Man of Steel vs Age of Ultron
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 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.
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.
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 lolWB/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.
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 🙂
but man I don't cry about it for years..
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.
I move on.
actually you dont, as apparent with this thread.
