• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

Similarly, Superman II (whatever its other flaws might be) does not present Superman's killing of Zod, or Lois's killing of Ursa, as a morally ambiguous event or as a moral failing. The deaths of the Kryptonians is presented as a moral good to be celebrated. And almost nobody complains about Christopher Reeve's Superman killing someone -- because, again, Superman II rejects any sort of nihilistic tone, and instead embraces a combination of romance and adventure; the social order is a morally justified Apollonian order (it literally ends with Superman restoring the American flag to the roof of the Oval Office and telling a heroic character credited only as "The President" that he'll always protect the world), and the Kryptonians represent a Dionysian disruption to that order.
Click to expand...

I thought the Kryptonians' deaths in "Superman II" should have been recognized as moral failings or questionable. And I believe Superman and Lois' actions should have been portrayed as such. I've heard about WB and the director's attempt to reverse their deaths. I found their attempts rather clunky. Wasn't there a scene in which a restored empowered Clark/Superman had returned to the diner where he had been earlier bullied by some customer, to get revenge by twisting the guy's arm?

All we see of the end of the Phantom Zone villains in Superman II, is that they disappear into a mist in Superman's Fortress. There's no sound of hitting water or ground: they just vanish. To assume that Superman and Lois (who knocked Ursa into the mist) killed them in cold blood once they were powerless is in no way consistent with the tone and previous events of the movie.
Click to expand...

So . . . what happened to the trio when they fell, were pushed or punched into the chasm? After all, they were powerless. I do remember that in the original theatrical version; Zod, Ursa and the third guy were established as dead after the events at the Fortress of Solitude. In 2006, Richard Donner and WB changed the ending by turning back time (like he did in the 1978 movie) and erased the events of "Superman II". This left Zod and the others trapped in the Phantom Zone. Like I had said . . . clunky.


By contrast, the MCU movies do not present us with the kind of nihilistic tone that Man of Steel uses. Instead, they present us with a hopeful, optimistic tone in which Dionysian adversaries represent departures from a morally just, Apollonian order and whose deaths are morally justified rather than indicators of fundamental tragedy and failure on the part of Captain America. Indeed, Captain America: The First Avenger actively frames the killing of Hydra members and Nazis as a moral good to be celebrated.
Click to expand...

I don't recall any hopeful or optimistic tone by the end of "The Winter Soldier" or "Infinity War". Or "WandaVision" for that matter. Even the ending for "Ant-Man 3" had a questionable tone. And I don't recall the tone for "Man of Steel" being "nihilistic", especially since the movie ended with Clark joining The Daily Planet, with he and Lois exchanging smiles as if they had a secret. Which they did. If you're going to referring to the destruction in Metropolis as nihilistic, one might as well do the same for the destruction featured in "The Avengers", "The Incredible Hulk", "Iron Man 2", "Infinity War", "Age of Ultron" . . . and the list goes on.
 
Last edited:
That some are so insistent that Superman killed the Zoners in Superman II says much more about the viewer than the movie. As I suppose is true of the opposite argument. However, the text and tone of the movie only shows the Zoners disappearing into the mist of Superman's Fortress no matter how much one wishes to bring such moral ambiguity into a movie where it does not exist.
 
Supervisor 194 said:
That some are so insistent that Superman killed the Zoners in Superman II says much more about the viewer than the movie. As I suppose is true of the opposite argument. However, the text and tone of the movie only shows the Zoners disappearing into the mist of Superman's Fortress no matter how much one wishes to bring such moral ambiguity into a movie where it does not exist.
Click to expand...

And it's weird to me how desperately some people want to drag down heroic stories and read them in the most cynical way possible. Some people look at heroes and see them as an inspiration to elevate themselves; others look at them with resentment and feel a need to drag them down. This is why some people want the Moon landings to be a hoax, or insist that Shakespeare didn't write his own plays.
 
And some just want to understand how a thing works.

I did not realize Superman was so sacred. I found it a silly story as a child and dressed up as him when I was a kid. The fascination has long eluded me. There have been some great answers in this thread, and then some downright insulting ones about motivation and cynicism.
 
I was watching Strange New Worlds this week. And it I'm having trouble with it.
I want to know why Pike doesn't just go around flexing his Enterprise muscles. Why is he so nice and empathetic? What happened to him to make him that way? I just don't buy this. Kirk is the same. And Picard. What happened to them in their past that made them want to choose to do what's right when they clearly don't have to?
For that matter, what's up with these stories of Keanu Reeves and how nice he is.
I don't buy it for a second. Something's up with that.
 
Christopher said:
Stop making up these ridiculous straw men. There's nothing anomalous about people liking a character you don't like. It doesn't mean he's "sacred," it just means we like a character you don't like.
Click to expand...
When you categorize a character as a way it must be done, and there is limited questioning allowed it comes across as sacred in language. It comes across as something not to be challenged. How this is is presented (to my mind at least) is that Superman must be a certain way. He must. His reasoning is that he is good. That's how it appears. You explain some things well, and the character clearly carries a level of importance I don't possess.

It's not a matter of liking or not liking. That's too simplistic for what I'm trying to do. I want to understand the why of it, and get accused of cynicism in the process, told I don't believe in good for the sake of it. This character carries importance. Otherwise the depiction in Man of Steel would not continue to cause the furor it does.

It's a matter of not just having blind acceptance. One poster did a great job at giving me the "Why" of it for one story. Am I to presume then that all stories of Superman have that Why?
M'rk son of Mogh said:
For that matter, what's up with these stories of Keanu Reeves and how nice he is.
Click to expand...
See, I can find out the why of Keanu and have. He makes sense.

Superman is starting to make sense. The certainty of his presentation and the importance to others does not completely to my mind, around this character.
 
Last edited:
Dee1891 said:
So . . . what happened to the trio when they fell, were pushed or punched into the chasm? After all, they were powerless. I do remember that in the original theatrical version; Zod, Ursa and the third guy were established as dead after the events at the Fortress of Solitude.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing on screen that establishes the Zoners as dead in the theatrical cut of the movie. There is nothing that establishes a chasm beneath the Fortress. It is established through dialogue that it is not even particularly cold in the Fortress, as Superman asks Lois if she is cold and she responds that she should be freezing but she's not. Again, all we see is the Zoners disappearing into the mist in Superman's Fortress. A Fortress, by the way, which he prepared for the Zoners before they arrived. This is what is on screen.
 
Last edited:
Dee1891 said:
I don't recall any hopeful or optimistic tone by the end of "The Winter Soldier" or "Infinity War". Or "WandaVision" for that matter.
Click to expand...
Infinity War is what it is: the officially unacknowledged part 1 of a 2-parter. So it's kind of a cliffhanger. Wandavision could have been said to have a hopeful or optimistic tone by the end, were it not for the final scene where she's using the Darkhold. ( On the other hand, someone I know called the ending "depressing", presumably in reference to Wanda losing her artificial family. ) TWS generally has an optimistic ending, especially with the scene of Bucky pulling Steve from the water, which is a full-on manly bro tears emotional deal. I guess the scene with the Maximoffs spells trouble, but everything else about the ending is positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
Christopher said:
Yes, exactly. This was a kids' movie, for Pete's sake. This was nearly a decade before Tim Burton's Batman introduced the idea of "gritty" superhero stories. I never got the impression that the Phantom Zone villains suffered anything worse than being trapped in the lower levels of the Fortress until Superman could deal with them at his leisure.
Click to expand...
the G-man said:
Yeah, it's really confounding how many people have forgotten just how bloodless almost all superhero violence was until the mid-80s and the decades of comic book stories where bad guys fell from great heights only to miraculously survive.
Click to expand...

Really, the problematic stuff in Superman II wasn't what happened to the Phantom Zone criminals. It's how unheroic Superman acts:

1) He decides to give up his powers to be with his deranged stalker

2) Once he gets his powers back he unilaterally decides Lois can't be trusted so he violates her mind and makes her forget everything that happened

3) He goes back after that Redneck who beat him up as normal Clark and clobbers him even though the Trucker is now completely helpless.

What a hero.
 
fireproof78 said:
Isn't that like what happened in Man of Steel with the dude's truck?
Click to expand...
It is. And I guess this is where I fall in with the "less-good" Superman camp, because I have no problem at all with him giving abusers and bullies a little what-for.

SUPERMAN_domesticVIOLENCE+4.jpg
 
fireproof78 said:
When you categorize a character as a way it must be done...
Click to expand...

We are not. That is a lie you are making up because you'd rather dismiss us than listen to us. And if you're not listening, I'm done wasting my time talking to you. It seemed for a moment that you were actually reasonable and acknowledging that we had valid points, but now you're back to these outright lies, and I cannot abide liars. Goodbye.
 
My guess is that she might get a producing credit. I will be absolutely shocked if she ever plays WW again (and if Momoa ever plays Aquaman for that matter).
 
Dee1891 said:
So . . . what happened to the trio when they fell, were pushed or punched into the chasm? After all, they were powerless. I do remember that in the original theatrical version
Click to expand...

The intent of that theatrical version was clear. Some still make evidence-free attempts to claim Zod and his cronies simply slid down some wall of ice, but the payoff of both Superman regaining his powers, and the villains losing theirs was the revenge Superman and Lois sought, not by Superman apprehending the trio (which he had the ability to do, but did not), or flying them to the nearest jail. No, he sent Zod to his death, with Lois' punch intended to send Ursa off to the same fate. As much as some cling to the fantasy of a Superman who does not kill, all period publicity materials for Superman II, interviews, etc., never even hinted that the villains were not killed.

I don't recall any hopeful or optimistic tone by the end of "The Winter Soldier" or "Infinity War". Or "WandaVision" for that matter.
Click to expand...

The conclusion f The Winter Soldier was flat-out grim, with the world now knowing the top security / espionage group in the world was controlled by Nazi knock-offs over the course of its existence with more cells still active; Fury--due to the danger posed by Hydra and like-minded associates--had to accept his "death", while we were witness to the beginning of the government questioning the destructive, vigilantism of the heroes, rather than support their actions in stopping attempted mass murder.

Rogers was not riding off into the sunset with loyal sidekick Wilson in tow. Instead, Rogers realized he was more isolated than ever before, since the structure he found in SHIELD ended up completely betraying him with attempts on his life, and the expectation that he was not entirely safe. One of the key reasons the film is widely regarded as the far and away greatest of all MCU productions is its serious, brutal realities and cutthroat political themes, which temporarily pushed the MCU closer to reality and was the most relatable film of all MCU theatrical releases.


If you're going to referring to the destruction in Metropolis as nihilistic, one might as well do the same for the destruction featured in "The Avengers", "The Incredible Hulk", "Iron Man 2", "Infinity War", "Age of Ultron" . . . and the list goes on.
Click to expand...

Please do not bring facts into that discussion. It tends to deflate ridiculous arguments claiming damage from a world-saving fight was "nihilistic" (obviously not the proper use of the word in relation to that film) while consciously ignoring the disaster-porn seen in every MCU film you listed, and others, including Endgame. That is the kind of crap pushed by those who trapped Superman in some creatively challenged, halcyonic realm, where serious themes, true character development and threats do not exist as he sits on a throne in some perpetually giddy state of mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top