The Double Standards Against Superman

[GremlinZilla89]

Nope, i was comparing that particular scene where he caused a lot of destruction, by then nobody said it was likelly that nobody had been hurt by that, instead a poster answered by saying "can't Superman get angry?", when the idea that he had caused the death of some people in that anger had not yet been contradicted.

Yes it has. Numerous times.

"A lot of destruction"...?

Please, tell me how making a hole in a silo and blasting through a gas station is "a lot of destruction?"

This argument is so pointless it's really not even worth having anymore. Sure, you can jump to conclusions that the gas station was packed to the gills with people and the car had a family of 5 with a newborn and box of blind kittens in it but why WOULD you jump to that conclusion? The film did not show anybody in the station or the car...meaning nobody WAS in either. It's a damn comic book action film about freakin' SUPERMAN for crying out f--king load! Let it go! If we held every comic book film to the standard this one is for some reason held to than half of them would be hated. Why not single out the Avengers for blasting enemies into buildings and having crap fall to the streets? There could have been people in the buildings that those leviathans smashed into. All those aliens Hawkeye shot down could have crashed into people trying to flee. Hell, the car Thor hit with his hammer could have had people in it.

All of that is just as petty as what people ***** about in MOS


Oh, but Cap set a perimeter so all is good....

 

[Whiskey Tango]

No one could tackle a crew like Zod's and not end up with huge amounts of devastation. It just ain't happening. The movie has some issues but Superman "causing" all this mayhem is not one of them.

Maybe Superman and Brainiac can play pattycake for the fate of the world in the next one.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

No one could tackle a crew like Zod's and not end up with huge amounts of devastation. It just ain't happening. The movie has some issues but Superman "causing" all this mayhem is not one of them.

Maybe Superman and Brainiac can play pattycake for the fate of the world in the next one.

No, no no. That could cause sonic booms that could cause an earthquake. Superman would just have to talk him into submission.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

What about the Justice League cartoon where Supes and Captain Marvel were knocking buildings down left and right. Oh wait, that was the infallible Timm & Dini so we best not bring that up I guess. It's totally fair to go open season on Snyder though.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

What about the Justice League cartoon where Supes and Captain Marvel were knocking buildings down left and right. Oh wait, that was the infallible Timm & Dini so we best not bring that up I guess. It's totally fair to go open season on Snyder though.

"ya, but that doesn't count cuz....REASONS!!!!"

 

[Whiskey Tango]

No, no no. That could cause sonic booms that could cause an earthquake. Superman would just have to talk him into submission.

But what if he says something that hurts someones feelings? Superman is good guy!

 

[GremlinZilla89]

But what if he says something that hurts someones feelings? Superman is good guy!

You're right! He should send Brianiac private emails instead. THAT would the Superman movie to see.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Superman is a callous wife beater who caused the holocaust.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Superman is a dick.

 

[Lord]

Yet, Superman always is apart of destruction that affects people in a negative way. Buildings are destroyed and things are turned into rubble, but it's not as though he is doing it deliberately. Plus, the consequences of him not fighting have far heavier consequences. I just can't understand why this particular time or version of events is causing so much issue for some.

I'm only talking about the Superman pushing Zod scene, not the Metropolis fight.

I do agree though after that incident it will be hard for people to trust him. I think the point of the next movie is he will have to build trust. People aren't going to trust him automatically. They weren't ready to do that before he caused the destruction. He has to earn that trust.

Yeah, i think that will probably be from where Lex Luthor and Batman will come from, probably with Lex using the events as an excuse.

Yes it has. Numerous times.

"A lot of destruction"...?

Please, tell me how making a hole in a silo and blasting through a gas station is "a lot of destruction?"

This argument is so pointless it's really not even worth having anymore. Sure, you can jump to conclusions that the gas station was packed to the gills with people and the car had a family of 5 with a newborn and box of blind kittens in it but why WOULD you jump to that conclusion? The film did not show anybody in the station or the car...meaning nobody WAS in either. It's a damn comic book action film about freakin' SUPERMAN for crying out f--king load! Let it go!

It's gas station in the middle of the day, of course there are people in there, even if only in the WC. Didn't Zack Snyder say it wasn't realistic that a lot of people wouldn't die? With all te talk about realism now you bring the excuse that the gas station is empty because this is a comic book movie? Of course the gas station isn't empty, this is basic reason from how the world works, we actually need to see people burning to believe death is ocurrying?

If we held every comic book film to the standard this one is for some reason held to than half of them would be hated. Why not single out the Avengers for blasting enemies into buildings and having crap fall to the streets? There could have been people in the buildings that those leviathans smashed into. All those aliens Hawkeye shot down could have crashed into people trying to flee. Hell, the car Thor hit with his hammer could have had people in it.

All of that is just as petty as what people ***** about in MOS


Oh, but Cap set a perimeter so all is good....

Am i defending the Avengers city battle? We are talking about The Man of Steel itself, try not to bring the topic to other films and use them as excuses.

 

[charl_huntress]

I'm only talking about the Superman pushing Zod scene, not the Metropolis fight. Yeah, i think that will probably be from where Lex Luthor and Batman will come from, probably with Lex using the events as an excuse.

I definitely foresee a huge contingent of people disliking the idea of Superman and even a hunt for more super-powered beings who may be hiding. I actually hope things play out that way.

It's gas station in the middle of the day, of course there are people in there, even if only in the WC. Didn't Zack Snyder say it wasn't realistic that a lot of people wouldn't die? With all te talk about realism now you bring the excuse that the gas station is empty because this is a comic book movie? Of course the gas station isn't empty, this is basic reason from how the world works, we actually need to see people burning to believe death is ocurrying?

Thank you for clarifying that it's the first Zod/Supes encounter you have issues with. Considering no one was actually shown who was killed by that first encounter is your issue that he tackled him in anger, or that anger caused him to be reckless in the first place?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

These convos are still going in circles. At this point, putting MOS partially aside, I ask: Do people feel that doing Superman in any way other than the most idealized version is wrong in some way? Is there some way to inject more dramatic tension, or visceral thrills without ruining the character in some ways to many eyes?

 

[charl_huntress]

These convos are still going in circles. At this point, putting MOS partially aside, I ask: Do people feel that doing Superman in any way other than the most idealized version is wrong in some way? Is there some way to inject more dramatic tension, or visceral thrills without ruining the character in some ways to many eyes?

This really is an excellent question K. Inc. I'm of the opinion Superman's ideals are really unique to each individual fan. The question I would ask in return is what are those core ideals? Is it that he doesn't kills? Is it that he's a stand up guy who puts others ahead of himself? What exactly can we as fan agree are the core ideals of Superman?

 

[Lord]

Yeah, the set-up could be interesting, though there may not be other known superpowered people in the film before Superman's reveal.

It's that Superman didn't hold back his anger and caused a level of destruction where it's very difficult that nobody got hurt, and he also brought the kryptonians to a more populated are where their fight and the military jets can more easily hurt others.

 

[charl_huntress]

It's that Superman didn't hold back his anger and caused a level of destruction where it's very difficult that nobody got hurt, and he also brought the kryptonians to a more populated are where their fight and the military jets can more easily hurt others.

Hmmm..You think he should have held back on his anger, and I feel that the scene effectively showed Superman can get angry. When people get angry they often do things they wouldn't if they weren't angry. He should have held back on his anger, but he didn't. I see that as a learning lesson for the future.

 

[MrsKent26]

These convos are still going in circles. At this point, putting MOS partially aside, I ask: Do people feel that doing Superman in any way other than the most idealized version is wrong in some way? Is there some way to inject more dramatic tension, or visceral thrills without ruining the character in some ways to many eyes?

No. Some people expect perfection and always will. There will always be complainers no matter what.

 

[The Batman]

My problem is that most modern versions of Superman always feel like forced attempts to make him "edgy" or "modern" or "human". They're trying too hard.

I think people will, for the most part, come to like a different/modern interpretation of something as long as the presentation's right.

Much like MOS, "Skyfall" and the Doctor Who episode "Day of the Doctor" were both big anniversary projects. Skyfall and Day of the Doctor took their respective franchises to new places and were critically praised. IMO, its inaccurate to say MOS gets bashed solely because it tried to do something new.

 

[Batmannerism]

My problem is that most modern versions of Superman always feel like forced attempts to make him "edgy" or "modern" or "human". They're trying too hard.

I think people will, for the most part, come to like a different/modern interpretation of something as long as the presentation's right.

Much like MOS, "Skyfall" and the Doctor Who episode "Day of the Doctor" were both big anniversary projects. Skyfall and Day of the Doctor took their respective franchises to new places and were critically praised. IMO, its inaccurate to say MOS gets bashed solely because it tried to do something new.

Dude, disagree, but respect your opinion.

I think the team behind MOS made him relatable, and sympathetic - it didn't strike me as trying too hard. Hell, I thought it was way past time for an NFL-watching-Budweiser-drinking-blue-jeans-wearing-helping-mom-with the dishes-working-blue collar-jobs-facial-hair-sporting Superman.

To my mind I'm just happy that Snyder/Goyer/Nolan had the balls to do something different with Superman, rather than a re-make of a Donner film, like that piece of ****, Superman Returns, ugh !

MOS worked for me, really worked ! They attempted to bring Superman into the 21st century, and I think they succeeded.
I went in to the theatre expecting to hate it, and loved it instead.
Yeah, they did something new, but I feel the execution was spot on. MOS had me hooked, from the first sound we hear -Kal-El's heartbeat- to "Welcome to the planet" at the end.


I still think the problem is that people are still hanging onto a conception of Superman from 1978, which is a sign of how influential Superman the movie was. However, Superman has changed a lot in the comics since then.

What's weird is that folks seem more open to re-imaginings of Batman and Battlestar Galactica than of Superman, I think that's more at the heart of this issue, rather than Superman killing (because if you have read a
Superman comic in the last 30 years, you'll know he's killed before).


My buddy Visualiza didn't like the film and found it excessive and unconvincing. Hey I respect everyone's opinion, but if it can work for me,
and I was a die-hard fan of Reeve and Donner, surely it can work for others.
Give it a second chance I say. Anyway, peace out super-fans

 

[lc23]

^^^

 

[TheComicbookKid]

These convos are still going in circles. At this point, putting MOS partially aside, I ask: Do people feel that doing Superman in any way other than the most idealized version is wrong in some way? Is there some way to inject more dramatic tension, or visceral thrills without ruining the character in some ways to many eyes?

I think the difference to me between BB and MOS is in one scene. The scene were Bruce went to the courthouse to kill Joe Chill made me understand his anger on a level the comics never did.

Unfortunately, Smallville, in my mind has come up with the 21st century complex idea of Clark Kent and Lex for an origin movie. MOS2 still has the opportunity to show the complexity of Superman in the 21st century though.

 

[sf2]

I think they see MOS is too careless n reckless.

 

[Darkstar]

People keep saying they should have at least had Superman try and save people in the Zod battle.

Urgh, this is annoying. The only part of the film where there are people present is when they have a quick fist fight on the street. All the building Zod smashed Supes into CLEARLY had nobody in them.

I just think it's sad people hang on this topic yet don't hold the cartoons or comics accountable. Hell, I just re-read two Superman comics where the ending has a big brawl in the city with smashed buildings and all. One of them is the popular Superman/Batman Public Enemies where he fights Lex. They smash up some real estate pretty good and not once does Superman stop and assess the damage.

The other comic is considered by many to be one of, if not the best Superman story ever. All-Star Superman. Again, he fights Lex and they tear ***** up real nice. I didn't see Superman say "Hold up Lex, lemme save some random peeps right quick, you know for the readers piece of mind."

Hell, in the last episode of Justice League Unlimited Supes puts the udder smackdown on Darkseid and punches him through numerous buildings. Not once did he see if anybody was hurt.

The double standard people are applying to this film are soooo weak. What really gets me is the outcry for years that fans and casual movie goers alike wanted to see the character TRULY represented on screen. They get it. They FINALLY get it and what do they do? They ***** about it and say it's not Superman....

I just can't help but think "It's a comic book movie....calm down."

Much like the fans of Star Trek who hated Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness, these people are having a residual love jones for the Donner/Nolan-era Superman and Superman Returns the same way the Trekfans are having a residual love jones for Berman & Braga-era Star Trek-the same Berman and Braga that they hated to bits.

 

[Darkstar]

I can agree with the first point. The second's a bit debatable. Conner Kent's hardly written as a side-kick the way in which Robin is towards Batman. Conner is more of a kid who just wants to stand out as his own person you know, he doesn't really go on saving people alongside Superman. Most of the time he hangs around the Teen Titans trying to be his own hero. There' a fan-film which kind of sums up what kind of character he is:

[YT]g_6tgZj0qsI[/YT]

As for his character, like I said earlier, he's hardly around Superman, so he doesn't really cramp his style and he could never truly be like Clark in the whole "sole survivor aspect". By being with Clark, he feels it interferes in his journey of being human and not human.

Superman will always be a sole survivor, the movie at least fixes that aspect.

Don't forget Supergirl (Kara Zor-El/Linda Lang) as well.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Much like the fans of Star Trek who hated Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness, these people are having a residual love jones for the Donner/Nolan-era Superman and Superman Returns the same way the Trekfans are having a residual love jones for Berman & Braga-era Star Trek-the same Berman and Braga that they hated to bits.

It might be so, but when you portray Superman as one that wouldn't save his father's life - no matter what - when he could have, then something's off, and goes further mere nostalgia.

 

[charl_huntress]

*shakes head* I'm not even sure some of the folks who have a problem with the double standard are actually Superman fans. A lot of them seem very uninformed to be claiming that.