Ill defend The Incredible Hulk until the day I die. Loved that movie.
Superman killed Zod because Snyder and the writer chose for Superman to kill Zod.
That's the entirety of it.
Fiction is like that - if you want a thing to happen, you construct the logic of the story so that it will. If you want the hero to avoid it, you construct the interior logic so that he can avoid it.
There is no valid argument to be made here that Superman kills Zod because "he has no choice, if you've never been in that situation, blah blah blah," because it is a choice that's absolutely under the control of the storyteller. You can't get away with conflating it with necessity in a real situation. Snyder just wanted Superman to kill Zod, to make some lame narrative point.
Like I said, if they'd done what the animated series did and have Zod's death ultimately be unintentional and not a deliberate action it would've gotten the point across and still been more acceptable by the fandom.
PALPATINE shooting himself in the face.
I know it's hard to stop midstream, but surely if you stop before it starts to hurt, you don't find yourself woubmd up like this.
Last edited:
OK, I wasn't sure how of a role he had in the day to day making of the movie. I know he picks the cast, director, script and stuff like that, but I assumed he pretty much just handed things over to director once the movie was actually in production. So I was thinking the final quality of the movie would be all on the director.
No, the made the right choice, the DCEU was struggling pretty hard by the time they decided to hand things over to Gunn. We've only gotten four productions from the DCU so far, and I believe that three of those have been fairly successful, with Supergirl being the only real failure so far.
Even if that is the case, it's not the last time we'll see the character. We already know she's going be in Man of Tomorrow, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just stick to her being a Superman supporting character in any future appearances we get.
There are a lot of other Green Lanterns out there, so I'm fine them possibly shifting the focus to John Stewart. And it's worth keeping in mind that we don't actually know for a fact Hal will be retiring, all we know is that at least at the start of the past storyline for Lanterns he's training his replacement, but that doesn't mean he actually will. There are plenty of storylines where a character is supposed to retire at the beginning, but by the end decide to stay on the job.
It does sound like he might not be a part of the present day storyline, but the interviews were keeping things kind of vague. And even if he does retire, that doesn't necessarily mean he won't still be around.
To be fair, they've already been working on Man of Tomorrow for a while, so at this point it's probably too like to remove Supergirl. And while the movie it's self has been a flop, even the people who didn't like the movie seem to be liking Alcock's take on the character, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if we still see her from time to time.
It's Lobo, not Ludo.
Yeah, the Peacemaker situation is a little weird, but I can't blame Gunn for wanting to both keep going with the series, but also make it part of his new DCU.
That's pretty a standard part of these kind of shared so it's a completely understandable or at least it when they were making the initial decisions. I wouldn't be totally surprised if wasn't actually his decision, that feels like the kind of thing that would have come from the people in charge of WB.
I think the decision to make them in that form is more about the stories they decided to tell, and not just about the characters. Lanterns is meant to be a gritty True Detective style mystery, and that's really the kind of story that does work best as a series, while Clayface is body horror, and that does tend to be more of a movie thing.
I've got to disagree with you here, the best shared universes are the ones that give us a variety of types of shows and movies. Just look at Star Trek, in the last decade we've gotten Lower Decks, Discovery, Picard, and Prodigy, which are all very, very different types of shows. And Star Wars and the MCU have given us just as much diversity. Trying to force everything to use the same style and tone would get really boring really fast.
I don't see why they need to match, they're different characters and the movies are telling very different types of story, so movies should reflect that.
I don't have a problem with this. I liked The Batman, and I'm glad Reeves is getting to continue his story his way, because it really would not fit in Gunn's DCU. And I holding off on The Brave and The Bold is a smart move, because trying to put out the two different versions of Batman too close together would probably be confusing.
Yeah, I admit this one did surprise me a bit. But I enjoyed The Flash, so I'm OK with it.
No, letting the directors do their own thing is the right movie, even in a shared universe you still want there to be at least some diversity of style, and tone. It seems like any time studio heads hire a director, but then don't allow the director to make the movie their way, it ends up not going well.
They've made perfect sense to me.
Same here. To this day, the Hulk/Banner never had a better MCU showing than in the Norton film and set a strong tone for a Marvel film universe (although that tone would be abandoned).
Twice!
If you can't learn from the mistakes of your genetic donor, you deserve to shoot yourself in the face to death.
Well, sure, I get that. I was responding to the people who said that there was no other option for Superman to pursue in that situation other than snapping Zod's neck.
When the magicians do it right, you'll believe your disbelief can be suspended. When they do it wrong, all you see is the strings.
Or something.
Or something.
I really enjoyed Superman up until the final battle scene. It was just too brutal for me. I was relieved when Zod and Superman took a pause in their battle and I really thought that Kal-El was going to find a way to reach Zod, but he didn't and the destruction continued. I also didn't like that the screenplay was written so that Kal had to kill Zod in the end. However, I did enjoy the movie overall and also like the extended cuts of Batman V Superman and Justice League.
That's my lengthy preamble to saying that Kal did try to negotiate with Zod but Zod rejected anything but total destruction.
You do recall that the timeline changed?
Kal-El as a nonverbal toddler couldn't argue his point of view well.
Elizabeth Holmes said that you only need one drop of blood to map a genome.
Zod may have taken more than that.
'Supergirl' Bombs At Box Office, Will Lose $125 Million
Coming away from testing, DC knew there were hurdles ahead. The response to Supergirl was 'good, not great,' and that's not super.
deadline.com
I actually liked that story choice because it goes against the trope of the character who, despite being able to destroy planets ( with some writers, others have him struggling to keep a plane in the air), always chooses as little violence as possible. Now Snyder had an obviously different vision for the characters in his universe and wanted this to happen but sadly it never came up again so it basically became meaningless and was just there for shock value.
...and even in those old JSA team-ups the characters often appeared in separate stories (chapters) with different styles, only getting together for framing sequences at the beginning/end of the book.
'Supergirl' Bombs At Box Office, Will Lose $125 Million
Coming away from testing, DC knew there were hurdles ahead. The response to Supergirl was 'good, not great,' and that's not super.
Yeah. It looks like this is on track to lose quite a bit of money. Unless fourth of July weekend saves it.
Yes that was the format for a large part of the run. Later it became split into teams of two or three when the page count dropped, Usually with a single artist doing the entire issue. The JLA used that format too early on.