We can't indict the character without visual evidence. Otherwise it becomes a "fill in the blank your complaint here", scenario. We can ascribe all types of aspersions and vitriol in that case. Or we can stick to what we see on screen. Just the facts, Jack. That was the end of the fight. Supes and Zod crashed into that grand central station building. Supes then gotten Zod in a headlock. Almost as implausible as the MCU's 9/11 in NYC only having 74 fatalities. Ultron's attack in the floating city of Sokovia killing only 177 people. Sanitized mass destruction. I didn't say people didn't die. I just said that Superman himself did not kill any civilians as he battled Zod. Besides, Snyder gave us a death toll for Metropolis. 5K was his number. The monument and names of the fallen can be seen in BvS and ZS JL. On the plus side, we know what happened to MCU Peter Parker's Uncle Ben. Fair enough. Upon retrospect (crazy to think it's been 9 years since the movie came out), I think Snyder should've altered where Superman was during the finale. Focus all their efforts on stopping the Black Zero ship in Metropolis and leave the world engine to pancake the Indian ocean coast. Because the heroes in TDK and Avengers 1 and 2 had no control over the villains activities. If they did, there would be no story. No chase or puzzle to solve for Batman. No globetrotting adventure film for the Avengers. Capped off obligatory 30 minute finale to give the Avengers something to punch before the credits roll. That's fair. Blow up African countryside instead. If only Superman were so lucky to have a supporting cast capable of migrating a population the size of NYC out of their homes and away from danger. So Supes can have a knockdown, grand slam fight in an unoccupied space. Heimdall did a lot of the heavy lifting of protecting the people of Asgard in Thor Ragnarok. Thor, Loki, Banner and Valkyrie just kind of show up at the end for the final fight. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's silly to suggest a hero can always just lure a bad guy someplace else. The Brotherhood wanted to get to Alcatraz to kill the mutant Leech and destroy the cure. The X-Men could only play defense. Hela wanted to return to Asgard. As it is the place that magnifies her power. The occupants Asgard and the occupants of the 9 realms would all be her victims if she wasn't stopped. Where do you suggest Superman lure Zod to, to avoid collateral damage? Keep in mind, the battle against Supes and Zod went all the way into orbit and it still came back down to Metropolis. Zod was pretty determined. And hey! X3, terrible? After the disaster what was Dark Phoenix. I thought we all agreed that X3 was "the good" Phoenix movie. I genuinely can't believe it. Simon Kinberg wrote both X3 and Dark Phoenix. 13 years apart and he failed to stick the landing TWICE! At least X3 has DOFP in front of it. To make it retroactively better. Some heroes. The 9/11 crash in STID was Damon Lindelof's idea. He said something to the effect that he felt the movie just needed a scene like this to cap it off. Punctuated by a foot chase and a fist fight. Yeah... Those jokers should never touch Trek again. Eh... I wouldn't call that an emotional connection. Not like Tony with the kid in IM3 or Peter with the kid in TASM 1 and 2. It's a good line. But I'm with you on adding something like that in the future. I've even come up with my own idea! It would work. Roger that. Let us combine our resources and voices to #RestoretheSnyderverse. I want to see Superman put the hurt on Brainiac and Darkseid. So he can show the world that he is the Man of Steel for the Men of Tomorrow! That guy was in the neighboring building. It was hit by Zod's uncontrolled heat vision. I don't know why he didn't leave either. Everyone was evacuating and Bruce called and told people to leave. Guess the old man felt it was his time to go.
A rational observation. Superman is not the Daddy-Man of Earth. He is an alien gifted with overwhelming powers and when faced with threats on a level of ability similar to his own, he cannot child-proof the outcome. Not only would the expectation of a child-proofing Daddy-Man be utterly unrealistic, but it shows a remarkable detachment from the idea of great risk and pain in the service of believable, strong drama. Well said. That group can always go back to watching The Super Friends, the Reeve films or worst of all, reading the Weisinger era of Superman comics if the Daddy-Man is the only way they see the character, but that is not going to sell to for anyone seeking a look at how Superman would function in a mirror of reality. True. Quite correct; the level of destruction in The Avengers / Age of Ultron was far beyond the damage of a 9/11-level attack, yet the casualty rate was ridiculously low. Of course, when one is desperate to sell the Avengers as "heroes," that desperation leads to the belief that heroism must be separated from high numbers of death. Life does not work that way, and the audience is well aware of that fact, and so that sanitized mass destruction is one of the many reasons the Avengers films in question played like an episode of the 80s G.I. Joe cartoon: loud, energy blasts, explosions, yet everyone gets to walk away before the next round of cereal commercials. Facts are easy to ignore when some drown in an agenda to kick Superman back to the worst of the character's creative output. Ahh, much like the terrible cartoons of decades gone by, where we were told a great battle was unfolding, yet there were no threats--no consequences, and as a result, no invested risk or danger for the audience to percieve. The toys just go right back into the box. Again, you cite facts, which cannot be understood by anyone looking for Daddy-Man / the G.I. Joe cartoon. As noted earlier, Zod was somewhat more powerful than Superman, so the latter could not force and/or lure Zod anywhere. The fight, and this film version of Zod was calculating, not a deep-breathing fool. Many want to see that. Cavill is a great Superman and has taken the logical steps for the character to grow into the role, despite a world divided on being protected by an alien (as it would be if he existed in real life).
I haven't seen the movie in years. But wasn't It his first day as Superman? It was like his first day he flew and didn't know all of his powers and had to fight for his life and the planet
This whole debate reminds me of the 60s and 70s Godzilla films, where the baddie kaiju is always destroying a city but as soon as they see/smell/hear Godzilla, they go and fight in the countryside near the mountains
In real life the idea of a completely human looking alien flying without a means of propulsion is absurd. Real life can bite me.
Me, too. Then I was lucky enough to rediscover them in reruns on MeTV decades later, which ignited a passion for all things Super. Preach. At this point, I've seen every live-action Superman there's been, and while I appreciate almost all of them, Reeves remains among the character's all-time best screen incarnations.
In the ww2 stories it was a Translucent Mustang P-51. You'd think, if they could build Jet engines before the war, they'd want to keep that tech out of the Nazis hands, so that's exactly what they did. The Prime Directive. Theres a great story line in the late 90s where Diana dies, her mom takes over, joins the justice league and then goes back in time, to fight in WW2 with the justice society. Hypollita lives in the 1940s for a year plus, and dates Wildcat. Ted Grant, not Yolande.
It "looked like" a P51, but I doubt it was a P51, more so in the clip I provided... The aeroplane does not even have an engine. So if it's making an engine like noise, that's just camouflage so the men don't freak out even more from magic lady science. On the show, the NAZIs invaded Paradise Island to build a Feminum (the indestructible metal her bracelets are made from) mine to supply a tank factory on the mainland. It was also bullet proof, so the plane didn't even need to be invisible. Germany had had basic RADAR since 1936.
Reminds me of the first time I saw Frankenstein as a kid and couldn't believe that movie ever scared anyone. After growing up with Freddy Kruegar and Jason Voorhees a big lumbering mute didn't seem like much. Kids today see superheroes flying and saving people all the time. But when I first saw it I was like...WOW! I still get goose bumps with that scene as well as the one in Superman 2 when Clark takes off his glasses and reveals himself to Lois. Reeves should have gotten the Academy Award for that movie. Period.
Well, yes. I don't think Superman as a story ought to be realistic. I think Superman ought to be a bright, inspirational father-figure hero -- an archetype of Lawful Good, a wish-fulfillment fantasy of morally righteous power, not a psychologically realistic character. Because, let's face it -- the superhero genre is full of superheroes feeling the weight of expectation, angsting and feeling man-pain with their inability to save everyone. And that's fine! There's absolutely nothing wrong with that type of story. But I think we also really need bright, inspirational stories. And since Superman is the first modern superhero, and since he was from his earliest stories a moral power fantasy, I think that that's who Superman should be when they're doing the main canonical comic books and major motion pictures and TV shows based on him. I think there's a really bad need for that kind of story in our culture, too, and Superman is the perfect character to fulfill it.
Live action adaptations generally take place in a setting consciously created to be familiar to audiences, so there's a greater expectation of realism--even from fantasy elements. some films captured that perfectly (e.g. Man of Steel) while others came off like cartoons.
^This. If you want dark and gritty superheroes, watch The Boys (which I love!). There's room enough for both.
Yeah: the misguided are always trying to drag happy hopeful heroes through the mud. No one's ever trying to make Frank Castle into a fun, happy character.
With 140,978 versions of “happy hopeful” Superman stories, there’s room for a few with a (rather modestly) different tone. Even (or especially) if it challenges expectations. Thankfully, someone offered up such a story.
As an Elseworlds story, sure. As a major motion picture adaptation meant for mainstream audiences? Bad call. Except he didn't "challenge expectations." He just did the Broody Angsty Manpain Superhero trope and called it "Superman." And that might have been fine, except that Snyder tried to use the cinematic language of deconstructionism... and then he had nothing to say! At least when, say, Alan Moore's Watchmen deconstructed Superman, Moore had a point -- an argument that powers and abilities like Superman's would fundamentally alienate the superpowered person from the rest of humanity and that his presence would destabilize all of society, that the fantasy of a morally righteous de facto demigod could never actually function. Snyder doesn't even have that much going for him -- there's no hidden truth about the Superman character he uncovers, not deeper meaning or statement made about Superman beyond, "Well, being Superman would kinda suck sometimes! Some people would blame you for things unfairly and that would make you sad!" And fell flat on his ass doing so. Thank God they aren't letting Snyder keep control of the DCEU. Let the kids have Superman back, and let's have adults stop trying to steal him away.