Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm wondering what people are thinking now with the destruction caused on a massive scale by Tony/Banner's ignorance and the damaged caused to the cities across the globe.

I recall a lot of people had much to say about how bad MoS and that it was to much destruction and to many innocent lives lost. However that pales in comparison to Age of Ultron.

one of my gripes with AOU is that they went a bit too heavy handed on the whole "save the people" schtick, it almost seemed as if they were taking a shot at MOS to be honest

I mentioned in the Ultron thread I was surprised that again we see another giant city destroying sequence. And Ultron had two.

This has been discussed alot in the past and the same still stands.

- AOU at least had scenes that they saved people or were trying to save people.
- Superman as a character has always been portrayed as flawless , a boy scout, someone who always puts himself on the line to save others, etc.
- The Avengers are flawed. Besides cap they dont really have a no kill rule vs bad guys. And even Cap has been shown to be ruthless vs bad guys.
- Hulk is animal like in hulk mode. There is no comparison to destruction he causes to superman who is fairly smart and not a raging beast.
- Tony, besides trying to save people, like encasing hulk in that prison also tried to buy the building he destroys with hulk and also scanned it to make sure it was empty. etc, etc.
- The avengers movie have a lighter tone than MOS. they didnt try to be ultra dark and real. So when innocent people are killed in a movie with that tone, then it raises more eyebrows than people dying in a movie like the avengers.

So as stupid as it sounds the avengers get a pass for all the reasons i stated.
And again at least they saved or tried to save people.

Originally posted by relentless1
one of my gripes with AOU is that they went a bit too heavy handed on the whole "save the people" schtick, it almost seemed as if they were taking a shot at MOS to be honest

Yet Tony's endgame strategy in the fight was to throw the Hulk at a building under construction.

Originally posted by Inhuman

So as stupid as it sounds the avengers get a pass for all the reasons i stated.
And again at least they saved or tried to save people.

At least you admit it was stupid. Clark also did help people, he saved soldiers under attack from Faora and the other Kryptonian.

And what you idiots forget, Clark is completely new to being a hero. It's literally his first time. Stark's had years of experience with this and even he couldn't help it.

Admit it, you nitpicked and we can all finally move on.

Originally posted by Based
Yet Tony's endgame strategy in the fight was to throw the Hulk at a building under construction.

He try to buy the building and he scanned it to make sure it was empty.

Originally posted by Inhuman
He try to buy the building and he scanned it to make sure it was empty.

So? The nitpicks also had unnecessary destruction on their list regardless of lives lost.

I'm completely fine with the level of destruction caused by the Avengers. I felt a far bigger problem was how they completely stopped the action for a few minutes to escort people to the Hellicarrier. It ruined the pacing of the finale. Plus what were the Ultrons doing at that point? Just standing around?

Originally posted by Based

At least you admit it was stupid. Clark also did help people, he saved soldiers under attack from Faora and the other Kryptonian.

And what you idiots forget, Clark is completely new to being a hero. It's literally his first time. Stark's had years of experience with this and even he couldn't help it.

Admit it, you nitpicked and we can all finally move on.

The "clark is new to being a hero/powers" BS excuse is even stupider than "the avengers get a pass."

Yes he was new to being a hero, but that no excuse to behave like a complete idiot like he did multiple times int hat movie.
Also the kryptonias were new to their powers and they did just fine with a couple hours of time as opposed to 20-30 years lol

WB/DC decided to go with the realism /dark tone in a movie that is based of of comics books. There are negatives about going that route that they dont get a pass for.

Ive discussed this many times before, dont feel like doing it again against the usual MOS damage control squad.

It seemed like Iron Man - after destroying public property pretty recklessly, was then like "Okay let's get out of here" and then flew Hulk away. Probably should have started with that. Just as Kal-El should've tried to fight Zod in space.

Originally posted by Inhuman

Ive discussed this many times before, dont feel like doing it again against the usual MOS damage control squad.

Wait a sec, MoS damage control squad, isn't that what you just did here?

Originally posted by Inhuman
This has been discussed alot in the past and the same still stands.

- AOU at least had scenes that they saved people or were trying to save people.
- Superman as a character has always been portrayed as flawless , a boy scout, someone who always puts himself on the line to save others, etc.
- The Avengers are flawed. Besides cap they dont really have a no kill rule vs bad guys. And even Cap has been shown to be ruthless vs bad guys.
- Hulk is animal like in hulk mode. There is no comparison to destruction he causes to superman who is fairly smart and not a raging beast.
- Tony, besides trying to save people, like encasing hulk in that prison also tried to buy the building he destroys with hulk and also scanned it to make sure it was empty. etc, etc.
- The avengers movie have a lighter tone than MOS. they didnt try to be ultra dark and real. So when innocent people are killed in a movie with that tone, then it raises more eyebrows than people dying in a movie like the avengers.

So as stupid as it sounds the avengers get a pass for all the reasons i stated.
And again at least they saved or tried to save people.

Except for you "Avengers get a pass."

You are doing the same thing, and your bias is clearly showing. At first we had disagreements and I thought you really loved Superman with how much you critized MOS for the collateral damage, you made no excuses for it, even though MoS was clearly not "your momma's Superman."

Then you give a pass to avengers because they are "flawed" when clearly so was Clark..

I'm disappointed but not surprised by your comments and bias here, clearly you are a marvel bias who can't give a fair and balanced points and avengers "get a pass"..

I'm pretty sure MoS never took gambles like Tony/Banner did, twice..

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Wait a sec, MoS damage control squad, isn't that what you just did here?



Except for you "Avengers get a pass."

You are doing the same thing, and your bias is clearly showing. At first we had disagreements and I thought you really loved Superman with how much you critized MOS for the collateral damage, you made no excuses for it, even though MoS was clearly not "your momma's Superman."

Then you give a pass to avengers because they are "flawed" when clearly so was Clark..

I'm disappointed but not surprised by your comments and bias here, clearly you are a marvel bias fanboy who can't give a fair and balanced points and avengers "get a pass"..


I didnt criticize MOS for the destruction or that he snapped Zods neck (even though thats a bit uncharacteristic of supes)
Destruction is unavoidable in these type of movies. I said Superman has always been portrayed as a boyscout that tries to save lives. He wasn't this in MOS. He is suppose to be a symbol for hope. I dont think that was portrayed well or at all in MOS. Even though that's what they were going for.
Even in GOTG , you had rocket trying to save lives in a situation that seems lost.
I guess you really hadnt been reading my posts regarding MOS because you completely missed my opinions on it.
Again ill post the basics why i didnt like MOS.
- Forced dark, theme to the movie. Superman isnt batman.
- I dont think superman was portrayed well.
- pacing was off.
- stupid decisions , like "pa kent death"
- Ultra Realism tone to the movie and then over top cartoonish fight.
- The superman they gave us would most likely make kids run in fear as opposed to want to meet him and get his autograph.

And I didnt say the avengers "get a pass" at destroying citys and lives.
I said they at least tried to save people.
You see all the Avengers actually feeling bad for all that is happening.
They are flawed heroes . Snyder was trying hard to make a superman/Jesus connection. So much religious symbolism. Even in the new film this is present.
Yet he didnt try to save lives.
How can you try to compare a hero to Jesus and then make him into a brooding douche who doesn't seem to give two shits about saving lives most of the time.

Originally posted by Inhuman
I didnt criticize MOS for the destruction or that he snapped Zods neck (even though thats a bit uncharacteristic of supes)
Destruction is unavoidable in these type of movies. I said Superman has always been portrayed as a boyscout that tries to save lives. He wasn't this in MOS. He is suppose to be a symbol for hope. I dont think that was portrayed well or at all in MOS. Even though that's what they were going for.
Even in GOTG , you had rocket trying to save lives in a situation that seems lost.
I guess you really hadnt been reading my posts regarding MOS because you completely missed my opinions on it.
Again ill post the basics why i didnt like MOS.
- Forced dark, theme to the movie. Superman isnt batman.
- I dont think superman was portrayed well.
- pacing was off.
- stupid decisions , like "pa kent death"
- Ultra Realism tone to the movie and then over top cartoonish fight.
- The superman they gave us would most likely make kids run in fear as opposed to want to meet him and get his autograph.

And I didnt say the avengers "get a pass" at destroying citys and lives.
I said they at least tried to save people.
You see all the Avengers actually feeling bad for all that is happening.
They are flawed heroes . Snyder was trying hard to make a superman/Jesus connection. So much religious symbolism. Even in the new film this is present.
Yet he didnt try to save lives.
How can you try to compare a hero to Jesus and then make him into a brooding douche who doesn't seem to give two shits about saving lives most of the time.

Edit: After you edited and adding the the "brooding douche who doesn't seem to give two shits about saving lives most of the time.", I know it was you who was ranting about him not saving anyone..

When clearly he did, should I go over all the times?

Originally posted by Inhuman
The "clark is new to being a hero/powers" BS excuse is even stupider than "the avengers get a pass."

Yes he was new to being a hero, but that no excuse to behave like a complete idiot like he did multiple times int hat movie.
Also the kryptonias were new to their powers and they did just fine with a couple hours of time as opposed to 20-30 years lol

WB/DC decided to go with the realism /dark tone in a movie that is based of of comics books. There are negatives about going that route that they dont get a pass for.

Ive discussed this many times before, dont feel like doing it again against the usual MOS damage control squad.


Lets just face it this way.

Its naive and stupid to think destruction and city's being destroyed isn't going to happen on a big screen, because thats what the masses want to see. Its going to happen in any big blockbuster.

Its seems like they copied the Superman Returns floating island scene as well.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Edit: After you edited and adding the the "brooding douche who doesn't seem to give two shits about saving lives most of the time.", I know it was you who was ranting about him not saving anyone..

When clearly he did, should I go over all the times?

"brooding douche" was for his personality in the movie.
Like the trailer scene in the bar. And how he just destroyed a satellite in front of the military basically telling them "dont **** with me or else"

Dont know who you are confusing me with but I didnt mind the destruction at all. What bothered me is how they handled it. Especially in a movie starting "SUPERMAN". And on top of that a superman that was heavily compared to Jesus, and implying he was a symbol for hope.

people still butthurt over this... just sign this please...

http://i877.photobucket.com/albums/ab335/KATSUMOTO121/buttthurt.jpg

Originally posted by Inhuman
"brooding douche" was for his personality in the movie.
Like the trailer scene in the bar. And how he just destroyed a satellite in front of the military basically telling them "dont **** with me or else"

Dont know who you are confusing me with but I didnt mind the destruction at all. What bothered me is how they handled it. Especially in a movie starting "SUPERMAN". And on top of that a superman that was heavily compared to Jesus, and implying he was a symbol for hope.


Ok so an easy way to say it was, you liked Avenger 1 and 2. And don't like Superman. I get it. But still complaining about it this adimetly is getting old imo. It's like how many times can you tell somone you don't like something for 2 years. After a while people get it and heard enough. We know you don't like it. Constantly talking about it over and over seems just like a revengeful grudge that you can't carry out other then to say it over and over. Honestly the movie lacked some stuff and there are some thigs I didn't like on MoS but man I don't cry about it for years.. I move on.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ok so an easy way to say it was, you liked Avenger 1 and 2. And don't like Superman. I get it. But still complaining about it this adimetly is getting old imo. It's like how many times can you tell somone you don't like something for 2 years. After a while people get it and heard enough. We know you don't like it. Constantly talking about it over and over seems just like a revengeful grudge that you can't carry out other then to say it over and over. Honestly the movie lacked some stuff and there are some thigs I didn't like on MoS

You always complain everytime i chime in about MOS. I 'get it" you like MOS.
How many times must you defend MOS? I mean you started this thread lol. And now you are complaining when someone chimes in and speaks their opinion?
You seem to have a grudge with people that see obvious flaws with MOS or how MOS supes acted.
Its getting old


Did you forget you are the one bringing it up over and over like making this thread? Come on
Since its your thread you should have put up in the rules of this thread that all responses should be pro - MOS , since if anyone says anything bad about MOS, you label them a marvel fan boy, etc.



actually you dont, as apparent with this thread.

people that say Superman didn't save people clearly didn't watch Man of Steel, I get that theres a lot of other reasons why people don't like it and thats your opinion but to say Superman didn't try to save people is just ignorant

he saved the people in the jet and the guy who was about to be crushed on land. Plus, the family at the end. He can't save everyone.

He killed Zod to save that family

The fundamental difference between Kal-El in Man of Steel and the Avengers in their movies is that he does not have the luxury of going up against mostly cannon fodder and has to deal with threats capable of wiping out humanity on their own.

I wonder how many people the Avengers would have managed to save during the Chitauri battle in New York City if Iron Man had to take on Whiplash, Hulk had to fight Abomination, Thor was going against Kurse/Reality Gem Malekith, Captain America was locked in combat with the Winter Soldier, Hawkeye was dueling with a rival archer, and Black widow was on her period?

Few, if any. They certainly wouldn't have time to get people out of buses or clear out banks. If Kal could save everyone in Metropolis with one hand and fight Zod with the other it would make Zod look weak. The high casualties the antagonists can inflict help reinforce just how much of a threat our hero is up against.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
The fundamental difference between Kal-El in Man of Steel and the Avengers in their movies is that he does not have the luxury of going up against mostly cannon fodder and has to deal with threats capable of wiping out humanity on their own.

I wonder how many people the Avengers would have managed to save during the Chitauri battle in New York City if Iron Man had to take on Whiplash, Hulk had to fight Abomination, Thor was going against Kurse/Reality Gem Malekith, Captain America was locked in combat with the Winter Soldier, Hawkeye was dueling with a rival archer, and Black widow was on her period?

Few, if any. They certainly wouldn't have time to get people out of buses or clear out banks. If Kal could save everyone in Metropolis with one hand and fight Zod with the other it would make Zod look weak. The high casualties the antagonists can inflict help reinforce just how much of a threat our hero is up against.

Bingo. Another question: How would the Avengers do against Zod and his army? Probably not very well.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Edit: After you edited and adding the the "brooding douche who doesn't seem to give two shits about saving lives most of the time.", I know it was you who was ranting about him not saving anyone..

When clearly he did, should I go over all the times?
Allow me:

z8EydFeuPK8

N6xM0xr3SAk

Fight ends in 5 minutes at most. Superman would wreck this chump called Ultron.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Allow me:

z8EydFeuPK8

N6xM0xr3SAk

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Allow me:

z8EydFeuPK8

N6xM0xr3SAk

I rest my case.

I guess some people did not watch the movie.

Originally posted by relentless1
one of my gripes with AOU is that they went a bit too heavy handed on the whole "save the people" schtick, it almost seemed as if they were taking a shot at MOS to be honest

I thought the exact same when I was watching the evacuation scenes in the final battle. It made me laugh.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
people still butthurt over this... just sign this please...

http://i877.photobucket.com/albums/ab335/KATSUMOTO121/buttthurt.jpg



I'll definitely have use for these forms in the future. *Yoink*

Originally posted by TheGrat1
The fundamental difference between Kal-El in Man of Steel and the Avengers in their movies is that he does not have the luxury of going up against mostly cannon fodder and has to deal with threats capable of wiping out humanity on their own.

I wonder how many people the Avengers would have managed to save during the Chitauri battle in New York City if Iron Man had to take on Whiplash, Hulk had to fight Abomination, Thor was going against Kurse/Reality Gem Malekith, Captain America was locked in combat with the Winter Soldier, Hawkeye was dueling with a rival archer, and Black widow was on her period?

Few, if any. They certainly wouldn't have time to get people out of buses or clear out banks. If Kal could save everyone in Metropolis with one hand and fight Zod with the other it would make Zod look weak. The high casualties the antagonists can inflict help reinforce just how much of a threat our hero is up against.

Black Widow on her period would probably result in the scariest fight scene in any of these movies. Especially if she just got done watch that video where Hawkguy calls her a s.lut.

Edit: S.lut is a curse word here?

Those Youtube videos casually ignore the thousands of people MoS Supes indirectly killed in the Battle of Metropolis. It's estimated to be in at LEAST the tens of thousands.

Killed by the world engine and the Kryptonians, not by Superman. Still, I'm sure many people died from Superman and Zod's fight.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Those Youtube videos casually ignore the thousands of people MoS Supes indirectly killed in the Battle of Metropolis. It's estimated to be in at LEAST the tens of thousands.

The only direct actions Kal took that could have killed bystanders were when he collided with Zod destroying the exterior of one building and when he raked Zod's face across another, causing debris to fall.

A hundred people at the very most died because of Kal during his fight with Zod.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
The only direct actions Kal took that could have killed bystanders were when he collided with Zod destroying the exterior of one building and when he raked Zod's face across another, causing debris to fall.

A hundred people at the very most died because of Kal during his fight with Zod.

What about the scene where he easily could have caught that tanker truck? He evaded it, and caused it to explode behind him. Or what about when he and Zod actually are in space? Why does Supes punch DOWN back to Earth?

Um. He doesn't. Zod it grows a satellite at him and then tackles him downwards.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Bingo. Another question: How would the Avengers do against Zod and his army? Probably not very well. Hulk would beat the life from these bums.

Wait till Batman kicks the shit out of Superman.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
What about the scene where he easily could have caught that tanker truck? He evaded it, and caused it to explode behind him. Or what about when he and Zod actually are in space? Why does Supes punch DOWN back to Earth?

Ummm, because he wanted to dodge it? The man is in a fight for his life, avoiding something his opponent just kicked at him seems like a natural reflex more than anything. Also, that truck didn't look like it was moving fast enough to explode on contact. Get dented and leak fuel? Definitely. But not explode. Besides, who is to say he could stop it from exploding anyway? Zod could easily heat vision it if he catches it. Finally, did you see anyone die in that parking complex? I doubt it had more than 100 people inside it.

I also made a point to say Kal's "direct actions", the one's he initiates. Otherwise he would be on the hook for Zod cutting buildings in half or crashing through them just because he could have broken his neck earlier.

Zod kicked a satellite at him, this time Kal did catch it and Zod tackled him back toward Earth as a result.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Those Youtube videos casually ignore the thousands of people MoS Supes indirectly killed in the Battle of Metropolis. It's estimated to be in at LEAST the tens of thousands.

Look at this idiot.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
What about the scene where he easily could have caught that tanker truck? He evaded it, and caused it to explode behind him. Or what about when he and Zod actually are in space? Why does Supes punch DOWN back to Earth?

You mean where it blew up an abandoned parking garage?

Another great one from a doctor..

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Ummm, because he wanted to dodge it? The man is in a fight for his life, avoiding something his opponent just kicked at him seems like a natural reflex more than anything. Also, that truck didn't look like it was moving fast enough to explode on contact. Get dented and leak fuel? Definitely. But not explode. Besides, who is to say he could stop it from exploding anyway? Zod could easily heat vision it if he catches it. Finally, did you see anyone die in that parking complex? I doubt it had more than 100 people inside it.

I also made a point to say Kal's "direct actions", the one's he initiates. Otherwise he would be on the hook for Zod cutting buildings in half or crashing through them just because he could have broken his neck earlier.

Zod kicked a satellite at him, this time Kal did catch it and Zod tackled him back toward Earth as a result.

I never seen such a raging bloody period blowing out a mans ass about collateral damage in a fight unless it only pertains to DC.

MoS did catch the satellite. Did you even watch the movie?

Did you happen to watch Avengers 1 or 2 or do they get the pass as well?

There is a distinct difference on being just one guy (ALONE) on his first day as a superhero and trying his best to beat 3 equally powered enemies not to mention taking care of a gargantuan terraformer machine with its own countermeasures (like weakening the hero), not weak ass fodder and a lame main childlike bad guy that use a plane to fight.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I never seen such a raging bloody period blowing out a mans ass about collateral damage in a fight unless it only pertains to DC.

MoS did catch the satellite. Did you even watch the movie?

Did you happen to watch Avengers 1 or 2 or do they get the pass as well?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I never seen such a raging bloody period blowing out a mans ass about collateral damage in a fight unless it only pertains to DC.

MoS did catch the satellite. Did you even watch the movie?

Did you happen to watch Avengers 1 or 2 or do they get the pass as well?

Sorry grat, was talking to Dr. Dumb shit.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
What about the scene where he easily could have caught that tanker truck? He evaded it, and caused it to explode behind him. Or what about when he and Zod actually are in space? Why does Supes punch DOWN back to Earth?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I'm wondering what people are thinking now with the destruction caused on a massive scale by Tony/Banner's ignorance and the damaged caused to the cities across the globe.

I recall a lot of people had much to say about how bad MoS and that it was to much destruction and to many innocent lives lost. However that pales in comparison to Age of Ultron. What AoU did that MoS didn't was acknowledge the destruction and actually show that the destructor(s) care about what they've done.


Superman didn't react at all. At. All.

Wrong..

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Allow me:

z8EydFeuPK8

N6xM0xr3SAk

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Ummm, because he wanted to dodge it? The man is in a fight for his life, avoiding something his opponent just kicked at him seems like a natural reflex more than anything. Also, that truck didn't look like it was moving fast enough to explode on contact. Get dented and leak fuel? Definitely. But not explode. Besides, who is to say he could stop it from exploding anyway? Zod could easily heat vision it if he catches it. Finally, did you see anyone die in that parking complex? I doubt it had more than 100 people inside it.

I also made a point to say Kal's "direct actions", the one's he initiates. Otherwise he would be on the hook for Zod cutting buildings in half or crashing through them just because he could have broken his neck earlier.

Zod kicked a satellite at him, this time Kal did catch it and Zod tackled him back toward Earth as a result.

The tanker was as big as a barn door. Supes EASILY could have caught it in his grip and stopped the momentum with his brute strength. But he didn't. Not that I truly blame him for this. It's PIS and not something Superman would actually do had his character been more thought out.

Ah, you're right. I mis-remembered it as Supes tossing the satellite.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
The tanker was as big as a barn door. Supes EASILY could have caught it in his grip and stopped the momentum with his brute strength. But he didn't. Not that I truly blame him for this. It's PIS and not something Superman would actually do had his character been more thought out.

Ah, you're right. I mis-remembered it as Supes tossing the satellite.

You mean stopping it like he did the satellite only to have Zod come barreling through and **** everything up even worse..just like the satellite scene...hmmmm.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What AoU did that MoS didn't was acknowledge the destruction and actually show that the destructor(s) care about what they've done.


Superman didn't react at all. At. All.

Let's see. He came forward to humanity. turned himself over to the military, then to Zod in hopes he could save humanity from any loss of life. Did you forget this?

Then after they went full maniac mode he did everything he could to stop them.

How did he not react. If your talking about not reacting to people dying, see above. If your talking about not reacting to the problems as fast as he could, re watch the movie...

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Wrong..

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Let's see. He came forward to humanity. turned himself over to the military, then to Zod in hopes he could save humanity from any loss of life. Did you forget this?

Then after they went full maniac mode he did everything he could to stop them.

How did he not react. If your talking about not reacting to people dying, see above. If your talking about not reacting to the problems as fast as he could, re watch the movie... I don't care how many people the hero saves, so long as their reaction to what they've done feels appropriate. The Avengers felt like they cared about their actions. Kal-el doesn't. The final battle in MoS is followed immediately up with the end of the film. The producers never spared time for the main character to reflect on what he did and what happened because of him. So if the movie doesn't show him feeling something for the the death of half a city, then I feel nothing for him. Therefore my emotional attachment to the character, his cause, everything he is and stands for, is diminished.

Banner and the Avengers were given time to feel repentant and even penitent. That makes them more human and likeable. And since the Superman movie is all about his relationship with the humans as a sorta-one-of-them, that makes it all the more jarring when the movie doesn't allot some time for him to emotionally react to their near obliteration via his own existence.


"Number of people saved" isn't the problem. "Number of f*cks given" is.

Yes but Banned and Stark ****ed ip and caused the problem even though they knew the risks. Superman turned himself over to prevent the disasters.

Seems he gave more of a **** to me. Then again that's just common sense.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't care how many people the hero saves, so long as their reaction to what they've done feels appropriate. The Avengers felt like they cared about their actions. Kal-el doesn't. The final battle in MoS is followed immediately up with the end of the film. The producers never spared time for the main character to reflect on what he did and what happened because of him. So if the movie doesn't show him feeling something for the the death of half a city, then I feel nothing for him. Therefore my emotional attachment to the character, his cause, everything he is and stands for, is diminished.

Banner and the Avengers were given time to feel repentant and even penitent. That makes them more human and likeable. And since the Superman movie is all about his relationship with the humans as a sorta-one-of-them, that makes it all the more jarring when the movie doesn't allot some time for him to emotionally react to their near obliteration via his own existence.


"Number of people saved" isn't the problem. "Number of f*cks given" is.


At the end instead of showing what you described they showed Superman being a douche threatening the military.
And with all Snyder's hidden symbolism to compare superman to jesus, it makes it even more ridiculous.

http://i.imgur.com/32oasv4.png

http://i.imgur.com/cJVQd4c.jpg

http://aflixionado.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Man-of-Steel-4.jpg

The movie failed in a lot of aspects. Wish they would have been handled different but they weren't. No amount of trying to compare those mistakes to other movies from other studios will erase that fact or soften the blow of how poorly those aspects were handled.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yes but Banned and Stark ****ed ip and caused the problem even though they knew the risks. Superman turned himself over to prevent the disasters.

Seems he gave more of a **** to me. Then again that's just common sense. The heroes can f*ck up, that's cool. It's how they react to said f*ck up that matters. Kal-el turned himself over prior to the third act to demonstrate his compliance with humanity's values... and then spent the entire third act demolishing a city and killing countless thousands--and that's awesome!


...if they had then shown Kal-el acknowledging the horrible death and destruction he can leave in his wake. Simply trying to defend them--by sacrificing his own race's future no less--still slaughters the humans in scores, ravages cities, and messes the innards of the planet. That's some heavy shit: even being the good guy savior still takes a heavy toll on the people he defends, and the only reason he has to defend them is because of his very presence on Earth. That should be serious emotional baggage for a hero of conscience, a man who values life...

But instead the movie cuts to him downing a spy drone and telling the general that he's gonna be doing things HIS way, like it or not. That is not the reaction of a man I'm supposed to empathize with and understand. That's not the reaction of a man I'm supposed to like. That's the reaction of man I wanna see get the shit kicked out of him by Ben Affleck. What a callous dismissal of his own responsibilities.

And it's all the fault of the production staff scheduling the climactic fight for the dead end of the film, not saving any time for an emotional cool down and for the hero to collect his thoughts and consider what's happened. Bad screenwriting, Mr. Snyder. Bad storyboarding. Maybe trying shaving some time off the 20-hour fight scene and lend it to some character development so the audience doesn't have to justify your character's actions for you.

Originally posted by Inhuman
At the end instead of showing what you described they showed Superman being a douche threatening the military.
And with all Snyder's hidden symbolism to compare superman to jesus, it makes it even more ridiculous.

http://i.imgur.com/32oasv4.png

http://i.imgur.com/cJVQd4c.jpg

http://aflixionado.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Man-of-Steel-4.jpg

The movie failed in a lot of aspects. Wish they would have been handled different but they weren't. No amount of trying to compare those mistakes to other movies from other studios will erase that fact or soften the blow of how poorly those aspects were handled.

You do realize that the same hidden symbolism was in Returns...so it's not like he invented something new.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The heroes can f*ck up, that's cool. It's how they react to said f*ck up that matters. Kal-el turned himself over prior to the third act to demonstrate his compliance with humanity's values... and then spent the entire third act demolishing a city and killing countless thousands--and that's awesome!


...if they had then shown Kal-el acknowledging the horrible death and destruction he can leave in his wake. Simply trying to defend them--by sacrificing his own race's future no less--still slaughters the humans in scores, ravages cities, and messes the innards of the planet. That's some heavy shit: even being the good guy savior still takes a heavy toll on the people he defends, and the only reason he has to defend them is because of his very presence on Earth. That should be serious emotional baggage for a hero of conscience, a man who values life...

But instead the movie cuts to him downing a spy drone and telling the general that he's gonna be doing things HIS way, like it or not. That is not the reaction of a man I'm supposed to empathize with and understand. That's not the reaction of a man I'm supposed to like. That's the reaction of man I wanna see get the shit kicked out of him by Ben Affleck. What a callous dismissal of his own responsibilities.

And it's all the fault of the production staff scheduling the climactic fight for the dead end of the film, not saving any time for an emotional cool down and for the hero to collect his thoughts and consider what's happened. Bad screenwriting, Mr. Snyder. Bad storyboarding. Maybe trying shaving some time off the 20-hour fight scene and lend it to some character development so the audience doesn't have to justify your character's actions for you.

Your still not getting it. He did everything he could to stop anyone from dying where is Tony/Banner caused it.

I do get that. You're not getting that I don't care whose fault it is, I care about how they feel about it. How they emotionally react to it. Superman showed no remorse, shame, guilt or anything at all over Metropolis dying. If he's emotionally detached from his own horrific actions, than I am too. I want to be invested in what's going on, but when the main character isn't even, then I'm certainly not going to be. It's not about death toll or blame.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I do get that. You're not getting that I don't care whose fault it is, I care about how they feel about it. How they emotionally react to it. Superman showed no remorse, shame, guilt or anything at all over Metropolis dying. If he's emotionally detached from his own horrific actions, than I am too. I want to be invested in what's going on, but when the main character isn't even, then I'm certainly not going to be. It's not about death toll or blame.

Usually a person who is not at fault for something feels no guilt..how do you know how he felt though, the movie was not really about grief, so it wasn't focus on. For that matter which Superman movie has been really been about grief?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So if the movie doesn't show him feeling something for the the death of half a city, then I feel nothing for him.

This hyperbole is especially annoying to me. There are many legitimate criticisms of this film but this one is always exaggerated beyond belief. When people say that "half of Metropolis was destroyed" or "Superman destroyed half of Metropolis!" they are either terribly unobservant, lying, or exaggerating for some reason. Which one are you? Half the city!? That wouldn't even be half of Queens. Just to hammer the point home:

SqBzNT_llL8

Feel free to be wrong on that.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Banner and the Avengers were given time to feel repentant and even penitent. That makes them more human and likeable.
And when did this happen exactly? I seem to remember them grabbing some schwarma in the immediate aftermath. Then, presumably a day or two later, they are seeing Thor and Loki off. Smiling, whispering jokes to each other, mugging for the camera on motorcycles and in fancy sports cars and sh*t. Where is the sadness? The mourning for all the buildings that fell and the people that died?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And since the Superman movie is all about his relationship with the humans as a sorta-one-of-them, that makes it all the more jarring when the movie doesn't allot some time for him to emotionally react to their near obliteration via his own existence.

That is because there is a thing called run time. The film had to end. Exploring those themes on a mere 5-10 minutes at the end of the movie would not do them justice. I can assure you that the larger impact of Kal's existence/actions will be pored over in BvS to a degree that will satisfy you.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
This hyperbole is especially annoying to me. There are many legitimate criticisms of this film but this one is always exaggerated beyond belief. When people say that "half of Metropolis was destroyed" or "Superman destroyed half of Metropolis!" they are either terribly unobservant, lying, or exaggerating for some reason. Which one are you? Half the city!? That wouldn't even be half of Queens. Just to hammer the point home:

SqBzNT_llL8

Feel free to be wrong on that.


And when did this happen exactly? I seem to remember them grabbing some schwarma in the immediate aftermath. Then, presumably a day or two later, they are seeing Thor and Loki off. Smiling, whispering jokes to each other, mugging for the camera on motorcycles and in fancy sports cars and sh*t. Where is the sadness? The mourning for all the buildings that fell and the people that died?



Bravo, yea that schwarma scene and them all getting in awesome cars and smiling was sure pure sadness.

I'm sure he will retort with "but this is Superman, not Avengers."

I still wanting to see the remorse from the Avengers...but then we have our answer, there was none.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien


Banner and the Avengers were given time to feel repentant and even penitent. That makes them more human and likeable.

Like grat said, Um, No, and if yes, when?

Originally posted by Inhuman
At the end instead of showing what you described they showed Superman being a douche threatening the military.


WYkvRm_Zokk

What exactly did he say that was a threat?

It was actually good character development. In the guise of Superman he can shed the meek, introverted, "turn the other cheek" personality of Clark Kent and stand up to bullies taking full measures for the first time in his life.

Zero response to kid bullying him at the truck repair place: Non-measure.
Surrendering to the military/Zod but only in exchange for Lois' freedom/the safety of humanity: Half-measure.
Crashing surveillance drone into the ground and telling them he won't let them spy on him: Full-measure.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial

I'm sure he will retort with "but this is Superman, not Avengers."



I'd actually have no problem with it if people admitted they hold any incarnation of Superman to a different standard from other superheroes. However, when one tries to feign logical and intellectual consistency across the genre they can expect to get called out on their bullsh*t.

While I think Man of Steel is a bad movie, with a lot of stupid parts, and a very dumb Superman, I never understood the destruction criticism, it's not like Superman was in control of that.

There is no reason to try and invent reasons. just say that you didn't like it because it wasn't a very good movie.

Originally posted by Silent Master
There is no reason to try and invent reasons. just say that you didn't like it because it wasn't a very good movie.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I'm wondering what people are thinking now with the destruction caused on a massive scale by Tony/Banner's ignorance and the damaged caused to the cities across the globe.

I recall a lot of people had much to say about how bad MoS and that it was to much destruction and to many innocent lives lost. However that pales in comparison to Age of Ultron. This seems like a thread made to whine over other people's opinions on a subject.

Originally posted by Newjak
This seems like a thread made to whine over other people's opinions on a subject.

Cry about it. Usually most of your posts are whining about it, so consider it pay back.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Cry about it. I am openly sating that this thread seems like a waste of time.

You don't like that people did not like the destruction in MoS, I didn't really care about it, so now you're trying to make it seem like it is a double standard because of the destruction in both movies without taking context. They are not same.

Also I've noticed you've been trying make a claim about Avengers 2 trying hard to not be MoS. Every Marvel movie that has ever been created has always taken care to show the heroes worry over civilians and civilian causalities. So no Avengers is not trying to do some weird thing with some critique's of MoS because they have always taken this route.

EDIT: What do I normally whine about TI?

Originally posted by Newjak
I am openly sating that this thread seems like a waste of time.


I didn't know I invented a device that forced you to post in a thread you consider a waste of time.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I didn't know I invented a device that forced you to post in a thread you consider a waste of time. You're right you are not forcing me to post in here just like I can not stop you from making this thread. So I am using my voice and actions to draw attention to the what I think of this thread.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I do get that. You're not getting that I don't care whose fault it is, I care about how they feel about it. How they emotionally react to it. Superman showed no remorse, shame, guilt or anything at all over Metropolis dying. If he's emotionally detached from his own horrific actions, than I am too. I want to be invested in what's going on, but when the main character isn't even, then I'm certainly not going to be. It's not about death toll or blame.

You're right, they should have a scene where Superman stops fighting Zod to shed a few tears.

lol man of steel razed a freak'n city and you sould see people flying up into the air. not only that he basically did this kind of rampart destruction on two sides of the planet.

havent seen AVengers 2 but i have heard iron man/hulk keep the damage within a city block

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
lol man of steel razed a freak'n city and you sould see people flying up into the air. not only that he basically did this kind of rampart destruction on two sides of the planet.

havent seen AVengers 2 but i have heard iron man/hulk keep the damage within a city block

None of which he caused. And no they didn't keep it to a city block, they destroyed a whole city.

Cause=Maniacs from Space
Effect=Superman had to stop them.

Originally posted by Newjak
You're right you are not forcing me to post in here just like I can not stop you from making this thread. So I am using my voice and actions to draw attention to the what I think of this thread.

http://honda-tech.com/attachments/hybrid-engine-swaps-18/280562d1342734421-help-cant-pull-cel-codes-b18c-eg-hatch-boo-hoo.jpg

Marvel should make a Gladiator movie, it's probably the only way to get a real Superman style movie at this point.

i like you time (am being serious)

you always manage to make me laugh when you troll others

kinda like when robtard manhandles quan

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
i like you time (am being serious)

you always manage to make me laugh when you troll others

kinda like when robtard manhandles quan



Cheers.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Marvel should make a Gladiator movie, it's probably the only way to get a real Superman style movie at this point.

Lol, Glad's would show up, one shot Hulk, and take over earth.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
http://honda-tech.com/attachments/hybrid-engine-swaps-18/280562d1342734421-help-cant-pull-cel-codes-b18c-eg-hatch-boo-hoo.jpg Does not change the fact you gripes/comparisons are not legitimate and are nothing more than hate filled posts.

Originally posted by Newjak
Does not change the fact you gripes/comparisons are not legitimate and are nothing more than hate filled posts.

http://honda-tech.com/attachments/hybrid-engine-swaps-18/280562d1342734421-help-cant-pull-cel-codes-b18c-eg-hatch-boo-hoo.jpg

I sense a lot of butthurt from you.

Hate filled posts.proof?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I'm wondering what people are thinking now with the destruction caused on a massive scale by Tony/Banner's ignorance and the damaged caused to the cities across the globe.

I recall a lot of people had much to say about how bad MoS and that it was to much destruction and to many innocent lives lost. However that pales in comparison to Age of Ultron. THis post reeks of it.

Oh you guys were complaining about MoS now it is time to complain about AoU.

You can practically hear you saying if you don't you're a hypocrite in these lines.

Seriously you obviously hate people saying MoS destruction was too much and now you;re trying to force people to admit that AoU was worse.

Originally posted by Newjak
THis post reeks of it.

Oh you guys were complaining about MoS now it is time to complain about AoU.

You can practically hear you saying if you don't you're a hypocrite in these lines.

Seriously you obviously hate people saying MoS destruction was too much and now you;re trying to force people to admit that AoU was worse.

Look how mad you are.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Look how mad you are. I don't hear you denying it

I will give you a chance though tell me why you created this thread though. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Silent Master
There is no reason to try and invent reasons. just say that you didn't like it because it wasn't a very good movie.

This is the correct answer.

I didn't like it because it was retarded. You have Superman (who hasent fought a day in his life) beating up the head of the kryptonian military. Brilliant. If that wasn't enough, Supes scientist dad gets in on the action. The kryptonian military must not have struck fear into too many people.

Speaking of Clarks Dad, if you died, please don't hang around for the rest of the movie. Dumb.

I loved Pa Kents suicide moment. Hey, I have a son with super powers standing right next to me that can move quicker then the human eye, but i'll tell him to stay still and i'll walk into the tornado. Genius.


The destruction shown throughout the movie is the least of the films problems.

Originally posted by Newjak
I don't hear you denying it

I will give you a chance though tell me why you created this thread though. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What you have failed to understand and missed in most of my posting's is I don't care about the destruction in any movie. Its a comic blockbuster.

I'm just laughing at the people who cried about the destruction for 2 years after MOS came out, then giving a pass to the avengers, while saying they showed empathy and remorse at the end of avengers, when clearly they did not. I just call out the bullshit like I see it.

Originally posted by tkitna
Hey, I have a son with super powers standing right next to me that can move quicker then the human eye, but i'll tell him to stay still and i'll walk into the tornado. Genius.

Can he though? The only time Kal displayed superhuman foot speed he was a very visible blur. Everyone beneath the overpass would have seen a blur run over to that old man and bring him back.

Criticism invalid.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What you have failed to understand and missed in most of my posting's is I don't care about the destruction in any movie. Its a comic blockbuster.

I'm just laughing at the people who cried about the destruction for 2 years after MOS came out, then giving a pass to the avengers, while saying they showed empathy and remorse at the end of avengers, when clearly they did not. I just call out the bullshit like I see it. Fair enough

It does come off as hate filled. Even in this post it still seems to. If it's not though cool.

I also did not really care about the destruction in either movie, but I don't think they are same thing in context. So I don't think people are hypocrites if they decide to give a pass on AoU vs MoS.

Marvel movies have always kind of placed an emphasis on the heroes worrying about civilians in a fight so I don't think the same gripes carry over from one movie to the other.

Clark could have easily made it to the car, saved the dog and gotten back without displaying above human speed or strength, the entire scene was retarded.

Also the bystanders would be too busy worying about...i dont know....maybe a fuqing tornado coming their way than to see what happens to an old man and his dog.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Clark could have easily made it to the car, saved the dog and gotten back without displaying above human speed or strength, the entire scene was retarded.

Yes he could have. One of the few issues I had with the movie was in that scene. I have zero problem with Johnathan dying in a tornado saving the family dog and telling Kal not to save him. It would have been much better, however, if Kal didn't realize his dad went back for the dog. As it is, he tried to go back for the dog initially but his dad forced a small girl upon him to protect.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Can he though? The only time Kal displayed superhuman foot speed he was a very visible blur. Everyone beneath the overpass would have seen a blur run over to that old man and bring him back.

Criticism invalid.

Ok, lets say it was a blur. Do you think daddy Kent walking out into the tornado was the best course of action? If you had Supermans powers would you have let your dad walk out into that?

It was still stupid so criticism valid.

Originally posted by tkitna
Ok, lets say it was a blur. Do you think daddy Kent walking out into the tornado was the best course of action? If you had Supermans powers would you have let your dad walk out into that?

It was still stupid so criticism valid.

Of course we'll say it was a blur, because it was.

He didn't walk out into the tornado like he wanted to commit suicide, his ankle was injured and he couldn't escape.

Were I in Kal's position at the beginning, I would have ignored him when he told me not to get the dog and done it myself.

Were I in Kal's position under the overpass and my father told me not to save him I would have respected his wishes.

This situation is difficult to analyze because we don't know exactly how old Kal is in that scene. A video I saw raised an interesting question: Would it have been ok for John to send his son out to get the dog or come save him if it had been the 13 year old actor that played Clark? It really changes how one perceives the scene if you think Clark is still just a kid.

Edit: Your opinion is valid. Your earlier criticism was based on the assumption that Kal can move invisibly fast. So no, it is still invalid.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Clark could have easily made it to the car, saved the dog and gotten back without displaying above human speed or strength, the entire scene was retarded.



Look he had just gotten in an argument with his dad about wanting to get off the farm. The tornado presented an amazing opportunity.

Originally posted by Newjak
Fair enough

It does come off as hate filled. Even in this post it still seems to. If it's not though cool.

I also did not really care about the destruction in either movie, but I don't think they are same thing in context. So I don't think people are hypocrites if they decide to give a pass on AoU vs MoS.

Marvel movies have always kind of placed an emphasis on the heroes worrying about civilians in a fight so I don't think the same gripes carry over from one movie to the other.

Ok can you explain how you see it different?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ok can you explain how you see it different? Sure for one thing some people's complaints about MoS was that Superman did not try hard enough or did not seem focused on keeping collateral damage to a minimum.

Besides the family at the end this seems pretty true. He never made an effort to get Zod out of the city and kept hitting him into possibly occupied buildings.

Now you can come up with reasons why he couldn't or didn't think to. For instance he was new, and Zod was too dangerous to try and take those things into consideration. Like I said I have no problem with this being the case.

In contrast in AoU there was a conscious decision to constantly showcase that they cared about civilians. And tried to minimize casualties.

Now I have heard it said that the reason AoU is like this is because of complaints about MoS. I could pssibly agree with this if it hasn't been a mainstain of the MCU for awhile. In IM Tony tries to help civilians from being destroyed by his weapons. In IM2 Tony tries to lead the crazy kill bots away from the Expo to avoid casualties. In Thor 1 Thor tries to help get civilians out of the small town because he knows the Destroyer is coming. He even creates a tornado to keep his fighting with the Destroyer contained. In Cap 1 Cap literally almost lets himself get shot to save a child's life. In the first Avengers they were constantly showing the heroes attempting to save innocents. Hawkeye getting people out of vehicles while Black Widow covered him. Cap running around to keep civilians safe. Heck they even set up a plan to keep the threat contained as much as possible so that the damage wouldn't spread.

I could keep going into the phase 2 movies but I think the point has been made.

I've also seen a comment along the lines that since Tony created Ultron all of this is his fault therefore even if he was trying to save civilians during the fighting all of the civilians deaths are still his fault. Which is somewhat true. But this would be in the same vein as MoS being all Kal's fault because he was on Earth or because he did not turn himself in. It is also akin to saying that vehicle manufactures are at fault for all accidents that have happened in their vehicles.

Tony wasn't trying to create a murdering robot yes he should have known to not rush things with something he did not truly understand but hopefully he has learned from that mistake.

Originally posted by TheGrat1

Were I in Kal's position under the overpass and my father told me not to save him I would have respected his wishes.


Bullshit

Originally posted by Inhuman
Also the bystanders would be too busy worying about...i dont know....maybe a fuqing tornado coming their way than to see what happens to an old man and his dog. That scene was massively returned. Man of steel was just bad. I won't watch it all the way through over again. It sucked. Chris Reeve >>Henry C.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Chris Reeve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Henry C.

Fixed

Originally posted by Werewolf582
Fixed Yeah, it's not even close.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yeah, it's not even close.

Henry Cavil could have been a good superman, but if you take a look at tge script and then look at the directors work in the movie. There was almost nothing he could work with to seem good.

I'm hoping they improve in BvS.

The issues of MoS aren't on the actor playing Superman.

Originally posted by Werewolf582
Henry Cavil could have been a good superman, but if you take a look at tge script and then look at the directors work in the movie. There was almost nothing he could work with to seem good.

I'm hoping they improve in BvS.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
The issues of MoS aren't on the actor playing Superman. He didn't help much either.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He didn't help much either. Tbf, no one could have.

He was written as a god complex prick.

To be fair, Reeve isn't really that much better an actor than Cavill.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Tbf, no one could have.

He was written as a god complex prick. I do think the script was awful so we shall see going forward.

MOS.

Originally posted by Golgo13
MOS. Why do you think so ?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I'm wondering what people are thinking now with the destruction caused on a massive scale by Tony/Banner's ignorance and the damaged caused to the cities across the globe.

I recall a lot of people had much to say about how bad MoS and that it was to much destruction and to many innocent lives lost. However that pales in comparison to Age of Ultron. ignorance really isn't the right word, lack of foresight maybe but w/e

On topic, people disliked MoS because Superman saved less people than he directly killed, and the movie glossed over it. AoU spent a lot of time on heroes saving civilians.

Honestly Superman saved like 20 people tops.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
ignorance really isn't the right word, lack of foresight maybe but w/e

On topic, people disliked MoS because Superman saved less people than he directly killed, and the movie glossed over it. AoU spent a lot of time on heroes saving civilians.

Honestly Superman saved like 20 people tops.

He saved more people than Reeves Superman. Lol.

Originally posted by Golgo13
He saved more people than Reeves Superman. Lol. False.

Originally posted by Golgo13
He saved more people than Reeves Superman. Lol. in one scene in Superman 3, Supes saved an entire factory.

Superman (mos) saved like 6 people on the Oil Rig & a few people in the subway. He also killed a civilian by throwing the large Kryptonians directly into them.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
in one scene in Superman 3, Supes saved an entire factory.

Superman (mos) saved like 6 people on the Oil Rig & a few people in the subway. He also killed a civilian by throwing the large Kryptonians directly into them.

He saved Lois like 3 times. Lol. And ultimately the whole planet.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Allow me:

z8EydFeuPK8

N6xM0xr3SAk

Uh oh

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Tbf, no one could have.

He was written as a god complex prick.

Riiight....because guys with god complexes regularly take jobs as crab fishermen, busboys, and newspaper reporters. All the while saving people's lives with incredible feats without letting anyone know it was them. They also go to great lengths to ensure they are as anonymous as possible.

Yeah, that Joe the baggage handler. Such an egomaniac. You hit the nail right on the head.

That was sarcasm, in case you didn't know. Yet another inaccurate and invalid criticism of the film.

Originally posted by Golgo13
He saved Lois like 3 times. Lol. And ultimately the whole planet. So did the original Superman.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Uh oh

Bingo. People keep forgetting.

Originally posted by FrothByte
To be fair, Reeve isn't really that much better an actor than Cavill.
You should be banned for this comment. The two don't even compare. Cavill is not even in the same league as Reeves.