I was about to make some of the same points. Superman had to stop Zod, or else Zod was going to kill every single human on earth(by his own accord.) 100,000 humans may have died as a result of their battle(remember, that is just speculation at this point), but even if 500,000 humans died, that is still vastly better than the alternative of 7 BILLION deaths which would have resulted from not fighting/killing Zod then and there.
It seems like people are quick to whine/nitpick before they consider context. Supes did what he had to do in that situation-- lets not act like Zod and his goons would have obliged had Superman said in the midst of battle: "Excuse me... Would you chaps mind taking our fight to a remote location several thousand miles from here? I doant wunt ne peeple 2 git hert!"
If you guys want a 'wholesome' Superman, then go watch every other Superman film that's been made.
"The Grand Admiral was smart and subtle, but never used his brilliance to show up or humiliate anyone.
He demanded results, but never perfection, and had amazing stores of patience for those who were truly working to their fullest ability.
It was a pity Thrawn's style of leadership hadn't spread through the rest of the navy.
If that happened, he suspected, the Empire would stand forever."
I mean, do people really think every fight scene should have happened in outer space or the desert? Seriously, if that where the case people would be complaining even worse than they are now. No way to win it seems. Also, rage complaining about Supes punching that other krytponian into a train is lulz worthy. So, what should have happened then? Should we have seen a Superman movie where no damage happens in every fight? How well exactly would that have gone over?
What about the hulk movie where hulk fights abomination in the city? How many people died during that? That's right, its not Superman so no one is complaining about that.
The town had emptied by that point; it was just Thor's fellow Asgardians and Jane Foster's group left.
I'm willing to give Superman a pass for what happens in MOS. He's new and just starting to perfect his powers at last; he's not like the veteran Supes who took on Zod & his henchmen in Superman II. I was concerned with the first YouTube clip that had him blowing Zod through the fields, the farm towers and finally into downtown Smallville. But I chalk that up to his inexperience, and he was doing his best to save the townspeople and soldiers during the fight with Faora. I never felt like he was indifferent to the humans around him, as some critics have claimed.
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
A few million dead is better then 7 billion? This kind of talk should make Superman sick to his stomach. It's never acceptable to sacrifice lives.
You remember in the first Spider-Man movie where Goblin put Spider-Man in an impossible situation but he ended up saving Mary Jane and the children? Or when Loki overloaded the Bifrost and Thor figured that he could destroy it instead?
Heroes are put in impossible situations often, but the reason why they're heroes is because they find solutions for impossible situations. And Superman is the greatest hero of all.
I'm not hating on the movie, I'm criticizing which is perfectly reasonable. And the reason I'm doing this is because of how big of a fan I am of Superman's character. He's Superman, it's never acceptable to put innocents in danger, he doesn't have to be a ten year superhero veteran to know not to fly into a populated town causing deaths.
Last edited by Rage.Of.Olympus on Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:09 PM
How are you comparing innocent people of different nationality to Frost Giants (Soldiers I might add) and Chitauri Robot soldier drones?
Yes, Clark was extremely reckless in this movie with how he fought. He at times actively diverted combat into populated zones.
I don't understand how Superman watching his father die to preserve his secret changes this.
So Superman was put into a difficult situation that should be almost impossible to figure out. But you know why it's exactly something he should be capable of? Because he's Superman, impossible is what he does. How can you be a fan of the character and not understand that about him?
Also, it's not just about Zod killing people but Superman actively contributing to it. For example, Zod kicked a truck at Clark and he casually dodges and lets another building (A parking garage) get destroyed as a result. Like what the hell is that about? It looked cool but a few scared cowering civilians were probably killed as a result.
So Superman preserving lives in a situation where no one else probably could would be disappointing? Are you a fan of the powers or the character?
Now you're just rambling nonsense because you're upset I disagree with you. Superman wasn't nonchalant about human lives but he was extremely reckless for someone with his type of power. This isn't really debatable.
Compare that to the Avengers who spent the entire movie minimizing collateral damage and containing it to evacuated zones, Superman looks like an out of control child.
Chitauri could have been brainwashed, or whatever. They are still part of the damage.
See it all goes back to this belief that you think Superman had the ability to divert fights where he wants against people who are his equals if not superiors. I can understand if they are weaker, in which case, I'd agree with you. But his enemies were his superiors in everything but flight.
Yes, except this movie is suppose to show you a little of the dark side. It's more realistic. Seriously, just watch Superman Returns. Superman saves metropolis as it was being destroyed. He reverts some gas lines, catches the daily planet, and burns the glass/debris in one block. YUP, that is realistic. Only one block experienced glass breaking Keep in mind, he was able to do this because he had no enemy
I'm sure all of the citizens were cowering behind in the apartments. Not like you know, they ran, or got evacuated like what most people would probably do. Also, did you see anyone die there? I'm sure you didn't, but you assume they did. Can I assume that people died during the invasion of Chitauri?
I'm a fan. A big fan, and I know the character more than you can know. Yet, I don't see that being crazy. Sure, it works in comics, but in comics, there is a reason for it. The movie had other reasons. That's not what this argument is about
No, it's just that he was too reckless because you are looking at this movie as a comic book
Yes, we didn't see no one die. The Chitauri were soo idiotic to attack a planet who contain Hydrogen Bombs. I'm sorry that a race of beings who live god knows where, with god knows what kind of technology have no weapon that is considered in the category as WOMD. Never mind that Avengers had Superman beat in number of members and the type of enemy they had. After all, it's not like the enemy possessed weapons close to Kryptonians or Hulk for that matter; not like they had anything but some people on scooters. Not like they had weapons that can changed the planet's gravitational pull, or atmosphere
NO, Avengers is about strong gods, Heroes, and Hulk who fight Aliens sooo advanced that they didn't have any WOMD. It was about a group of heroes who COMMAND A POLICE OFFICER and direct him on HOW to evacuate people during an attack. Because, it's not like NYC didn't experience that before or still for that matter. Avengers is your comic book adaption, it follows guidelines much like comic books, which is why is why you like it more. I like movies more darker and realistic; those that show a things a bit more darker.
Last edited by xJLxKing on Jun 26th, 2013 at 12:39 AM
I didn't read most of the thread, though I assume that my viewpoint isn't going to be one that many share.
I think people are going WAY overboard with this "he's not really Superman because Superman would have saved all of those people".
The **** he would. The fact that he saved the world AT ALL makes him Superman, imo.
The guy had just learned how to fly. He'd never even been in a fight before, and he was being tasked with fighting off an invasion by highly trained beings that were able to physically harm him. He had all of a few days before he was forced in to combat, and he was still learning how to use his powers in a combat situation, as he'd never been forced to use them in that manner before.
Also, the destruction, the world engine etc? If they're going to make the danger big enough so that real stakes are involved, then people are going to die. They have to convey the fact that if this guy fails, he won't get a second chance. World goes boom. We're all ****ed, and only Superman can save us. They did that, imo.
There's also the point that before Superman even fought Zod, people had been evacuating the site around the ship in Metropolis. Sure, some people would have died, but I think it's being ridiculously overstated.
This is a Superman that's only started. Superman wasn't born refusing to kill, or believing in the sanctity of life. He had to learn the value of such things during his education. The only reason "current" comic Superman is able to perform these insane feats of saving everyone and stopping the villain at the same time is because he learned how to do it. He has years of experience doing it.
This guy doesn't. He will get there, but Superman isn't Superman if his beliefs and morals aren't built on experience and hard lessons he'd learned.
In fact, the end of the movie could very well BE the catalyst for him becoming that guy, even if he had a vague idea already.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
People wanting a Superman who never fails to save anyone...there's lots of Grant Morrison comics for you to read. That's his idealization of what the character is - I think this film is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Superman does triumph, but there's lots of collateral damage. That's part of the (necessary) new realism he needs for the movies, now.
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
The Chitauri were akin to automated drones, once the Mothership was taken out, they were deactivated. Also, the Chitauri were under Loki's command to conquer humanity, not destroy it.
So you're criticizing the Avengers for being too unrealistic? That's a small price to pay for my heroes to be, well, heroic. The Avenger's had excellent action and was tons of fun without compromising anything.
I guess you just hold Superman to lower standards then I do. While a regular person or even another hero would be put in an impossible situation, I expect Superman to triumph. You seem to think I have a problem with body counts, I don't. People die, it's fine but I do have a serious problem with Superman not doing his very best to prevent deaths.
My problem is that Superman didn't even try to get Zod out of the city, it didn't even seem to cross his mind. I don't expect him to be perfect but I expect him to be Superman.
You don't have to be experienced to know that two Kryptonians fighting in a populated area will be dangerous. And while that might be an acceptable mistake for someone else, it isn't for Superman. That's why he is who he is, he holds himself to higher standards than anyone else.
Christ, everyone is so cynical nowadays and so obsessed with realism. I'm sorry that I went to a comic book movie based on Superman and expected to leave uplifted.
Last edited by Rage.Of.Olympus on Jun 26th, 2013 at 03:29 AM
Superman killing Zod doesn't bother me; he's killed before in comics and will probably kill again. But the scope of collateral damage was...high. That scene where Superman saves that soldier mid fall? That was great. I would have loved even one more scene of Superman saving random strangers mid fight with Zod in Metropolis. Or even a short scene of Superman using x-ray vision to punch Zod toward deserted buildings, explicitly fighting away from human beings.
All that said...I do like Synder's intent. He wants to show why Superman feels the way he does and wants to have him experience loss and even failure so that he'll do and be better. Like Pr said, a lot of us are used to the virtually infallible Superman in comics, and while I'd like to see that portrayed on the big screen, I do think him not getting a perfect "victory" does him credit. He lost a lot in that movie; his parents, his home world, his adopted father, and the last connection to his race by his own hand. And that does humanize him.
Problem with that is that a lot of fans of the character don't want him to be relatable and want instead for him to be the inspirational godlike entity who's the medium's greatest hero. I think New 52 Superman is a good blueprint for that happy balance, actually. He is heroic and is an inspiration to others, including heroes. But he's a very human and relatable person. Man of Steel's not quite there, but I think he will be given the sequel and follow up films.
And on a side note: phuck "realism" in comic book movies. Unless you're the Punisher, Batman, or another "street" character - and even then, realism is shot out of the window - if you're going to a superhero comic book film for something realistic, you're going to be disappointed.
I'm pretty sure this is false, at best people are hesitant of using cheap narrative to push humanity down the character's throat at the expense of what makes it unique. Lets remember than Superman Returns gave him a frigging son.
As I mentioned in prior posts / other threads, I can see why some did not like this "non cheery" version of Supes.
Speaking for myself, I was not, and I found this portrayal to be as realistic as one could probably get for this subject matter. It doesn't approach Bale's Batman (for obvious reasons), but it is less comic-booky than Chris Reeve's spin.
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
It isn't about realism or being gritty, it's about believability.
Superman starting out, even in the comics, wasn't this perfect "I save everyone, beat the villain and be home in time for corn flakes" kind of guy. that took years of training and experience to achieve.
You keep saying that he isn't Superman. You're right; he's not. because the Superman you're talking about is something that he becomes over time.
Why are you holding Superman to the same standards as a normal person? He's not allowed to make the same mistakes, he can't. Not with that kind of power. That's a big point of his character.
Did I not say that Superman isn't perfect? He never was, I'm not new to the character, I've read quite a bit about him which is why I'm saying what I did. I don't have a problem with it being extremely hard for him, I just don't like him.....not even trying. Like Jake said, an X-ray vision building sweeping scene would have been perfect.
Well, a lot of damage was done and many people were killed for him to reach that point. I'm glad you enjoyed it, but it stains his image to me.