>>78929696 1.) EO's Clark was a unlikable emo dick that NEVER ever seemed to give a shit about helping others, only what he could best use his powers for. > MOS fixed that by making Clark clearly yearn to help people but help back by his indecisiveness out of fear that he may cause more harm then good and change the world in a bad way. 2.) EOv1 had a poor silly looking villain > MOS fixed this by giving us possibly the most sympathetic fleshed out versions of Zod in any medium with great armor designs. 3.) EO felt a bit too down to earth and grounded. > MOS fixed this by making its world very realistic but gave us a grand scoping story. 4.) Both EO and MOS had the right tone and world building.
Well it should have been. It's one of the stories they based it off of.
Supposedly, it also takes elements from the original Superman movie and its sequel, as well as Smallville, The Man of Steel, Birthright, Last Son, Secret Origin, All-Star, and Secret Identity.
If I'm being honest, I've only read a few of those, so I can't really speak to the veracity of that claim, but I saw plenty of things in Man of Steel that I had seen elsewhere before, so it wouldn't surprise me.
>>78930366 Absolute when the entire point of THIS film is to to do a flawed non mary sue take on Superman in a realistic setting and focusing on the sci-fi aspects of the character rather than the generic super heroics.
>>78930750 No, Superman does not have to be inherently perfect and can inherently save the day perfectly 100% of the time, that is not in ANY way a requirement of the character.
I am a good size fan of Superman, I liked his TAS almost more then Batman's TAS, I like his origins, his powers, his idealism, his side reporter identity, his allies, his villains, I like or love all of that, I just dislike his general tone that everything has to be bright and silly around him. it seems redundant. I don't see the point of a bright beacon of hope in a bright hopeful world. Contextually his savior-ness and idealism is of more use and inspiration in a dark flawed world that needs saving.
>>78931454 He clearly has a qualm about it sense he begs Zod to relent. And I would rather have a hero willing to kill genocidal maniacs that have promised to kill the entire human race by hand than one who would let other people die just to keep blood off his hands. Being willing to kill when necessary IS NOT EDGY. Its Thor Edgy for killing the Void or Surtur? Is Cap Edgy for killing Nazis in wartime?
>>78931889 >>78932062 But this ISN'T classic Superman, Superman himself inherently does not have to have a no kill policy. He IS better and inspiring, he saved 7 Billion lives twice, that is a greater accomplishment then anything any person living on the face of the earth has ever done, killing one mass murdered to do so the 2nd time doesn't lessen the act, dragging out the fight further to try and keep blood off your hands putting more lives at risk WOULD. >>78932159 ANY OTHER WAY, doesn't fucking exist in the real world, especially when the threat can kill every human being on the face of the earth by hand and there is no known way to depower or contain him at this time.
Making an edgy movie and snapping someone's neck is such a bad way to kickstart MoS franchise and DCU in general. Superman has a gorrilion critically appreciated origin stories and they go with earth one.
>>78932736 They do if they have a person in a head lock who can and is willing to kill the entire human race out of spite. It would not be possible to really disable Zod in the scenario presented, Blind him? Possibly but his body could still fly, thrash around destroying everything he comes into contact with, Break Arms or legs, unlikely but ok, he still can levitate and Eye blast.
If your in this kinda situation and you don't kill when needed and a chance was presented, your not a pacifist your a accomplice by way of inaction.
>>78929696 Earth One is basically just "What if we turned Superman into Spider-man". When the point is that Superman doesn't NEED tragedy to define him like so many other heroes. But idiots think that somberness and tragedy automatically equate to depth.
>>78933212 Because you show up in every one of these threads with that exact same copypasta line from the last one and you never seem to understand that the issue is you're trying to have it both ways.
You can't apply fantasy logic to the threat and then suddenly demand it for the solution. It has to be one or the other.
>>78933335 It's not fantasy logic, its Sci-Fi logic, I want it to be epic realistic Sci-Fi but I want it to be believable, I don't want leaps into campy absurdity so kids and the nostalgic can have a happy ending. Its about CONSEQUENCES, how would these powers and beings interact and effect the real world, that is what I want to see. Read JMS's Supereme Power, that would give you a Idea of how you put the unrealistic in a realistic world bound by logic and consequence.
There was ZERO consequences in Superman 1-2, none, nothing had any weight, the struggle felt pointless, both movies were fun, sure, but not moving or immersive.
I don't why that anon posted it as evidence of Superman's supposed kill code in the first place. I guess to post that quote "prove" that Superman never kills. Though, that of course, doesn't work, since he killed in the example he posted to prove this, in many other "What Ifs" and Elseworlds, and did so in the canonical universe, as well.
>>78933447 The desire isn't. The ability is. The whole point of Superman (the character) and for that matter the superman (the nietzschean concept) is that his abilities and potential afford him options that common people don't have. To then have the superman NOT have options but have to take the easiest most obvious out is a waste of that potential.
It's funny in its irony but Zod is actually more of a superman than Superman is.
>>78933520 You say that shit every thread. Sci-Fi doesn't mandate the brutal calculus of war, I have no idea why you think that genre automatically necessitates it. And the fact that you can't go a thread without talking about how SERIOUS this movie is is a joke in of itself.
If you want to apply LOGIC then by the simple transitive property, Clark should have options that he wasn't allowed because the narrative wanted to steer him in a specific direction. (To which there weren't even any consequences yet because the movie's denouement is a mess. If there's any, we'll get them in BvS. Maybe.)
Not to mention, the fact that you're comparing Man of Steel to DECONSTRUCTIONS of the character is itself pretty telling. Superman doesn't need more deconstructions, he needs a REconstruction.
>>78933713 >To then have the superman NOT have options but have to take the easiest most obvious out is a waste of that potential. And then people would bitch about deus ex machina or plot armor like fucking batman. It was pretty realistic avoiding a never ending fight with Zod. At this point he doesnt know what to do and thats fine, so we can have him grow as a super hero from Man of Steel 1 to Justice League 3.
>>78933815 That's irrelevant to my point because he's awlays been stronger and more powerful than a base human. Yeah power creep kicked in, but he was always afforded options that other characters in his narratives weren't. Like, he can pick up the bad guy's car and slam it into a rock. That is an option for him. Does that make him a plot device?
>>78933864 Here's the thing. I don't even necessarily mind the fact that he killed Zod. It's not what I would've done (which is to say that were I to have him kill Zod I'd have framed it differently, not that I would've not had him kill Zod.) but I can respect the decision.
What I can't respect is the argument that what we got, as presented, was somehow deep or meaningful or well characterized or written. It was hamfisted as hell' a blatantly engineered scenario that the scene, if not the entire movie, is built around, and that's just not a good way to tell a story. It's JUST as contrived as any "Superman never kills ever" fanfiction solutions to the scene, if not moreso, and the justification for it that the director gave was at the very least hypocritical.
>>78930004 >1.) EO's Clark was a unlikable emo dick that NEVER ever seemed to give a shit about helping others, only what he could best use his powers for. like 2 of the jobs he applied for somehow affected helping people in the non-super sense. One was a pharmaceutical i think. Also remember he's a MAN, so he gave into the "i want to be a sports star" dream. Ultimately he was inspired by Jimmy and Lois in V1 to help people through their heroism, it's a big turning point in the book. >2.) EOv1 had a poor silly looking villain Super-Nega David Bowie had a silly look and origin but honestly I treat him and zod the same >most sympathetic fleshed out versions of Zod ehhhhhhh, the whole "I was bred to be a soldier, therefor the only solution is war" shtick kinda killed any simpathy I had for him, or even the writing.
>>78930318 Batman in Volume 1 is weak, the breakout star in that book is Bullock. Volume 2 is a much better book by leaps and bounds.
E1 Superman is more "Man" than Super and it's a pretty core thing about the book, as it juggles Clark's struggles and presents CK with human challenges he can't just punch >Congrats on getting every other job you ever wanted, but you can't throw stats at journalism to get good results. >Your articles either have great content but no soul, or great soul but no content people want to read about >dropping spaghetti when his soon-to-be GF is around. E1 also has JMS writing on his own with hopefully only one editor, which is loads better than Goyer writing his for-the-masses nonsense which gets reviewed and chewed out by executives who want MAXIMUM PROFIT from the property.
>>78933713 >And the fact that you can't go a thread without talking about how SERIOUS this movie is is a joke in of itself. How so, that was the entire point of the film, that was everything I wanted from a Superman reboot to take him as a serious concept.
> Not to mention, the fact that you're comparing Man of Steel to DECONSTRUCTIONS of the character is itself pretty telling Mos had the best of both worlds, he had the realism of the deconstruction but the likability of the real thing in part.
> Superman doesn't need more deconstructions, he needs a REconstruction. He has never had a deconstruction or realistic realization on film until MOS.
>>78933818 I absolutely agree, the time skip was too sudden and had no transition, but the destruction, sacrifices and killing of Zod are consequences we don't get in other Superhero films.
>>Zod >>sympathetic he wanted to wipe out the entire population of earth to rebuild his planet where things were already a fucking mess instead of just himself and his like 5 friends learning to assimilate to earth and humanity, my guy.....
>>78937585 >i think part of that is its the origin of him never killing again. Snyder said as much but it was kind of bullshit since he likened it to him putting on the glasses and getting a job as a reporter; aspects which he had no problem skipping over.
>>78937670 Zod was sympathetic because quite frankly, he's the best acted performance in the movie and best characterized in the script. Everyone else has about as much depth as a cardboard cutout.
>>78936421 Okay, my mistake was using the word deconstruction when you clearly don't know what it menas. Deconstructions is NOT an injection of realism or whatever you think it was, and Man of Steel wasn't realistic. And before you do that same tired song and dance about "people's reactions to aliens", I'll remind you for the 100th time that we saw fuck all of them and they were put off for BvS.
>>78937820 >I'll remind you for the 100th time that we saw fuck all of them and they were put off for BvS. We saw the military, which had no laser guns or flying cars, we saw that Clark doesn't blindly follow and trust them for "American way" reasons which is realistic, we saw Pa Kent fearing the world's reaction, that is realistic. The entire feel, tone and look of the film was realistic. Even Krypton felt like a fully realized environment.
Thread replies: 65 Thread images: 10
Thread DB ID: 404233
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.