didn't Superman stay in the air and scanned it via his Xray to see Lex with kryptonite once he encountered the island? Again, stupid Superman....and you can't say he couldn't do it because he lifted the little island by himself into space....so it's not like it was the size of a country. It was a dinky island... He knew it was from his crystals, and that Lex took it since he was the only other in that series who knew about the FOS....so you're telling me he couldn't take better precautions? Another thing that made no sense, in every previous version of the origin Superman films with Reeve's films he was based off the SA Superman had various other powers turning back time, faster speed, smart, ridiculous strength levels and hypnosis, TK etc. In SR he shows nothing what so ever....just his basic abilities flying, heat vision, speed and Xray....so he can use Xray to spy on Lois but not on the kryptonite made island? Ok....lol

Sorry but I will remain on my stance, I wil take MOS anyday over SR.

I'm not sure about the AM reference, I mean he's a different character all together and if anything born to be next in line as King of Atlantis so I don't see how that's on par with Superman a guy last son of Krypton landing on Earth...

This isn't signs of a good guy?

Saving Lois from falling, clearly did NOT have to....

Superman saving Metropolis and the world in general destroying the World Engine(again chose to):

Superman destroying Zod's ship(which was a key factor for Zod's take over)

You seem so held up on the fact that Superman has killed before, have you ever stopped to ponder whether or not he SHOULD have? Why is this such a hard concept to convey?
Besides, even though I don't agree with your logic, how is it even consistent since, correct me if I'm wrong, Zod is still alive.




I don't mind them staying close to the comics. I don't mind them straying off. I just want them to tell good stories. My favorite version of Superman isn't even from the comics, its from the minds of Bruce Timm and Paul Dini, and they changed a lot of stuff from the comics and....gasp...maybe actually made it better.
I know that me thinking its stupid is “my opinion”. I don't have to clarify that it is everytime I make an opinionated statement.



Still doesn't make it good, anymore than the transformers movies are good.

For the record though, I hated Superman Returns also and think Man of Steel repeated a number of the same things that made it so bad (including embarrassing over the top christ imagery).


Lol, what about it? What's next, are we going to start comparing Superman's actions to Wolverine?

Well, I happen to disagree with preference. For one I thought the Transformer movies got a bad rep because 'omg bay's doing it' which is just crybaby fans imo, the first two movies werent bad. Third one was ok, still better than Electra, hulk, DareDevil and GL oh and ghost Rider, Spawn? Have you seen these films? Then watch Transformers and tell me what's better...lol so as far as I'm concerned MOS is eons better then those movies and Transformers too even. But I was not apart of that "let's hate on M. Bay crowd he ruined my childhood wah wah" groups. I prefer to watch the movie, give it a fair shot first....

If I may, this whole "Superman don't kill rule" is really a fanmade thing, some fans took his "goody goody" persona over time and labled him a "God of mankind" not just powerwise but influence wise, he wants to inspire others to do good yes but he's flat out said several times over time from Smallville show to the comics and back, that "He's not a God" at the end of the day he may have "godly powers" but he's not above anyone from a devine perspective, he's an alien from another world who has powers on this one who happens to do good and inspire others to do the same. Yet, in the comics he's clearly killed before be it mind control, alternate universes or due to having no other choice. Does he kill or prefer too? Hell no. Does that mean he'll not consider it if it means saving all mankind? No.

Besides, he's not the only JL member....sure he may be known as "the best of them" but so is Batman, WW, GL, Flash etc not exactly scrub heroes....hence the Justice League, not the Justice Superman. lol All I'm saying. People put Supes on a Pedestal when they shouldn't, they often forget while he's not human he's very human in nature. He was rasied and adopted by humans....taught human ways, human life, can relate to other humans etc I mean the guy grew up on Earth how is that not going to influence him?

Zod is alive in the current reboot of N52 comics....Superman killed him pre N52 comics and in the new MOS movie medium(set/trilogy or Snyders Superman world). So really depends on version and medium.

I don't mind them taking new ideas from comics but I have issues with them straying TOO far off example, if they made Superman chinese and had the mainstream Superman act like Ultraman or something, then I'd be like what is this...but if he's a little edgy or something, has a bad day I'm not going to judge cause of that or anything. Well at least we agree on SR being bad...but I personally loved the imagery for MOS, and a perspective of Krypton like we've never seen before. Prior to that all we had really was a dome white room and of course Smallville's battles and Kandor. As far as on film I mean.

Speaking of Wolverine, just a side point here did you guys know some fans believe it or not had issues with him on screen due to "Jackman being too tall" yet now nobody wants him to leave the role....

 

[Eric The Scruffy]

If I may, this whole "Superman don't kill rule" is really a fanmade thing,

No, it most definately is not. Superman may have broken that code in some incarnations of the character but it most definitely not something fans just imagined, and if you think otherwise you are wrong, period.

Well, I happen to disagree with preference. For one I thought the Transformer movies got a bad rep because 'omg bay's doing it' which is just crybaby fans imo, the first two movies werent bad. Third one was ok,

And on that note, I'm out.

 

[MKF30]

Superman may have broken that code in some incarnations of the character

Bingo. Yes it really is and you just admitted my point here, what I mean by that is the character like most heroes have a "no kill code" it doesn't mean they will NEVER do so however....despite if they want or don't want to. Doesn't happen in archs like Zod or Doomsday...sorry. And rightfully so. Not wrong when the archs say otherwise....or panels I should say. Obviously if he broke that code, then he's not restricted by it all the time.

I just call it how I see it man. I'm not going to rip or praise a movie due to a director alone, how would you feel if you got to do something and someone said "pfft that Eric guy's doing it going to suck, not wasting time" months before it's even done? Exactly...

Anyone regardless of "big name or not" are equally capable of succeeding or screwing something up. Period. Don't care if it's Wheaton or Lucas. Just ask yourself, have you seen Cabin in the woods, FireFly vs. Avengers? How long did FF last again? And outside of SW what is Lucas known for? I rest my case....Like Bay, most directors have had their share of flops and hits. Nuff said.

Cheers.

 

[Euphoric]

I don't know why FireFly was brought into discussion, buy FireFly was fucking amazing. So was the follow up movie.

 

[MKF30]

I don't know why FireFly was brought into discussion, buy FireFly was fucking amazing. So was the follow up movie.

Well, it was ok to me lol but I'll use CITW instead my point was that nobody is perfect. Josh's legacy lives in Avengers, but I agree with you on that it's highly overrated....I mean I saw it and was like ok, that was entertaining but what's the whole geekgasm about? Did nothing for me lol

 

[TotteryManx]

So a changing of what Superman fundamentally is (not talking the goofiness but the kindness, caring, inspirational stuff) dictates a "refreshing" take. So, if Batman was suddenly a Spider-man esque character with Quips to villains it'd be refreshing because it's a different take on his darkness? Batman and Robin did that and it sucked LARGELY because of how "not Batman" Batman was. MoS Superman is NOT Superman. Again, Clark has not been a fumbling News Reporter in DECADES (not counting mainstream stuff) and the bumbling served the purpose of keeping suspicion off him. I never liked bumbling Clark but it was what it was.


Also, how dumb is Lois? She drives up to the Kent farm with two officers after Aliens flung a car through their farm and sees a fully decked out Superman at which point she runs up screaming "Clark" and he responds while the cops are 20 feet away.

*Looks at your avatar* lol..this is my whole point. You are obviously a Superman fan and expect it to play out a certain way, which handicaps your ability to enjoy a fresh take about him. I keep hearing "he didn't care about the people." Can you provide some evidence for that? Even as a child in the movie he was debating with his dad about what was right and wrong and even knew then that he should be helping people and saving lives instead of letting them suffer. The whole first half of the movie was about him saving people lol...the bus, oil rig, Lois. Him throwing people through building was him discovering his powers and letting his emotions get the best of him...which was absolutely refreshing. If he gave no fucks about people he would of let Zod eye laser those people instead of breaking necks lol.

As I said, the reason non Superman fans like the MOS is the same reasons his fans/dc readers didn't. I will say this...Lois was a waste.

 

[TotteryManx]

idiotic (actually more like goofy) clark is so much better than, non-existent clark... they just stuck a pretty guy and had him lift things in to the role so they could appeal to female audience, which i am fine with but to be so bland and undeveloped.

You can't please everyone. People bitched about a Superman movie that had dialogue and development in a way...now they bitch about a action sequenced Superman movie. You aren't going to get best of both worlds because that may require like a 4 hour movie lol.

 

[TaffyMeat]

@ TaffyMeat, You know Jor-El was able to do that because it was a program right? He didn't have power of his mind, it was his program that was called a hologram...

Compos, the Lois going back with a car well she's human....she can't run fast lol like Flash or Superman plus by that time, Zod's crew had fled anyway after their fight with Superman in Smallville. Clark seemed to cover his tracks at least well enough until he met Lois...it's Lois though. They didn't terraform another planet because they needed the DNA to recreated Krypton which was within Clark/Superman, who was living on Earth...that would be why.

Kent saved the dog, but told Clark not to save him because he didn't want him exposed much like the same John Kent didn't want Clark in Smallville show not to just use his powers liberally....we saw a world where he revealed himself as Clark Kent-Superman and how did that turn out? Not good...Clark couldn't just blitz save him because he was still a teenager and thus all his powers werent evolved or to full potential(ie how fast he is at the end of MOS vs. beginning)

Lois was never granted access to the ship, she brought on the "S" chip from Clark's ship which was programmed by Jor-el, she put it into Zod's ship and thus took over programming in result helping Lois escape...



How is armored suit/costume compare to a characters personality, ethic and moral code? So yes there is hypocrisy, that's a way off analogy. You're trying to compare costumes from different eras with their moral code...

My point is not to compare Supes or Bats, but rather that Superman has killed people to save others(not counting the evil versions obviously) and even if you go back past 15 years or so you can find Superman killing someone or some thing, where as Batman hasn't killed in like what....over 50 years? Much less used guns. I see what you're saying but I don't think you're seeing my point honestly. We seem to be talking about two entirely different matters.

Only the first ME game. I prefer to play games that have more of a constant action to some degree, fighter, racer etc. ME is a great series, don't get me wrong I just get bored fast with the talking, walking all over the place. .

Do you understand sarcasm?

 

[MKF30]

Do you understand sarcasm?

Yes, do you understand Emoticons?

 

[TaffyMeat]

Yes, do you understand Emoticons?

Thank you

 

[MKF30]

Thank you

 

[Compbros]

*Looks at your avatar* lol..this is my whole point. You are obviously a Superman fan and expect it to play out a certain way, which handicaps your ability to enjoy a fresh take about him. I keep hearing "he didn't care about the people." Can you provide some evidence for that? Even as a child in the movie he was debating with his dad about what was right and wrong and even knew then that he should be helping people and saving lives instead of letting them suffer. The whole first half of the movie was about him saving people lol...the bus, oil rig, Lois. Him throwing people through building was him discovering his powers and letting his emotions get the best of him...which was absolutely refreshing. If he gave no fucks about people he would of let Zod eye laser those people instead of breaking necks lol.

As I said, the reason non Superman fans like the MOS is the same reasons his fans/dc readers didn't. I will say this...Lois was a waste.

I expect Superman to be Superman, yes. Why is that bad? Why should I not lambast a movie that has the source material's main character and says "no, we're changing them"? Why is my thought process in this so laughable?

"I keep hearing 'he didn't care about the people.' Can you provide some evidence for that?"

Superman vs. Zod, Supes is flung into a busy street full of people and never even acknowledges where he is or the people around him, he is 100 percent focused on Zod. I don't expect a "THE PEOPLE ZOD, THE PEOPLE!" from Superman II but this is bad. He either A) does not care about the damage and loss of lives surrounding him or B) is so single minded in taking down Zod that nothing else matters, including people. Also, every one of those instances where Clark is saving people? He's already there and is involved, he didn't go "out of his way". It seems that unless people are in immediate danger he ignores them. Another example:

(near the end)

A guy falls out of the helicopter and Superman saves him, he doesn't even consider the other two still in the destroyed copter before he's hit.


Superman learns as a child not to let his emotions get the better of him or it could be dangerous, in the comics and in THIS VERY FILM he's told very young to not get angry and lose control or people could get hurt. Superman cannot AFFORD to lose control or people die and, again, Lex Luthor is right in that Superman is just a dangerous alien that should be stopped. That's what this movie does, it makes Lex Luthor right instead of an ego maniac that can't see the good that Superman does. A young Superman I would believe would be going through all this and making these mistakes. A 33-year old man whose only powers he "discovered" recently was flight and heat vision, he's known his strength since he was a child, not so much. He lifted an oil rig at the beginning of the movie, what is he discovering?

The reason people like it is because all they know is "goofy" Superman, which this wasn't, and it's a dumb action film with dark undertones, which people love. In a World where transformers made a billion dollars this isn't saying anything to me. Plug any hero with a similar moveset into this film and it's the same thing. It's a by-the-books "dark" Superhero movie that uses the characters of Superman. You know WHO this movie works for much better? Captain Marvel/Shazam since he's a CHILD in an adult body and JUST gets his powers. Then all this makes sense: losing his temper, the destruction, the bad decisions, etc...