Batman used to kill people left and right in the comics long before Superman did. Its not hypocritical, it just marks a change in what is expected by a general audience with these characters.....for better or worse.
No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. The reason that situation was set up is because the writer wrote it that way, purely so that Superman would be forced into a situation where he broke Zod's neck. It didn't have to be that way, but the filmmakers *wanted* superman to break Zod's neck and they wrote around that premise.
He used Guns though, that version of Batman in the first movie was based off the post gun/post kill Batman...so yes it is hypocritical.
I'm hearing what you're saying, I'm saying given the plot and what Zod was going to do(despite who wrote it) that was Clark's only option at that point. I'm fine with it, but to each his own.
Sure, everything is opinion based, doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it especially when we have such differing views. For an action movie? It was fine. For a comic book movie? It was fine. For a comic book movie based off Superman it was not. If this was based off Aquaman (with a few things switched around) then it's an okay-good movie. As a Superman movie it's horrendous. Sure, there have been times he's been darker but that's not the Superman character, those are brief lapses in a mostly consistent character. Smallville Superman was, deep down, a good person and he showed it constantly (trying to steer Bart Allen in the right direction, keeping Lex from the darkness, believing in the good in the people he met, etc.). He was a confused teen in Smallville but he was still Clark Kent. He was a 33 year old man in MoS and was not Clark Kent nor did he "become" Clark throughout the course of the movie. Also, Smallville's Jonathon Kent was AMAZING. Ex: Lex gives Clark a car for saving his life and Jonathon tells him to take it back and the conversation, paraphrasing, went like this:
Clark: Dad, I earned this car, I saved the guys life.
Jon: So you think you deserve a prize?
Just great.
Mainstream non-Superman fans know what Superman basically is, for example:
We live in a world where Dark/Gritty = Realism = Good and MoS is a darker Superman movie, but the character is not a dark character. There are dark MOMENTS in Superman, as are with Green Arrow, but these are not "dark characters". MoS had a terrible Superman, Clark, Lois, and Jonathon.
He carelessly used his powers purely for revenge because some guy got on his nerves. He's a grown man and some douchebag messed with him so he went "well, I'm gonna mangle and impale his truck with power poles taking away his livelihood, forcing him to pay money to the company he works for, do a ton of damage to the town as some areas are gonna be without power and leave them to foot the bill cuz this guy was a dick". If a man of his power can get so violent over such nonsense then Lex Luthor is justified in his crusade. "Many heroes" aren't Superman, Superman doesn't do these things. Finding himself in what way? He traveled the World and settled in an area for a while and looked at a key he was given. He wasn't looking for answers, just reflecting on everything that happened and every time he did something super powered he left for the next town. He was a lost runaway, not a man traveling to learn more about himself. "Smart"? She did minute research, and I mean MINUTE. She saw he was super powered after she was saved and looked at weird occurrences, followed the trail, interviewed a handful of people, and it lead her straight to Clark Kent. This isn't so much as Lois being "smart" as Clark being incredibly sloppy which, again, he learns not to be from his childhood ventures but not in this movie.
He couldn't leave money for the taken clothes or anything? How does him saving people mean he still didn't just steal some clothes off a clothesline? If I save a bus full of people from a gunmen and then go purse snatch some women because I REALLY need the money does it make me not a thief because I just got done doing a good deed?
Edit: Looks like it wasn't power lines so take that part out.
Jonathon was TERRIBLE, Joe-El/Lara were fine and Cavill played a terrible Supes/Clark but that's because of the way they were written/directed.
Well, I agree on the Smallville Superman but then that was also based on a SA Superman(Dr. Fate says this in one show) the MOS was more modern obviously and a slightly different take but I'm fine with it.
The thing I loved about MOS unlike Returns was, it was more realistic how the world would react but at the same time keeping that fantasy element. He didn't endanger anyone with the truck, in fact he did it when clearly nobody was around implying he was sneaky and careful....
Still, I just saw Clark (with the taking clothes, the truck etc) as finding himself, deep down he's a good guy I mean he saved those guys from the oil rig, the bus etc now if he had LEFT that chance because "he was confused" and said ehh not saving them cause I don't know if it's the right thing, THEN I'd totally agree with you but he did save them. It showed Clark being more human, even Smallville version did this with red K(choosing to take it at the end of second season) choosing to not listen to John or Jor-el etc sure he was younger but he's never done that in the comics per-se. Not that I have issues with Smallville, I don't...am just pointing out that other versions have also done the same thing.
How was the chemistry bad between Clark and Lois? If anything it was maybe rushed how they fell for each other, otherwise it was pretty solid chemistry. Maybe not as smooth as Smallville's but then that had more time to mature, a movie or game you have limited time to construct a storyline.
The age thing just blame the director, but still for overall movie and Superman movie for 2014 I thought it was good. A newer, updated take on Superman and change is something always controversial. Some people like it, others don't. It's always going to be like that. I really enjoyed MOS, I do agree with you that John Kent could have been better( loved Martha though) and Lois, and I wasn't that pleased with Perry...(aside from a black perry) not racist or anything I just hate it when movies stray too far from source material with looks of a character, I mean same thing with Marvel and black human torch? The rest of them look in their early 20s....? I think people worry too much about political correctness vs. staying true to comic course material.
But pretty much how you feel about MOS, I felt about Superman Returns...one you want un Superman like? He's NEVER leave earth for 5 years for a failed, random and pointless mission(Krypton was gone, so because a few Earth Scientists believed otherwise he leaves for 5 years? please...) Lois would NEVER go from "loving Superman to hating Superman" for any reason unless he maybe killed people for fun or something....(which he'd never do) and of course making Superman STUPID looking for Lex, "landing on his island without even considering hmm trap maybe?" Of course the whole hybrid baby thing but I could maybe get by that if not for the rest of the movie...even though two entirely different species.
I can just go into a hell of a lot more issues I had with Superman Returns over MOS....In regards to a general movie, Superman Returns was entertaining but it's obvious Singer should stick to Marvel films...another thing compare box office reception, MOS smashed Returns...and rightfully so. To me, Superman Returns wasn't a Superman movie, MOS was. Returns came off as a "chick super hero flick" saving planes, waving to crowds.....not even the older Superman films were that cliche, the guy fought 3 Kryptonians and a clone of himself but in Singers version nearly dies and gets dooped by Lex(who he already knows is smart and evil) just so dumb imo.
But that all being said, to each his own.
I'll gladly take MOS any day over Superman:Returns.
