Basically the subset of Superman fans that want him to be a boring invincible hero who saves the day with out the slightest difficulty and is able to avoid situations that are morally grey due to writer fiat.
‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Basically the subset of Superman fans that want him to be a boring invincible hero who saves the day with out the slightest difficulty and is able to avoid situations that are morally grey due to writer fiat.
Pretty much, yes.
Although, cue one of the usual suspects to tell us that it's possible to write good stories without sacrificing their view of the character, and how Zak Snyder is a lazy 'splosions merchant who raped their childhood and then wiped his dick on Action Comics #1 when he'd finished... or something.
meh
You guys, read Action (Vol.1) #775, or watch the animated movie "Superman vs. The Elite", if you prefer. Then, we may talk.
In the animated movie (which I enjoyed) this issue was the whole focus of the story - was your takeaway at the end that Superman should have been acting as the Elite had?
Someone once pointed out the destruction Superman laid upon the city in the JLU episode "Clash" was similar to what happened in "Man of Steel". The whole point of that episode was to show that Superman had been tricked and made to go too far.
I don't get all angst-y about "Man of Steel" - I wish it had been more like "Superman Returns" but given that the box office didn't return what was expected I can't blame WB for going another way.
I haven't seen the movie and can only react to what I assume is going on in that tiny clip (so this is probably an idiotic argument but it's the Internet so who gives a shit) but if Batman is blasting away with machine guns such that criminals are vaporized I have to say it's not very Batman (at least the mainstream comics/animated interpretation) of him - but maybe that's the point.
Honestly, I really don't have a big issue with superhero's like Batman and Superman killing. I always assumed the whole thing with heroes like them not killing was more of a left over of the days following the comics code, and when comics were geared towards younger audiences. The Marvel characters kill people in their movies and it hasn't ruined the characters.
Mask of the Phantasm, I suppose.
I like Superman vs The Elite. I'm not a fan of Action Comics #775. Joe Kelly's "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way", comes off as an asshurt Superman fan's rebuttal to the popularity of "The Authority". Granted, the writers of The Authority took shots at caped heroes for being "lame" or not tough enough. However, they still acted heroic in a way. They just used lethal force. What Action Comics #775 does, is make strawman caricatures of the Authority for Superman to butt heads with. The Elite, in the comic story never does anything heroic. They call themselves heroes but at the same time try to make the bad guys they stop drink acid as a punishment. The climax of the comic involves Superman picking a fight with The Elite, winning the fight, depowers them all and then castigates them for their behavior. If you like Superman being a bully, then Action Comics #775 is for you! Watch the movie instead.
Joe Kelley recently gave his thoughts on Superman and lethal force (likely inspired by MOS) here.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfe1gXZ65ks[/yt]
Actually whenever the Marvel characters kill or shoot someone, it almost always feels completely weightless and the heroes don't seem all that bothered or disturbed by the death in the slightest.
At least in MOS when Superman had to kill someone, he actually expressed some real sorrow and anguish afterward.
That was something I loved about Man of Steel. He kills Zod, and he is in extreme anguish. He had killed a fellow last survivor of Krypton, and was saddened by it regardless of Zod's intent and disposition.
I still have to say, as much as I loved Superman II, MoS makes S II look like a guilty pleasure by comparison. Personal view only.
You mean the one where Superman shows he has no problem striping people of their powers, but doesn't do so to all the supervillains running around killing people with their powers making him look like a hypocritical ass.
And still doesn't address the fact that most of the complaints about MoS sound like fans not being happy the Superman isn't handed victory on a plate, he couldn't save everyone like an omnipotent all powerful god, and he actually was in a situation where there actually was no magic third option.
I'd say the 1966 movie as well, but somebody'd bring up the rehydrated goons that Batman and Robin fought in the batcave.
I am not a big fan of Superman's not trying to save people in MoS, and not trying to find a solution other than killing Zod--but accepting that that happened and given his remorse over doing it, I can see the following as part of the plot of the upcoming movie based on what I have seen so far, including the obvious Dark Knight Returns references:
Batman is grieving over failing to save Dick Grayson and other mistakes. He is taking the moral high ground and going after Superman who he sees as a grave threat to humanity. In the process, he basically doesn't care about killing criminals or other threats as long as the goal is achieved. He is probably beating himself up for not killing the Joker and has renounced his "no killing" policy.
In his earnestness to take down Superman, he fails to see that he--Batman--has become the very thing he is fighting against.
Eventually he learns that Superman is not the bad guy and feels genuine remorse over his failure in MoS. In return, Superman teaches Batman that there is a better way to be a symbol of good and of justice in the world, hence Dawn of Justice.
I would be surprised if the movie does not develop along these lines with this sense of redemption at the end and Superman being the virtuous Superman that defines the character.
Batman is grieving over failing to save Dick Grayson and other mistakes. He is taking the moral high ground and going after Superman who he sees as a grave threat to humanity. In the process, he basically doesn't care about killing criminals or other threats as long as the goal is achieved. He is probably beating himself up for not killing the Joker and has renounced his "no killing" policy.
In his earnestness to take down Superman, he fails to see that he--Batman--has become the very thing he is fighting against.
Eventually he learns that Superman is not the bad guy and feels genuine remorse over his failure in MoS. In return, Superman teaches Batman that there is a better way to be a symbol of good and of justice in the world, hence Dawn of Justice.
I would be surprised if the movie does not develop along these lines with this sense of redemption at the end and Superman being the virtuous Superman that defines the character.
After all this time I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what that other solution was. Zod was purposely stopping Superman from moving him, that family were seconds away from being fried by Zod's heat vision. Superman was backed into a corner, and he took the only action he felt he could - an action which he instantly regretted and felt total remorse for, and will likely help to define the type of hero he will be. I don't know what more people want.
By taking out the world engine in the Indian Ocean Superman not only save Metropolis but the entire planet as well for that matter. So it's really hard to say he didn't try to save anybody. And really while Zod was attacking earth where was Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and all the others heroes that are now going to appear?
Based on set photos from BvS, Batman was in Metropolis saving people from the destruction Superman and Zod were causing. Wonder Woman and Aquaman live in mythological societies which probably don't get cnn - they may not have even known anything was happening until the world engine switched on. Green Lantern probably hasn't received his ring yet, or if he has, he probably wasn't on Earth. The Flash and Cyborg also probably do not have their powers yet. Or Cyborg might, but if he was on the wrong side of the world at the time, he wouldn't be able to reach metropolis in time anyway. But the Flash definitely can't be active yet, or no one would've been surprised at what Superman can do.
At the end of the day, I don't really have a problem with the destruction in MOS because it's very clear that it was a story about a somewhat confused and imperfect guy who still needs to learn how to become the hero he's supposed to be. Especially with the fallout of the destruction being apparently very central to the BvS storyline, I think it's a very interesting way of building Superman up rather than just popping out this perfect paragon from the very first scene.
I do understand why a lot of people dislike it so much, though, and it's not just because of what actions the character took, it's because of the way the story was framed and shot. When people say he didn't save anyone, they're talking about the fact that he was in the middle of a completely crumbling city and the only time he is shown actively saving people is when his girlfriend is in danger and when Zod backs him into a corner. Of course, he also saved the entire planet. But the point is the movie makers made a choice to show TONS of destruction on screen and not a single shot of Superman saving innocent bystanders from that destruction. That leaves an impression that a lot of people don't like, especially when you combine it with the (now clearly story driven) decision to make Superman himself responsible for endangering dozens of innocent bystanders in Smallville for no good reason.
