You opinion's of Jimmy in the new Supergirl TV Show?
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
You opinion's of Jimmy in the new Supergirl TV Show?
Superman is very interesting because he clings tp his ideals. A good Superman story sees his ideals challenged, sees him ponder the issue himself, and finally sees why his ideals are right. Read "What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American Way?", read "Superman: Birthright", read the whole Zod-and-Exile story (and not just the Zod-part). Those are some of the best Superman stories of all time, and this is the formula that works best for this particular character.
It is also why I think BvS was such an improvement. Superman's actions are questioned by Batman, by Senator Finch, etc., his ideals are challenged by Luthor, and in the end, Superman does not take the easy way of just going ahead and killing Batman to save his mother, but to try and try to reason with Batman, until they finally work together and even Batman feels inspired to change his methods because of Superman's example.
It is also why I think BvS was such an improvement. Superman's actions are questioned by Batman, by Senator Finch, etc., his ideals are challenged by Luthor, and in the end, Superman does not take the easy way of just going ahead and killing Batman to save his mother, but to try and try to reason with Batman, until they finally work together and even Batman feels inspired to change his methods because of Superman's example.
It's effectively pretty much what you just said, yeah. Come now, your suggested alternative to the story as written was giving Supes a hilariously ridiculous workaround involving magically learning how to do tricks with Phantom Zone engines he'd never seen before. And you're apparently very, very angry that the writers did not adopt this or some other equally ridiculous solution but instead just went and deliberately wrote a story where the character has to make a difficult choice and how dare they.
(And apparently they were even thinking "aww fuck, we're too shitty [etc.]" in their guilty little hearts all the while.
You know, maybe if your criticism starts to involve making up cod-Randian inner monologues for other real-life people, it's time to take a step back. Like way, way, way back.)Because deep down, you know I'm right.
(Or if not, then put it this way: that feeling you have of not-caring? That's exactly how much investment anyone else should have in your opinions about "Zack Snyder thinking pointless murder is 'fun'" and for exactly the same reasons. But just for the record, I think there was a great point in Zack Snyder killing off Jimmy Olsen: which is that it was Jimmy f***ing Olsen and now we know, thank God, that he's dead and won't be turning up in movies from this continuity*. That my friend is peace of mind, right there. I have reports from reliable sources that Abrams is working a similar scene with Jar-Jar Binks into his next Star Wars effort.)
(* DISCLAIMER: Jokes only. I don't really have this much antipathy toward Jimmy Olsen. I just don't care that he got introduced and knocked off as a peripheral character, because you know. Fictional.)
Last edited:
Haven't seen it, more's the pity.
So the exact scene that happened in "Superman Returns" that really wasn't that dark, but did show that he has quite the burdon placed on him?
It's only dark because Snyder makes it that way. What a joke.
Remember the time Jesse Eisenberg was originally approached to play Jimmy Olsen for an early stunt-casting kill because that's "great" storytelling? Superman stories shouldn't need that in a movie. I'm glad Jesse was smart enough to evade what the director had planned.
Every interview with Snyder shows he has less and less clue. This should have been the greatest superhero movie this decade. I just watched the animated "World's Finest" and really wish Dini was some sort of consultant on this script.
Well, then I'd like to introduce you to James Olsen 2016 edition.
No, it really wasn't.
Two points.
1.) I was asked for some alternatives. Those were some fast, easy ones off the top of my head.
2.) None of them required Superman learning anything. The first had his scientist father telling him what to do. The second had one already existing and available. The third had another brilliant scientist coming up with the idea while all Supes did was stall the bad guys. Oh, and all three were completely viable reasons, too. But you're right. Just snapping Zod's neck and then shrugging it off was way more interesting for Superman.
You can't even get that right, and I (or anyone else) is supposed to give two wits about your opinions on, well, anything?
Wrong again. I'm angry that the writers and director clearly have no idea who they're writing for and are instead basically pulling a Michael Bay. You know, the guy who "always wanted to do a movie about robots" so bastardized the Transformers franchise and made it into... whatever it is now.
On top of that, the writers and director had tons of material they could have called upon to help them write a story that was actually good (and I'm hardly the only person who thinks it's a shitty story; sorry, but you're in the vast, vast, vast minority in that regard), including stuff WB itself has produced in the last few decades. That, you know, would actually warrant the character being called "Superman" instead of "random dark and edgy guy with powers who goes around killing people because the director thinks murder is fun."
That's not an opinion. He literally said that it would be "fun" to introduce a character just to murder him in an interview. And then he did it again later on in the movie. Oh, and he did it several other times just at random because, you know, it's hilarious when a superhero flat-out murders someone like Supes did in the Middle East.
It really is amazing how you can't even pay attention to a conversation you're in...
Again, what the hell are you talking about? There's no Kara in these movies.
Marvel created the most recent incarnation of Colossus?
It's not my job to correct your ignorance. That said here you go.
Well, yes, actually they did. But if you were asking if I think "Marvel Studios" produced Deadpool, no. But, yes, the latest incarnation of a Marvel character named Colossus was a character who was more Supermanish than Superman was in the last few movies.
So basically stories where Superman's ideological opponents are almost parody versions of 90s anti-heroes which Superman bludgeons into submission whist ignoring if they bring up any good points or not.
Just more of the usual doubletalk. In what way did "Marvel" create the Deadpool incarnation of Colossus?
In that he was a Marvel character, as opposed to a DC one? And that the latest incarnation of both Marvel's Captain America and Marvel's Colossus characters, both of which are Marvel characters, are more Supermanish than DC's Superman? And just because I can say it again because apparently it triggers you: Marvel.
Again: Your ignorance (feigned as it clearly is) isn't my responsibility to fix.
Again: Your ignorance (feigned as it clearly is) isn't my responsibility to fix.
1. Superman bludgeoning the Elite?! Have you read the comic? They bludgeoned him. In fact, they thought, they'd killed him. And Superman did not bludgeon them in return. He subdued very powerful people with the minimum force necessary. He didn't even lay a finger on Manchester Black in that final showdown, except for removing his powers, something he did without Black even noticing.
2. Sure, the Elite was a parody of anti-heroes in the vein of The Authority. Or, actually, the glorification these anti-heroes received from a huge part of the fanbase who didn't recognize the anti-hero part. Back then, there were a lot of fans who called for Superman and the rest of the Justice League to "stop being pussies and kill their enemies" as well, and this story was a direct reaction to that notion, showing that it is important for actual heroes (so no "anti-") like Superman not to kill. And, looking at Zack Snyder and some of the people posting on this board, this message apparently is still very relevant.
But you referred explicitly to "his latest incarnation" and called it Marvel's doing. It wasn't. Fox isn't Marvel. Sorry you can't seem to keep those pesky facts straight.
You got me, I only own 8 MCU films instead of all 12. Clearly I am not of the body!That doesn't even make sense. How does someone fix "feigned" ignorance? And it's not feigned at all: I had no idea that Supergirl was supposed to be 20,000 years older than Superman, just like I had no idea that there was a MoS prequel comic. Nor did I have any reason to believe that someone who clearly detests everything about Snyder's DC films would even care in the slightest about a Snyderverse prequel comic in the first place, or be conversant enough with it to be able to engage in the convoluted rationalizations necessary to make the comic fit with what we see in the film. See, you learn something new every day!
Uh, seeing as I'm the one who said it, and I know what I said, and that I've clarified it for you twice now: Yeah, okay, whatever. <pats your head>
"Oh mah gah, that guy said that two Marvel characters are Marvel characters! I'm so gonna burst him on that and make it sound like I'm too thick to understand what was being said! That'll show her! Herp a derp derp!!!"
And you're right, there's no fixing that.
Then that ignorance was, indeed, fixed. Even though -- again -- it's not my job to do that for you.
Yes, because if you have legitimate criticisms about something, you're not allowed to know anything about it. In fact, it's far better to go into a debate being completely ignorant about things like Set Harth, and when your ignorance is in fact called out, act like that's somehow a good thing and that the person who knows what they're talking about is the fucking ignorant moron, not one's self. <thumbs up>
But hey, that seems to be a running trend around here. Case in point: The people who brought up the Byrne storyline (you know, the guy who then went on to call everyone else an 'idiot' [then later edited it to 'loser'] despite clearly never having actually read it, who in turn was followed up by a host of other equally ignorant people jumping on the bandwagon).
Last edited:
Did they go in to why they kill, have an actual discussion on which method super heroes use is better and view the merits and draw backs of them, or did they just resort to beating each other up over the issue after turning a shades of gray issue into a strict blank and white issue?
And don't get me started on the whole "if the hero kills just one villain ever they will eventually run around indiscriminately killing people" bullshit that makes "no-kill rule" heroes look like barley control psychopaths looking for an excuse to slaughter everyone.
...and you know it was incorrect, right?
Oh, wait. You "clarified" it. Right.
Well, clearly I must have argued somewhere that it is your job, because otherwise you'd just be repeatedly flogging a pointless strawman here for no good reason. Dodged that bullet, eh?
...You seem to be convinced that you're in a debate with someone over what you are allowed to do. And that's fine. Whatever floats your proverbial boat.
The problem? Whoever that someone is, it isn't me. In fact, there's a good chance that person is entirely imaginary. I find the question of what you are or are not allowed to do entirely uninteresting, as the conclusion is obvious.
But let's leave that aside and get back to the point. Why would someone who hates everything about the Snyderverse even want to read a Snyderverse comic in the first place? Isn't that kind of weird? Or counterintuitive?
No, you just misunderstood. Apparently "Marvel" is code for "Marvel Studios" in your head. As, you know, opposed to distinguishing the fact that two Marvel characters have done a better job of characterizing a DC character than the DC character itself. (Oh, and that they've both been a bigger hit, too. Especially critically.)...and you know it was incorrect, right?
Oh, wait. You "clarified" it. Right.
But hey, by all means, keep trying to pretend your ignorance and inability to comprehend what you read is everyone else's fault. You know, even after it's been clarified for you four times now.
Last edited:
Right, that's what I said: you're incapable of making factually incorrect statements. Whenever it happens, it actually didn't happen - you're just "misunderstood". I get it!
Nope. Apparently you're using "Marvel" as code for "20th Century Fox". Is this what you call "edumacating the ignorants"?
I keep trying, but I can't seem to get to that level of comprehension where "Marvel" means "Fox". This is clearly the result of my own inadequacy.
I get it, I understand what the term "clarified" means to you. It's just that I'm using an older dictionary which does not define "clarification" to mean "backpedaling and ass-covering". I really need to update that thing.
And for the fifth clarification: If you go back and read the post you apparently think you're bazinga'ing (or whatever it is you think you're doing in your head), you'll note that I was talking about two Marvel characters. You may even notice how I didn't mention Marvel Studios, Fox, OR Warner Brothers. Like, at all. Or that I wasn't even talking about any actual movies at all, just two characters from some movies whose titles I never even brought up (including Batman v Superman in regards to Supes).
And after it being clarified over and over and over and (now) over again, you still somehow think your misinterpretation of what you read is someone else's fault, not yours, and that you're really "sticking it to me" by pointing it out.
I'm sure they have medication for whatever psychological problem that is.
And after it being clarified over and over and over and (now) over again, you still somehow think your misinterpretation of what you read is someone else's fault, not yours, and that you're really "sticking it to me" by pointing it out.
I'm sure they have medication for whatever psychological problem that is.