• 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!

The Winter Soldier Vs. Man of Steel

Marvel is feeling very confident right now. Earlier today it was confirmed that the next Captain America film will be released on 5/6/16, the same date that Batman/Superman is released. Of course, it's bad for both films. Marvel and Disney are gambling that they can beat any superhero film from the Warner Bros/DC side. This is a ridiculous game of chicken. One of the studios--preferably Marvel, should find a new release date for Cap 3.
 
Superman could easily have forced that fight to take place elsewhere. Throwing/Carrying Zod out of the city for instance. We've seen it done in comics/toons before.

IIRC, didn't Supes actually pick Zod up off his farm, fly him through a few of his neighbours' barns, and then drop him off in the middle of Smallville for a good old barney? :lol:

Maybe i'm remembering wrong, it's so easy to get it confused with every other superhero movie made in the last 13 years.
Does sound kinda right but that was in the second act not the finale. But it does prove Kal could've relocated the fight.

I only saw MoS once though so....

If he tired to take the fight elsewhere, Zod would've either pulled them back to Metropolis or go to another city. Going elsewhere wasn't an option.
 
Didn't Batman/Superman already get chased from an earlier Marvel movie slot?
Originally Batman/Superman was scheduled for July 15, 2015, but Warner Bros. pushed it back to May 6, 2016 to give the film more development time. Then Marvel scheduled Captain America 3 for the same date. There was a rumor that Warner Bros. might move Batman/Superman up to April 28, 2016 now, but I don't think it's been confirmed yet. I think WB would be wise to move; the Marvel brand is practically untouchable right now.
 
Eh, I don't really see the comparison.

The article shoots down its own premise about Superman killing Zod vs. Captain America not killing Bucky by pointing out that they're completely different situations. By that point Cap had already neutralized the threat posed by the Helicarriers, so he could afford to spare Bucky's life. But I got no indication that Cap wasn't willing to kill Bucky if necessary to save civilian lives on the ground had he continued to prevent him from disabling the Helicarrier. He didn't want to, but he would have if necessary, and in fact almost did. Likewise, Superman had an ongoing threat to civilians both on the micro-scale with the family Zod was threatening and on the macro-scale in that the Phantom Zone was closed and no prison on Earth could adequately hold Zod, so he remained a threat to the planet. Superman clearly didn't want to kill him, but he had to.

Now, as far as your point, I think it's often forgotten that the Superman we see in MoS has only been flying for a matter of weeks at most when the attack begins, and had never encountered nearly equivalently powered beings before, not to mention so many of them. His inexperience leads him to not know his own strength when throwing Zod across the corn field, and allows him to get tossed around by the professionally trained Kryptonian soldiers. I don't think he was indifferent to the destruction, as witnessed by his telling people to hide, by him saving falling soldiers, by him preventing planes from being knocked out of the air, and by rescuing Jenny from beneath the rubble. He's simply never dealt with this many foes with this much power before, and he's inexperienced and overwhelmed. People say, well why didn't he lead them out of the city, but I think he was trying to do that with Zod, and Zod kept forcing him to stay within the city to stop him, sometimes physically throwing him back within the buildings. In Superman II, Superman was fortunate that his enemies all attacked one at a time and with really slow, simple to deflect attacks. This was a completely different animal.

Likewise, the situation with the Helicarriers could have been pretty devastating to Washington had they simply chosen not to remain hovering over the Potomac and Theodore Roosevelt Island. Frankly, Cap and friends got lucky on that score, especially when they all careened down into the water and fortunately right back into the SHIELD Triskelion which had been evacuated of all the good guys (hopefully). They were saved more by the plot (which, don't get me wrong, I loved) than anything that Cap and the team did, since they weren't trying to steer the Helicarriers to a safe crash site.

I'm sure after the movie, Superman joined people in mourning and rebuilding Metropolis. It just wasn't really relevant to telling his revised origin story, IMO. It's just assumed that he's not a heartless bastard who doesn't care that thousands of people just died (especially since he chose to save humanity over his own people and just risked his own life for them, despite their distrust and fear of him).

Anyway, the article just seems to want to pit TWS against MoS based on the flimsiest of comparisons because TWS is the new kid on the block, but then it undermines its own point, IMO. They're apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. That being said, I preferred TWS over MoS, which I enjoyed a great deal too. But TWS is pretty damn close to perfection for a superhero film. At least until the next best one comes along to surpass it eventually.

As far as superhero origin stories that challenge the status quo and show our hero in a different light: I like them sometimes, just as much as I like more conventional takes on the characters. Which is why I didn't mind MoS. I don't think it deviated from his basic morality much, except for some of the things Jonathan Kent taught him, and even then, Clark was shown to disagree with his father's beliefs, even when he honored them when it came to letting him sacrifice his life to protect Clark's secret. But when the time came to step up and do the right thing, he did.

THIS.
 
Marvel is feeling very confident right now. Earlier today it was confirmed that the next Captain America film will be released on 5/6/16, the same date that Batman/Superman is released. Of course, it's bad for both films. Marvel and Disney are gambling that they can beat any superhero film from the Warner Bros/DC side. This is a ridiculous game of chicken. One of the studios--preferably Marvel, should find a new release date for Cap 3.

On the contrary, this is a brilliant move by Marvel. There's no way Captain America 3 can beat Batman/Superman but it doesn't have to. Just putting Cap 3 out on the same day as B/S will be enough to steal DC's thunder.
 
I don't see the big deal about him killing Zod, he's killed Zod before. It's actually kind of worse in Superman II since he just slides down the ice, his legs were likely shattered when he hit the bottom. If he survived that, he would slowly starve to death. But Superman just smiles. A quick snap is a mercy.
 
Yeah you are suppose to take a guy who flies around with a cape and underpants seriously. Naturally having him kill his sworn enemy is the best way to go about it.
 
I'm a firm believer in the "super heroes don't kill" rule but I have no problem with Superman killing Zod in the movie. He does it in the comics. It's the exception to the rule that proves to him why he must never kill. He was forced to do it because he had no means of restraining or imprisoning this unstoppable foe, and afterwards he suffered through a schizoprhenic identity crisis and exiled himself to space in a storyline that lasted months and months. There were serious consequences to his one action.
 
Marvel is feeling very confident right now. Earlier today it was confirmed that the next Captain America film will be released on 5/6/16, the same date that Batman/Superman is released. Of course, it's bad for both films. Marvel and Disney are gambling that they can beat any superhero film from the Warner Bros/DC side. This is a ridiculous game of chicken. One of the studios--preferably Marvel, should find a new release date for Cap 3.

I'm not sure why Marvel is the one that should find a new release date. They've traditionally had that early May date while WB/DC has had a June date. I get that DC already pushed their movie back a year, but is another month such a big deal considering that?

On the contrary, this is a brilliant move by Marvel. There's no way Captain America 3 can beat Batman/Superman but it doesn't have to. Just putting Cap 3 out on the same day as B/S will be enough to steal DC's thunder.

I disagree with both halves of this. I'm not sure why Captain America can't beat Batman/Superman. Right now, Captain America is the proven franchise. Man of Steel was a solid movie, but nowhere near as good. The Dark Knight Trilogy might beat Captain America 3, but this isn't the Dark Knight, it's a new, untested Batman. I'm hopeful about Ben Affleck, but a large portion of the population is not.

Second, while both studios view it as a fixed pie, profit is still measured as an absolute value. If Marvel makes less money, they make less money. If they both hurt each other, they could still theoretically bankrupt both studios. I'm not sure what Marvel gains then besides pride of "see, our movie did better."
 
Superman could easily have forced that fight to take place elsewhere. Throwing/Carrying Zod out of the city for instance. We've seen it done in comics/toons before.

IIRC, didn't Supes actually pick Zod up off his farm, fly him through a few of his neighbours' barns, and then drop him off in the middle of Smallville for a good old barney? :lol:

Maybe i'm remembering wrong, it's so easy to get it confused with every other superhero movie made in the last 13 years.
Does sound kinda right but that was in the second act not the finale. But it does prove Kal could've relocated the fight.

I only saw MoS once though so....
It also proved how this Superman doesn't care about civilian victims. He has superspeed, supervision, superblabla, and he grabs Zod and crashes him through a gas station that explodes in a giant fireball. Surely the poor gas station clerk, and the people who were just refueling, bit the dust in that split second.

They went for spectacle over character logic. Superman would simply never do such a thing.

It's funny how one line in the original film nails it: "General, would you care to step outside?"
The new Superman would have simply rushed into the Daily Planet and destroyed the entire building while fighting Zod.
 
This was his first super-battle in his entire life, he had no idea what he was doing. He didn't have combat training. And he was completely outmatched on every level. He was never in control of the fight.
 
This was his first super-battle in his entire life, he had no idea what he was doing. He didn't have combat training. And he was completely outmatched on every level. He was never in control of the fight.
He was in full control when he made a surprise attack on Zod HEADING INTO SMALLVILLE. He was the one who took the fight to the town center. He didn't take it to the crop fields or some lake. He decided to grab Zod and fly him into a gas station.
 
Actually, I almost feel the Smallville fight was less excusable than the Metropolis one (although, in total cost, Metropolis was obviously worse). However, I still think there were unrealistic expectations for what he could have done.

Granted, the destruction felt excessive and I think the writers of the movie could have reduced that, but from an in-universe perspective, there wasn't much to do and the goal was to save the entire world population so I'm not going to fault him for that.
 
It also proved how this Superman doesn't care about civilian victims. He has superspeed, supervision, superblabla, and he grabs Zod and crashes him through a gas station that explodes in a giant fireball. Surely the poor gas station clerk, and the people who were just refueling, bit the dust in that split second.

Odds are, no matter where he took Zod something would get smashed up or someone hurt. That's what happens when super-beings fight one another on an inhabited planet.
 
Second, while both studios view it as a fixed pie, profit is still measured as an absolute value. If Marvel makes less money, they make less money. If they both hurt each other, they could still theoretically bankrupt both studios. I'm not sure what Marvel gains then besides pride of "see, our movie did better."

It isn't about "see, our movie did better."

It's about "ha ha, your movie would have done better, if we weren't here to spoil it."
 
Sure. Doesn't change the point that there's less money overall for your movie too.
 
Joe Russo in an interview with Digital Spy:

"Everybody likes to imagine a flame war that'll start over this but it's not," he said. "It's two big movies on a date - neither studio is crazy enough to eat up each other's profits. At some point, somebody's going to move off the date."
 
The question is, will they do a tie-in episode of Arrow the following Wednesday that spoils the whole damn movie...?
 
I'm a firm believer in the "super heroes don't kill" rule but I have no problem with Superman killing Zod in the movie. He does it in the comics. It's the exception to the rule that proves to him why he must never kill. He was forced to do it because he had no means of restraining or imprisoning this unstoppable foe, and afterwards he suffered through a schizoprhenic identity crisis and exiled himself to space in a storyline that lasted months and months. There were serious consequences to his one action.

What happened in the comics had far more lasting negative consequences. It's the trauma of that event that also created the crack in his psyche that allowed Maxwell Lord to mind control him.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top