|
Post by damngumby on Jun 3, 2019 23:30:07 GMT
That happened after Superman destroyed the World Engine and they thought the battle and the end-of-the-world crisis was over. At least, it wasn't as bad as Steve Rogers going back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter while letting Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Rogers had the ability to travel back in time so he could've traveled back to before World War II started and taken out Hilter before the war started, but instead Rogers decides to travel back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter and just lets Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Traveling back in time for the specific purpose of killing Hitler wouldn’t have made any difference, since the film already established that when you travel through time, it doesn’t alter the present, it just creates a new alternate reality. Such a simple concept ... and it flies completely over DC-Fan's head. If Rogers went back in time and killed Hitler, he would have created an alternate time-line. In the original time-line, Hitler still killed millions. That can not be undone.
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Jun 3, 2019 23:36:30 GMT
I think the main problem is that it didn't make sense to me to have Superman kill Zod after he was about to kill four humans. Did Clark forget that Zod had killed thousands already? He should've killed Zod the moment they started fighting... Because there's a difference between killing to defend or save innocent lives vs killing to execute someone. Killing Zod as Zod was attempting to kill a family of 4 humans is killing in the act of defending or saving innocent lives. Killing Zod AFTER Zod killed thousands would be an execution. Now it may be that Zod deserved to be executed for killing thousands, but that would've been a decision for a judge and jury, not Superman, to decide. That's why Superman doesn't kill Zod UNTIL Zod attempted to kill a family of 4 humans and Superman acted to save innocent lives. Unlike MCU, where the Avengers don't believe in trial by a jury of the people and believe that the Avengers should be judge and jury, Superman has always believed in and respected the justice system and won't make himself judge an jury like the Avengers routinely do. You always complain when people bring up DC on the MCU board, you just did the same.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jun 4, 2019 0:16:26 GMT
Apparently a Super Hero isn't allow to kill a villain to save someone, even if the Villain attempted Genocide. But i guess to be fair the hardcore Anti killer Superman are still stuck in 1978. Unless he is a Marvel superhero. Not true if Spider-Man killed someone in a movie you would still get the "NOT MUH SPIDER-MAN!!11@" jerk offs that complained about MOS Superman. I never understood why people are against Superheroes killing. It makes no sense to let a dangerous villain like the Joker or Red Skull live. Especially since they break out of whatever prison or asylum their lock up in and continue their crimes. Take the Joker for example. He constantly breaks out of Arkham Asylum and continues to kill innocent people. Dude should have his throat crushed the first time he was caught.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 4, 2019 0:23:50 GMT
Unless he is a Marvel superhero. Not true if Spider-Man killed someone in a movie you would still get the "NOT MUH SPIDER-MAN!!11@" jerk offs that complained about MOS Superman. I never understood why people are against Superheroes killing. It makes no sense to let a dangerous villain like the Joker or Red Skull live. Especially since they break out of whatever prison or asylum their lock up in and continue their crimes. Take the Joker for example. He constantly breaks out of Arkham Asylum and continues to kill innocent people. Dude should have his throat crushed the first time he was caught. Funnily enough, when Spider-Man killed Electro in TASM2 (Sony might’ve planned on bringing the character back, but as far as Peter and Gwen were concerned, he died), there still wasn’t the same kind of backlash that there was when Superman killed Zod.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jun 4, 2019 0:37:23 GMT
Not true if Spider-Man killed someone in a movie you would still get the "NOT MUH SPIDER-MAN!!11@" jerk offs that complained about MOS Superman. I never understood why people are against Superheroes killing. It makes no sense to let a dangerous villain like the Joker or Red Skull live. Especially since they break out of whatever prison or asylum their lock up in and continue their crimes. Take the Joker for example. He constantly breaks out of Arkham Asylum and continues to kill innocent people. Dude should have his throat crushed the first time he was caught. Funnily enough, when Spider-Man killed Electro in TASM2 (Sony might’ve planned on bringing the character back, but as far as Peter and Gwen were concerned, he died), there still wasn’t the same kind of backlash that there was when Superman killed Zod. Apparently there's some written law that Superman can't kill. Oh and Superman 2 doesn't count for whatever reason. God I really hate the Christopher Reeves Superman fanboys.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 4, 2019 7:37:58 GMT
Personally I didn't find Superman killing that big a deal, how it came about I hate, similar to the Lois kiss prior to their showdown, there are ways to do these things and make them feel more natural and neither of those did to me.
For the neck snap it's that Clark literally goes from begging Zod to stop to neck snap and then wailing about it, either they should have had Clark try to do more to stop Zod's heat vision before he chooses to kill him and then not have a delayed reacti0on but an instant one as it was a choice he already decided upon, or have the death be accidental from a blow during battle, Clark thinks he just knocked Zod out but when he see's he actually killed him he backs away in horror and has the delayed reaction of screaming out because it was an accident.
Which I think maybe why the Superman 2 stuff isn't seen as so bad, that's not played as sad or anything, it's the opposite same with Superman giving out to the bully in the film it's bullies getting their comeuppance and it's played as a positive thing, we also don't see Zod's dead body either so it's a little ambiguous given it's the Fortress of Solitude and they had been stuck in the phantom zone like who knows beneath the mist of the fortress could be a one way portal to the phantom zone, we aren't shown that so who knows?
It's just really one part the scene is just badly done and another part the movie in general is kind of depressing and the scene is played that way also, even in the fight scenes they aren't played for awe and wow but more oh fuck and god damn, characters aren't in awe of Superman and cheering for him like in the Reeves movies, in MOS the fights are destructive and dangerous with people fleeing in terror, I think with films like the X-Men, MCU, Wonder Woman & past DC films where they often have some awe in their fight scenes it just makes the destruction go down a little easier.
imo atleast.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Jun 4, 2019 7:45:02 GMT
I don't know why there was such a fuss. Batman blew up an entire factories worth of criminals in the first movie.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 4, 2019 10:20:53 GMT
A) I agree that we should've seen the fight but I still don't understand what was Superman trying to do. Restraining him? How? He should've gone for the kill the moment Zod was stuck there without anything to hold him off.
B) Shit he was willing to make out with Lois Lane in the middel of a destroyed Metropolis. It looked like he didn't care that much about all the other humans that died that day until he actually saw four about to die.
I like Man of Steel but the third act is problematic IMO.
A) Superman DIDNT know what to do. This is a Superman at the beginning of his career; inexperienced. And he's getting his ass kicked by a guy who CAN kick his ass. This may be the first real ass kicking he's EVER gotten! I don't blame him for not thinking straight. You ever get slammed through a building? I would imagine that it wouldn't be ones finest thinking moment. LOL!
B) Zod made himself known after the kiss. And the whole kiss happened after he'd thought the Kryptonians were defeated. Its not like he said "wait, the world killer is right there, but suck my face real quick first, we got time." He probably thought "Son of a bitch, I'm trying to get my kiss on and this mother####er is still here!? He's gotta die!"
The movie's not perfect, its just not as bad as its made out to seem.
a) It's not really hard to figure out what to do. Since there is no phantom zone and Zod already made it clear he will not stop, the only solution is for Superman to stop him. b) It felt weird for them to make out in the middle of a destroyed Metropolis. The very place where thousands of people had just died. I don't think it's a bad movie. It's just my issues with Man of Steel. For the record it's still is my favorite movie of the DCEU.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 4, 2019 10:22:08 GMT
Shit he was willing to make out with Lois Lane in the middel of a destroyed Metropolis.
That happened after Superman destroyed the World Engine and they thought the battle and the end-of-the-world crisis was over. At least, it wasn't as bad as Steve Rogers going back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter while letting Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Rogers had the ability to travel back in time so he could've traveled back to before World War II started and taken out Hilter before the war started, but instead Rogers decides to travel back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter and just lets Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Deflecting to the MCU is not helping your case. And for the record, you're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 4, 2019 18:17:46 GMT
Shit he was willing to make out with Lois Lane in the middel of a destroyed Metropolis.
That happened after Superman destroyed the World Engine and they thought the battle and the end-of-the-world crisis was over. At least, it wasn't as bad as Steve Rogers going back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter while letting Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Rogers had the ability to travel back in time so he could've traveled back to before World War II started and taken out Hilter before the war started, but instead Rogers decides to travel back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter and just lets Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Yes how evil of Steve to not meddle in a world shaping event which could have huge ramifications to the future, X-Men TAS made this a point in many of their time travel stories, especially the Legacy Virus story with Cable, millions in the past must die so that untold trillions in the future can be born, the Nazi's lead to WW 2 this leads to the creation of Red Skull & Captain America, Captain America & WW2 inspires much of the future of the MCU, Hulk is a result of trying to recreate the super soldier serum, the events of WW2 leads to SHIELD which directly ties into the futures of Iron Man, Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Vision and Captain Marvel, it also lesser to an extent ties to Thor once he comes to earth, and on it goes.
You monkey with that and the world changes possibly to the point that humanity doesn't have much in the way of heroes, at most we have regular military who are ineffective against high tech armies and or super powered aliens, the Wakandans which only fair slightly better and then the sorcerers who maybe powerful but are the most limited in numbers.
This hsows the level of idiocy you posses as the whole butterfly effect thing explains all of this, you change one "insignificant" thing in the past and there is no telling the ramifications of it in the future, further back and bigger the change the larger the ramifications, Cap choosing to do nothing in the past outside of hooking up with Peggy is as responsible a choice he can make, it may pain him to see people suffer through the next 70 years or more but he knows the result of that suffering, half the universe is saved because of it, which BTW is just an expanded version of the situation you bitched that they did not copy for Tony from Stark Trek TOS, Steve is faced with protecting the people of his world now at the cost of sacrificing the future of the universe, and Steve chooses to let his present be what it is for the betterment of life all across the universe...or did you not get that?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 4, 2019 18:24:04 GMT
That happened after Superman destroyed the World Engine and they thought the battle and the end-of-the-world crisis was over. At least, it wasn't as bad as Steve Rogers going back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter while letting Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. Rogers had the ability to travel back in time so he could've traveled back to before World War II started and taken out Hilter before the war started, but instead Rogers decides to travel back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter and just lets Hitler and the Nazis kill millions of people. This hsows the level of idiocy you posses as the whole butterfly effect thing explains all of this, you change one "insignificant" thing in the past and there is no telling the ramifications of it in the future, further back and bigger the change the larger the ramifications
1. The Avengers changed the past by stealing the stones and reversing Thanos' snap. 2. Steve Rogers changed the past by going back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter. So they're already changing the past so using the "don't want to mess with the timeline" excuse is weak. Rogers is willing to travel back in time to the past just so he can bang Peggy Carter but won't do anything to take out Hitler before WWII starts.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 4, 2019 19:19:09 GMT
A) Superman DIDNT know what to do. This is a Superman at the beginning of his career; inexperienced. And he's getting his ass kicked by a guy who CAN kick his ass. This may be the first real ass kicking he's EVER gotten! I don't blame him for not thinking straight. You ever get slammed through a building? I would imagine that it wouldn't be ones finest thinking moment. LOL!
B) Zod made himself known after the kiss. And the whole kiss happened after he'd thought the Kryptonians were defeated. Its not like he said "wait, the world killer is right there, but suck my face real quick first, we got time." He probably thought "Son of a bitch, I'm trying to get my kiss on and this mother####er is still here!? He's gotta die!"
The movie's not perfect, its just not as bad as its made out to seem.
a) It's not really hard to figure out what to do. Since there is no phantom zone and Zod already made it clear he will not stop, the only solution is for Superman to stop him. b) It felt weird for them to make out in the middle of a destroyed Metropolis. The very place where thousands of people had just died. I don't think it's a bad movie. It's just my issues with Man of Steel. For the record it's still is my favorite movie of the DCEU. XOXO
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Jun 4, 2019 19:21:52 GMT
This hsows the level of idiocy you posses as the whole butterfly effect thing explains all of this, you change one "insignificant" thing in the past and there is no telling the ramifications of it in the future, further back and bigger the change the larger the ramifications
1. The Avengers changed the past by stealing the stones and reversing Thanos' snap. 2. Steve Rogers changed the past by going back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter. So they're already changing the past so using the "don't want to mess with the timeline" excuse is weak. Rogers is willing to travel back in time to the past just so he can bang Peggy Carter but won't do anything to take out Hitler before WWII starts. 1. The Avenges created an alternate timeline, it didn't change the past. 2. Cap went back to spend a lifetime with Peggy Carter, an alternate reality. 3. If Cap stops Hitler and WWII early, it doesn't mean it didn't happen in the original timeline. It just creates an alternate timeline where the Holocaust didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 4, 2019 19:28:27 GMT
This hsows the level of idiocy you posses as the whole butterfly effect thing explains all of this, you change one "insignificant" thing in the past and there is no telling the ramifications of it in the future, further back and bigger the change the larger the ramifications
1. The Avengers changed the past by stealing the stones and reversing Thanos' snap. 2. Steve Rogers changed the past by going back to the 1940s to bang Peggy Carter. So they're already changing the past so using the "don't want to mess with the timeline" excuse is weak. Rogers is willing to travel back in time to the past just so he can bang Peggy Carter but won't do anything to take out Hitler before WWII starts. *Yawn* Trying to bait people into debating with your stupid ramblings about your perceived faults of the MCU will not make your defense of Man of Steel a strong one and will not make anyone re-think the movie or Endgame or any other MCU movie. Your an old man making a fool of yourself on the internet, sad isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 5, 2019 13:43:11 GMT
To those saying that Superman had no choice but to break Zod's neck, it's not a documentary. It's not real, it's just the way it's written and Snyder wrote himself into corner, much like he did with BvS. I feel like there were so many better ways to resolve the fight.
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jun 5, 2019 14:54:14 GMT
I think it's important to remember the amount of destruction that the constipated Superman took part in before he finally decided to snap the guys neck.
|
|
havenless
Sophomore
@havenless
Posts: 715
Likes: 311
|
Post by havenless on Jun 5, 2019 18:50:26 GMT
The difference between this one and the Superman II zod death was that this was a far more violent act. I’m not against him stopping zod from killing the family, but throw him in to the sun. Even do what the evil Superman did in the cartoon where he lobotomized villains with his heat vision. Twisting his skull far enough to the right to sever his spinal cord is such a heinous act for any protagonist to perform, even if they established that’s hes totally okay with circumstantial homicide if it were for the greater good like Wonder Woman, that is still too far. It’s not just the incept of what it means, it’s the visual portrayal in front of an all-ages audience. Yes, not every movie needs to be ‘kiddie friendly’, and yes technically it made it past the pg-13 sensors.... and you could probably come up with a more conceptually-violent act performed in an MCU film. But it’s the way it’s portrayed on screen that was the issue.
As for people saying most are stuck in the past with goodie-two-shoes 1978 Superman, that’s accurate. Because it’s the last good rendition of Superman we’ve had. Even the New adventures of Lois and Clark continued his blue Boy Scout, no killing, family friendly theme. It’s the only Superman most people know. if Snyder wanted to make a statement they proclaimed, “This sure as hell ain’t your father’s Superman!” Then make it clear from the beginning. They knew people would expect a variation of Reeve’s character unless clearly identified as otherwise.
Take Logan, for instance. Yes it was rated R, but they took no time in showing you why. This was not going to be your typical x-men movie. In. That sense, everything up to the Zod-Kal-El battle at the end was a bit disingenuous in keeping the true nature of the character hidden until the end. Would Christopher Reeve have decided Zod’s head was no longer allowed to be connected to the rest of his nervous system? The answer is no, and that’s fine, but show Superman’s dark streak earlier in the movie. Have him injure that truck driver. Have him break an arm of Faora or Namek in Smallville. Build up to the neck snap, so people say ‘i didn’t enjoy the direction they took the character in general,’ and not ‘i was floored by that 1 specific scene.’ It didn’t flow right with the rest of the movie, based on expectations WB KNEW the audience was developing up to that point.
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Jun 6, 2019 19:06:49 GMT
A) I agree that we should've seen the fight but I still don't understand what was Superman trying to do. Restraining him? How? He should've gone for the kill the moment Zod was stuck there without anything to hold him off.
B) Shit he was willing to make out with Lois Lane in the middel of a destroyed Metropolis. It looked like he didn't care that much about all the other humans that died that day until he actually saw four about to die.
I like Man of Steel but the third act is problematic IMO.
A) Superman DIDNT know what to do. This is a Superman at the beginning of his career; inexperienced. And he's getting his ass kicked by a guy who CAN kick his ass. This may be the first real ass kicking he's EVER gotten! I don't blame him for not thinking straight. You ever get slammed through a building? I would imagine that it wouldn't be ones finest thinking moment. LOL!
B) Zod made himself known after the kiss. And the whole kiss happened after he'd thought the Kryptonians were defeated. Its not like he said "wait, the world killer is right there, but suck my face real quick first, we got time." He probably thought "Son of a bitch, I'm trying to get my kiss on and this mother####er is still here!? He's gotta die!"
The movie's not perfect, its just not as bad as its made out to seem.
In regards to your first point, I’ve ALWAYS felt that way.. and I don’t even like the movie that much. But here we have an inexperienced hero taking on multiple versions of himself that are literally trained soldiers. Most of his adult life was just spent wandering from life to life. I honestly can’t even think of another hero who has less training than him. Batman, Wonder Woman, Captain America, Thor.... all trained as warriors and soldiers. The fact that Supes was able to take any of them on at all and actually WIN, saving the entire planet, is pretty remarkable. There are much larger problems brought on by smaller scenes. Like the tornado scene. I get what they were trying to do... but the whole vibe of the scene is just generally silly in a mostly serious film. Then the fact that he would risk revealing his powers by getting petty revenge on a trucker but didn’t risk it to save his dad just didn’t make sense. They should’ve cut that part out of the film where the trucker finds his truck. Entirely unnecessary and problematic for such a small scene that seems inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 7, 2019 15:57:11 GMT
To those saying that Superman had no choice but to break Zod's neck, it's not a documentary. It's not real, it's just the way it's written and Snyder wrote himself into corner, much like he did with BvS. I feel like there were so many better ways to resolve the fight. Such as...?
|
|
|
Post by RedDeadFallout on Jun 7, 2019 16:13:58 GMT
To those saying that Superman had no choice but to break Zod's neck, it's not a documentary. It's not real, it's just the way it's written and Snyder wrote himself into corner, much like he did with BvS. I feel like there were so many better ways to resolve the fight. Such as...? Are you asking because you really can't see any other way of the good guy saving the day or are you just curious?
|
|