Superman
- Thread starter urbandefault
- Start date
Sci going in on Synder's Superman again. Despite MOS being 9 years old, and Snyder and Cavil being gone from WB since 2017.
WB has moved on to a Latina Supergirl and JJ Abrams' black Superman movie (both stuck in development hell or outright cancelled) and yet people still feel compelled to pile on a dead iteration of the character.
It's 2022 and nearly 2023, mates. You won. Let it go now.
I now leave you with Cavilman's greatest hits.
"Super Space Man. Human Race Man. Gonna thank you because you care".
WB has moved on to a Latina Supergirl and JJ Abrams' black Superman movie (both stuck in development hell or outright cancelled) and yet people still feel compelled to pile on a dead iteration of the character.
It's 2022 and nearly 2023, mates. You won. Let it go now.
I now leave you with Cavilman's greatest hits.
"Super Space Man. Human Race Man. Gonna thank you because you care".
Indeed. Some cling--with shaking hands--their self-deceiving fantasy of Reeve-Superman being their selfless Santa-Daddy when across two movies his biggest decisions were strictly focused on Lois--from reversing time (destiny of all humankind be damned--he chooses for them), to discarding his heritage / birthright for her...again, humankind--those he pledged himself to help--be damned. What a hero.
Interestingly, "some" in this thread have had high praise for Superman '78 in the past -- before they became so myopically obsessed with the Cavill version, and so threatened by any perceived competition to it, that Reeve now has to be derided and dismissed constantly lest Cavill suffer by comparison.
No. It only changes one event (Lois's death).
Jor-El's warning goes nowhere and does nothing. Superman's act of traveling back in time to save Lois has no negative consequences whatsoever.
In the original version, his saving Lois would inadvertently lead to the release of General Zod and company from the Phantom Zone, but that's not what actually happens in the film as released. As released, Jor-El's warning is just there to create a conflict between Superman's Human and Kryptonian sides which he resolves by both saving the world and saving Lois.
I mean, no one claimed he's a completely sefless Santa Claus who doesn't have some people he likes more than others. But goddamn, would it kill the Cavill Superman to at least try to act like he enjoys the company of anybody in the world other than Lois and his parents? To smile a little at the people he's saving instead of acting like a burdened god? To show concern for the people dying around him at the Capitol instead of just looking annoyed he has to save people again?
Sure, it's his Gethsemane moment. And then he realizes he must remain Superman and resumes his role, and even sacrifices the possibility of life with Lois.
No, he made the ultimate sacrifice for Lois. His dialogue makes it very clear that she is his real motivation, not humanity.
Again, I just wish the Cavill Superman actually acted like he liked people instead of merely tolerating them. Can you actually picture him hanging out with anybody other than Lois after work? Having any friends outside of Lois? 'Cos I can't.
Superman is a Reupblican.
Incorrect. No one ever said Superman's act could be focused on one person. The entire "turning back time" sequence clearly shows earthquake damage and other events in a state of reversal, which means anything and anyone in that period of time had their existence altered to the point where he set the earth back to its natural course. He could not know or control the innumerable ways lives were changed around the world.
Already addressed, and there's that choosing destiny for humankind thing again.
Some in this and other threads see him in that way, especially if they're crying about how "dark" he is in other adaptations.
The point is the advocates of the selfless Santa tap-dance around the fact for selfish reasons, he sacrificed his birthright / heritage at all, when--according to the selfless Santa crew--he does not behave that way.
I'm not sure why you keep repeating this. It is not what happened in the film and really misses the point, which was he saved EVERYONE and followed Pa Kent's advice over Jor-El's as he realized he wasn't just Kryptonian but also an Earthling. Yes, he gave up his powers in the second movie---he made a stupid decision for love, but the point of that story is that he learns from his mistake, does again what Jor-El told him was impossible, and returns to save the world.
You know that the Republican party was a lot different decades ago, as was the Democratic Party? Superman is against racism and discrimination and I believe that he stays out of the rest of politics. Trump is a real life Lex Luthor with less intelligence, so DC didn't have to rehash that storyline again.
Last edited:
The point is all about the time reversal scene and its motivation. He did not do that to "save the world" at all. He did that for his interest in one person, and there's no cut of that film which presents the motivation in any other way, no matter how much some may want to blur the lines and argue '78 Superman was a living, breathing Mount Rushmore of selfless behavior from start to finish.
You know that the Republican party was a lot different decades ago, as was the Democratic Party? Superman is against racism and discrimination and I believe that he stays out of the rest of politics. Trump is a real life Lex Luthor with less intelligence, so DC
He went back in time to do the same thing over again, and save Lois. It is not like he didn't save all the other people. You interpretation of that scene is a little warped and fails to address the narrative and thematic elements of the film. I don't understand why you need to invent an interpretation of this film like that? Is it just to distract from similar criticism about MoS? Regardless, your point has been made over and over again--it has been made very very very clear. People have already made up their minds to disagree or agree with it, and furthering belabouring the point will not add substance to the discussion.
Did I miss a movie here? Which movie is Cavil's superman almost dead?
Yes.
Although I think Lex Luthor (until the ridiculous end) proved to be the incorruptible president that Trump was advertised as.
I just looked up the fall of President Luthor,
He bought weapons from Darkseid, to fight Imperiex.
Um?
Is that a crime?
(Real world Equivalence)
China Invades the US, so Biden buys an Aircraft Carrier from the Russians.
....
The end I remember is Lex is infected by an Alien virus, makes out with Amanda Waller, then tries to take over America,but by the time he's in his right mind, he's out of office and penniless after Bruce Wayne took credit for Talia Al Ghul stealing everything.
...
I liked John Byrne's take on Luthor. An Incredibly vain man who had worked his entire life to be valued as the greatest man ever. Then Superman shows up, and takes that. Everything after that is about taking back his reputation by smashing Superman's reputation. It's a personal grudge, not a crusade to dominate land and collect taxes.
Last edited:
Yes, it was one of three things that Byrne did really well--the other two being bringing Martha and Jonathan back into Superman's world, and allowing Clark to be just a regular guy.
Is that what it's called when a Republican renews their party membership?
In Batman vs Superman he almost died
When you get buried, and stay buried for a year, and Amanda Waller founds the Suicide Squad to fill the vacuum made from your passing, you're dead.
Last edited:
Ah.... OK I knew there was one I avoided watching.
Almost died? He was dead. Until they brought him back to life with New Gods science.
The theatrical cut is awful.
The ultimate edition is exactly the same except that you don't feel volcanic levels of rage from spending your time and your money watching incomprehensible bullshit.
I genuinely like Henry Cavill. He's been in some good stuff.
MoS is not one of those "good" things.
MoS is not one of those "good" things.