Man of Steel (2013)

Originally posted by Nephthys
Considering he's only pushing Zod through the building to stop him from killing everyone I don't see why not. Even if he did kill people by throwing Zod through a building (and thats never shown to be the case), those are acceptable casualties in order to subdue him. If Superman hadn't of fought him, he undoubtedly would have caused a shitton more death and damage than their fight did. And no-one else could do it. You can argue that Superman was 'incompetent' in the way he failed to minimise collatoral damage, but guess what? He's the only guy they had who could stop Zod. Untrained Kal was the only option.

No, they wouldn't. 😬

Hahahaha wtf? Acceptable causalities? There's no such thing as acceptable casualties. That complete lack of understanding for Superman's character pisses me off. I don't know why it does, I didn't think I felt so strongly about Superman as a character, but apparently I do. 😐

You don't seem to understand the difference between Superman and every other random flying f*ck out there like Hyperion or Gladiator.

They most definitely would. Superman is held to much higher scrutiny and standard then the average person. He can't be reckless, not ever. He can't afford to otherwise people, well, die. And to Superman especially, that is unacceptable.

Whatever, we seem to have a fundamental difference in how we view Superman. Agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Considering he's only pushing Zod through the building to stop him from killing everyone I don't see why not. Even if he did kill people by throwing Zod through a building (and thats never shown to be the case), those are acceptable casualties in order to subdue him. If Superman hadn't of fought him, he undoubtedly would have caused a shitton more death and damage than their fight did. And no-one else could do it. You can argue that Superman was 'incompetent' in the way he failed to minimise collatoral damage, but guess what? He's the only guy they had who could stop Zod. Untrained Kal was the only option.

No, they wouldn't. 😬

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Hahahaha wtf? Acceptable causalities? There's no such thing as acceptable casualties. That complete lack of understanding for Superman's character pisses me off. I don't know why it does, I didn't think I felt so strongly about Superman as a character, but apparently I do. 😐

You don't seem to understand the difference between Superman and every other random flying f*ck out there like Hyperion or Gladiator.

They most definitely would. Superman is held to much higher scrutiny and standard then the average person. He can't be reckless, not ever. He can't afford to otherwise people, well, die. And to Superman especially, that is unacceptable.

Whatever, we seem to have a fundamental difference in how we view Superman. Agree to disagree.

A superpowered demigod capable of destroying the world should be held to the absolute pinnacle of standards. Understanding that evil villains will cause casualties is one thing, but excusing every casualty caused in the defense against them as "acceptable" is f*cking messed up. I think the Soviets adopted a similar mentality on the Eastern front. Victory at any cost, huh? Good thing the U.S. didn't just nuke Iraq to stop them turrists. That the film actually depicts Superman himself wiping the destruction he's caused away like dirt off the shoulder, is pretty insulting to what this character has always stood for.

But who knows, maybe they really will take a dark turn in the next film, and show Superman imposing his will on the planet a la Superman IV. Killing those who stand in the way of peace a la every dictator ever. Cuz judging from what he said to the colonel at the end after downing the drone, that option has potential.

You should have realized that it wasn't going to be an accurate portrayal when he let his dad die.

When they showed that I just smh.

Yeah, that was.....different.

Pa Kent dying from a heart attack would have been a lot better. For all his power, for all his abilities, there are things that even Superman is helpless against. It was a nice lesson hanging over his head, always reminding him that even he's not God.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Hahahaha wtf? Acceptable causalities? There's no such thing as acceptable casualties. That complete lack of understanding for Superman's character pisses me off. I don't know why it does, I didn't think I felt so strongly about Superman as a character, but apparently I do. 😐

You don't seem to understand the difference between Superman and every other random flying f*ck out there like Hyperion or Gladiator.

They most definitely would. Superman is held to much higher scrutiny and standard then the average person. He can't be reckless, not ever. He can't afford to otherwise people, well, die. And to Superman especially, that is unacceptable.

Whatever, we seem to have a fundamental difference in how we view Superman. Agree to disagree.

This isn't that Superman.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This.

A superpowered demigod capable of destroying the world should be held to the absolute pinnacle of standards. Understanding that evil villains will cause casualties is one thing, but excusing every casualty caused in the defense against them as "acceptable" is f*cking messed up. I think the Soviets adopted a similar mentality on the Eastern front. Victory at any cost, huh? Good thing the U.S. didn't just nuke Iraq to stop them turrists. That the film actually depicts Superman himself wiping the destruction he's caused away like dirt off the shoulder, is pretty insulting to what this character has always stood for.

But who knows, maybe they really will take a dark turn in the next film, and show Superman imposing his will on the planet a la Superman IV. Killing those who stand in the way of peace a la every dictator ever. Cuz judging from what he said to the colonel at the end after downing the drone, that option has potential.

drylaugh

Now Supermans a budding dictator? ****ing hell man. You guys are a riot.

Originally posted by Nephthys
This isn't that Superman.

Which Superman is it then? Why even call him Superman if you're going to throw out most of the things that separate him from all the other heroes and make him number one.

To me, while his power is very important, his character, core traits and personality are just as important in regards to him being the greatest hero.

It seems to me like as long as he can hit harder then anyone else on Earth, that makes him Superman.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Which Superman is it then? Why even call him Superman if you're going to throw out most of the things that separate him from all the other heroes and make him number one.

To me, while his power is very important, his character, core traits and personality are just as important in regards to him being the greatest hero.

It seems to me like as long as he can hit harder then anyone else on Earth, that makes him Superman.

The Superman you're talking about is the Superman he becomes; not the one he starts out as.

What, you expect him to be completely stagnant from the time he puts on the cape until the time when he's the Superman in the comics now? He has to grow and learn as Superman, otherwise he's a shitty character.

Originally posted by -Pr-
The Superman you're talking about is the Superman he becomes; not the one he starts out as.

What, you expect him to be completely stagnant from the time he puts on the cape until the time when he's the Superman in the comics now? He has to grow and learn as Superman, otherwise he's a shitty character.

I understand that there is a learning curve, I read Birthright, Origins etc.

But this Superman I can't picture growing up into the one we enjoy, which I guess is ultimately my main gripe.

Originally posted by -Pr-
The Superman you're talking about is the Superman he becomes; not the one he starts out as.

What, you expect him to be completely stagnant from the time he puts on the cape until the time when he's the Superman in the comics now? He has to grow and learn as Superman, otherwise he's a shitty character.

They did a better job in 1 ep than MoS did in 2 hrs.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I understand that there is a learning curve, I read Birthright, Origins etc.

But this Superman I can't picture growing up into the one we enjoy, which I guess is ultimately my main gripe.

I guess that's the difference, as I can -shrug-

Originally posted by Mindset
Smallville portrayed Clark as a moral compass that made mistakes.

They did a better job in 1 ep than MoS did in 2 hrs.

Smallville was shit. don't bring that crap in here, mcrapey.

Smallville sucked ass though. Plus he was so overpowered he could easily save everyone and not have them notice.

Originally posted by -Pr-
The Superman you're talking about is the Superman he becomes; not the one he starts out as.

What, you expect him to be completely stagnant from the time he puts on the cape until the time when he's the Superman in the comics now? He has to grow and learn as Superman, otherwise he's a shitty character.

👆

This is Superman when he barely knows his powers and has had the suit for about 2 days. He isn't going to know how to fight while holding back enough to avoid damaging anything. And he isn't powerful enough to be the perfect superhero he is everywhere else.

Originally posted by -Pr-

Smallville was shit. don't bring that crap in here, mcrapey.

Pretty telling, isn't it.

You just got Knights of the Told Republic.

Originally posted by Mindset
And yet it did a better job in its characterization of Clark.

Pretty telling, isn't it.

You just got Knights of the Told Republic.

No it didn't, imo. It took his balls and put them on Lana's bedside table.

Originally posted by -Pr-
No it didn't, imo. It took his balls and put them on Lana's bedside table.

Anyway, they should have had Detective Stabler investigate Snyder for raping Superman's character.

Originally posted by Mindset
That's a completely separate topic than what we're discussing.

Anyway, they should have had Detective Stabler investigate Snyder for raping Superman's character.

You said characterisation; that speaks to it, no? You're the one that ruined our friendship by bringing up Smallville in the first place. 🙁

😂

Not really, that was characterization of him as a teenager longing after a highschool crush; we were talking in regards to his moral code and heroics.

Smallville is a gift to all Superman fans.

Originally posted by Mindset
Not really, that was characterization of him as a teenager longing after a highschool crush; we were talking in regards to his moral code and heroics.

Smallville is a gift to all Superman fans.

Making him long for her to the extent he did, and making him so beta, was pretty much flying in the face of the actual lore.

The times Smallville Clark dealt with anything on that scale heroically, it was more easily contained due to plot, or he got a huge amp so that he could start pushing planets casually.

MOS Superman's morality and heroics were fine, imo.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Making him long for her to the extent he did, and making him so beta, was pretty much flying in the face of the actual lore.

The times Smallville Clark dealt with anything on that scale heroically, it was more easily contained due to plot, or he got a huge amp so that he could start pushing planets casually.

MOS Superman's morality and heroics were fine, imo.

Not the point, just like in the comics, he showed concern for the well being of others when he was fighting, regardless of the level of threat he was facing.

Your opinion is wrong.

Also, Smallville Clark wouldn't have let his dad die.

Thats because Smallville Clark was so fast he could save him and be back in the same spot without anyone noticing a twinge.