Man of Steel vs Age of Ultron

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 [b]did catch it and Zod tackled him back toward Earth as a result. [/B]

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.

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

Wrong..

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Allow me:

YouTube video

YouTube video

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 [b]did catch it and Zod tackled him back toward Earth as a result. [/B]

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...

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.

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.

...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.

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:

YouTube video

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.

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:

YouTube video

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.

YouTube video

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.