Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by urbandefault, Jan 18, 2020.
BS. They habitually sell the false notion that their Daddy/Santa idea of Superman was and is the "right" one as the defining creation in the culture (another way of speaking for all), while spitting hatred at any comic or portrayal that did not align with said Daddy/Santa. Let us not forget the connected, near-endless pages of hatred toward Snyder for allegedly "destroying" or making some "grimdark" (their words) Superman in disturbingly personal ways, constantly referring to the Salkinds' version as the "right" one.
The pages and posts are all over this board.
I disagree they're saying the general audience agrees with them. In any case, even if they do say that, it would just mean you're both wrong, from opposite directions. The audience can buy into a Superman who doesn't kill AND one who does -- as long as it's well-executed.
Dean Cain is a hard line republican Trumper.
What would happen if Dean today got to write and produce his own redstate Superman Show?
Superman builds the wall.
Superman uses his speed and vision powers to recount all the elections where the Republicans had been told that they had lost.
Superman uses heat vision to put holes in all the condoms planned parenting is trying to give away.
Superman blows up all the Needle exchange depots.
Superman blows up the VA... Wait a minute?
It's a pity that Dean Cain is a hard-line Republican who cannot appreciate a more multi-dimensional Superman. Because I thought he did a good job in portraying Clark Kent/Superman as an individual with emotional needs and one capable of making the occasional mistake.
To be fair, we don't know that Dean wants Superman to be an asshole.
Dean may think think that Superman is an irredeemable loser liberal, and that Lex Luthor raised a few good points now and then.
I rewatched Dean's series a month ago, and Luthor was a decent boyfriend when nothing was on the line, and then for no reason, even though Lois is in love with him and is going to marry the billionaire playboy, Luthor blew up the daily planet, framed a friend of Lois', and scattered her friends across the city/world.
Is it as bad as Lex faking Lana's pregnancy to stay with him, after she said yes she would marry him?
Dude has some serious abandonment issues for some one who killed his parents.
Or the time that Lex went through complicated and lengthy surgery to change his face so that no one would know who he was...and then kidnapped Lana and revealed his identity to her. I guess he realized he didn't like the idea of being unknown after all.
I don't recall Lois ever being in love with Lex in "Lois & Clark". I do recall her finding him attractive and that's about it. She was in love with only Superman at the time. But when the latter had made it clear they would never be together (lying, of course), Lois caved in and accepted Lex's marriage proposal.
So she agreed to marry a dude she didn't love because her first choice was unavailable? That paints her in a much worse light than Guy's description.
Anyone so doggedly railing against one movie with one scene--constantly referring to what they feel is the "right"/"accepted" version is assuming that is what the entire culture desires.
Incorrect again. My position is that the character has a foundational history of killing on occasion and when necessary. Those who rail against that point from history have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that it means Superman will kill as a default reaction / position, when no one ever entered the neighborhood of that kind of thought to any degree, but that is the fist-shaking conclusion one reaches when the argument is launched from any thought other than rationality.
The only reason Lex went cartoon evil is because John Shea was leaving the series.
They dated for almost half a season, and it was magical, until the end, which was stupid.
Nah.. Someone who, for example, goes on about how the paleo diet's the one proper way to live might be incredibly obnoxious in their own way, but they're not claiming everyone else agrees.
So do you agree that modern audiences can buy into and accept a Superman who doesn't have to kill? I would genuinely be delighted to know I'm wrong here and that you do indeed agree with that.
If Superman had not murdered Zod, then the local government would have, after a very short trial.
Are Kryptonians immortal? Life imprisonment seems costly.
Although, stick Zod on a treadmill, and you got free power for everyone, till the end of time.
Sure because "the audience", outside of fanboys, doesn't give a shit. The reverse is also true. Literally every non-comic fan I've shown MOS to had the exact same reaction when he finally kills Zod:
"It's about time"
The only people raising a stink about this, a decade later, are fanboys. Fanboys who live in an echo chamber and think that everyone in the general population feels exactly like they do and the reality is.....they don't, As you said before, just tell a good story, or be entertaining and it really doesn't matter if he occasionally kills or doesn't.
But then the exact same thing holds true for literally every character ever.
Thank you! This is what I'm saying. Have your own preferences, but don't try to speak for the general audience. The general audience has no idea what the hell a SnyderCut is, much less have an opinion on it.
Very timely, important point--non-comic fan. They are the majority of any film's audience, and even this collective--with a basic cultural awareness of Superman--did not see his killing Zod as some aberration to the core identity of the character, but he was making a realistic decision that was relatable to a real audience. They were not looking for Santa/Daddy, but a live action adaptation of a character that felt like he would exist in the real world, hence their "It's about time" response.
Few were going to relate to Superman--with only seconds to spare--trying to create unworkable options to stop Zod who was more powerful than Superman, and was determined to incinerate the family.
Exactly. Superman killing on occasion is no narrative or cultural failing, anything unnatural or some sort of deal-breaker, just as it was not for such heroes as Batman (Nolan/Snyder, etc.), MCU Captain America, TOS/TOS movie Kirk, Luke Skywalker, et al. Believable, justifiable actions in the service of the story support and build on great characters.
Exactly. It's a harsh truth to realize that everyone has a different viewpoint on what makes a character that character. And, the fast majority of the audience do not have this encyclopedic knowledge of various comic book characters. At best, a basic familiarity and a desire for a compelling story with interesting characters. That's it.
Magical? That was never my impression of Lois' romance with Lex. Just pleasant, but with less enthusiasm on her part.
There was the episode where they're all held hostage at the Daily Planet, while criminals are looking for a gangsters Vault from the 1930s.
Lex offered them a million dollars to let Lois Go free, and he's standing between her and the gun men's bullets.
Besides "Magical" is easy when you own a dozen private jets.
It was her relationship with Superman that was superficial bordering on imaginary.
They had never had a conversation lasting longer than 8 words.
She just liked his body, and got off on being saved from certain death.
Separate names with a comma.