Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 228
  1. #106
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAK View Post
    I have a problem with it because it was done for shock and not much else. It's not a real learning moment as Snyder said it would be (no reference in the "should I kill Batman" convo with Lois, for instance), and the movie cinematically neck-snaps the viewer by going into "ok, movie's about over, time to be happy!!" in the very next scene. They did it as a "it would be cool if" thing.

    I don't ever like Superman killing, really.. but if it's going to be done, though, they better explore the ramifications. And that was never going to happen.

    It struck me as a cheap "bad guy dies in the end of an action movie" trope, only notable because it's Superman.
    Oh, shock value was definitely a big part of it, but I think there were some deeper reasons to go along with that.

    I think one of the big things is that Snyder wanted to challenge people's notions about who and what Superman is. There's tons of instances in the comics where Clark has taken a life (hell he's killed Zod in like, half a dozen different stories across various formats). So its not out of character, but the general public doesn't realize that. I think this was just one more way in which Snyder wanted to show people that Clark has more to him than what Donner showed us.

    I think it was also about how far Clark was willing to go. How much would he sacrifice for humanity? How much *could* he? Clark had already destroyed the genesis chamber, ensuring that at least one Kryptonian tradition would never return. Clark had already killed Krypton's future for the sake of earth, would he/could he also kill its past? Sure, Zod was crazy and bent on genocide but he was also one of the only remaining Kryptonians in the universe. I don't think we can truly appreciate what it's like to be part of an extinct species, but it should go without saying that killing one of the only ones left must have hurt in a way we can't imagine.

    The ramifications *should* have been explored. It *should* have had more of an impact in BvS. But if we're just talking about MoS, and not factoring in the other films, I think they handled it fine. The last couple scenes aren't places where Clark would be showing his pain; its not like he's gonna run up to the military general trying to spy on him and unload his emotional burden. Nor would he do that on his first day of work at his new job.

    I mean, yeah obviously a huge part of the reasoning there was shock value, but I dont think it was the *only* reason.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  2. #107
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Oh, shock value was definitely a big part of it, but I think there were some deeper reasons to go along with that.

    I think one of the big things is that Snyder wanted to challenge people's notions about who and what Superman is. There's tons of instances in the comics where Clark has taken a life (hell he's killed Zod in like, half a dozen different stories across various formats). So its not out of character, but the general public doesn't realize that. I think this was just one more way in which Snyder wanted to show people that Clark has more to him than what Donner showed us.

    I think it was also about how far Clark was willing to go. How much would he sacrifice for humanity? How much *could* he? Clark had already destroyed the genesis chamber, ensuring that at least one Kryptonian tradition would never return. Clark had already killed Krypton's future for the sake of earth, would he/could he also kill its past? Sure, Zod was crazy and bent on genocide but he was also one of the only remaining Kryptonians in the universe. I don't think we can truly appreciate what it's like to be part of an extinct species, but it should go without saying that killing one of the only ones left must have hurt in a way we can't imagine.

    The ramifications *should* have been explored. It *should* have had more of an impact in BvS. But if we're just talking about MoS, and not factoring in the other films, I think they handled it fine. The last couple scenes aren't places where Clark would be showing his pain; its not like he's gonna run up to the military general trying to spy on him and unload his emotional burden. Nor would he do that on his first day of work at his new job.

    I mean, yeah obviously a huge part of the reasoning there was shock value, but I dont think it was the *only* reason.
    Exactly.

    And I agree that we should have been more of how Clark deals with Zod's death in BvS. Even if he doesn't exactly mourn Zod, it would have been nice to see Superman start to develop his code against killing. Or his need to show restraint. In a movie that was supposed to be about the consequences of Superman's actions for the world, we didn't get to see too much about the consequences of Superman's actions on himself.

  3. #108
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    Exactly.

    And I agree that we should have been more of how Clark deals with Zod's death in BvS. Even if he doesn't exactly mourn Zod, it would have been nice to see Superman start to develop his code against killing. Or his need to show restraint. In a movie that was supposed to be about the consequences of Superman's actions for the world, we didn't get to see too much about the consequences of Superman's actions on himself.
    This was made difficult due to the fact that BvS was essentially not a Superman film.

  4. #109
    Phantom Zone Escapee manofsteel1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Planet Houston
    Posts
    5,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Oh, shock value was definitely a big part of it, but I think there were some deeper reasons to go along with that.

    I think one of the big things is that Snyder wanted to challenge people's notions about who and what Superman is. There's tons of instances in the comics where Clark has taken a life (hell he's killed Zod in like, half a dozen different stories across various formats). So its not out of character, but the general public doesn't realize that. I think this was just one more way in which Snyder wanted to show people that Clark has more to him than what Donner showed us.

    I think it was also about how far Clark was willing to go. How much would he sacrifice for humanity? How much *could* he? Clark had already destroyed the genesis chamber, ensuring that at least one Kryptonian tradition would never return. Clark had already killed Krypton's future for the sake of earth, would he/could he also kill its past? Sure, Zod was crazy and bent on genocide but he was also one of the only remaining Kryptonians in the universe. I don't think we can truly appreciate what it's like to be part of an extinct species, but it should go without saying that killing one of the only ones left must have hurt in a way we can't imagine.

    The ramifications *should* have been explored. It *should* have had more of an impact in BvS. But if we're just talking about MoS, and not factoring in the other films, I think they handled it fine. The last couple scenes aren't places where Clark would be showing his pain; its not like he's gonna run up to the military general trying to spy on him and unload his emotional burden. Nor would he do that on his first day of work at his new job.

    I mean, yeah obviously a huge part of the reasoning there was shock value, but I dont think it was the *only* reason.
    Absolutely agree 100 percent. I defended it at the time because i thought for sure the ramifications of that act would reverberate through the Superman trilogy we all thought we were going to get. That's why i don't buy the recent narrative change that the game plan when they made MOS was to jump into building Justice League. I think the plan was a Superman trilogy but that changed when MOS didn't break a billion and WB put pressure on Snyder to steer his sequel into the direction we got...

    Quote Originally Posted by DochaDocha View Post
    This was made difficult due to the fact that BvS was essentially not a Superman film.
    And this is the problem. Its because of this that it is hard to defend the killing of zod now.
    When it comes to comics,one person's "fan-service" is another persons personal cannon. So by definition it's ALL fan service. Aren't we ALL fans?
    SUPERMAN is the greatest fictional character ever created.

  5. #110
    Mighty Member adkal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manofsteel1979 View Post
    Absolutely agree 100 percent. I defended it at the time because i thought for sure the ramifications of that act would reverberate through the Superman trilogy we all thought we were going to get. That's why i don't buy the recent narrative change that the game plan when they made MOS was to jump into building Justice League. I think the plan was a Superman trilogy but that changed when MOS didn't break a billion and WB put pressure on Snyder to steer his sequel into the direction we got...
    A lot of the Batman stuff (including the 'main event') could have been ascribed to someone like Corben.

    The scene at the beginning, with Bruce saving Wally and the girl and then looking up at the sky etc, that could have been someone like Corben instead. Perhaps some (otherwise injured) soldier who felt he should have been able to do more. Someone whose psych-eval pretty much matched what Lex (or his scientists) were looking for. Someone who, for over a year, watched Superman 'take over the world'. Someone who, perhaps, fails to bring Superman to his knees, initially, and allows Lex et al to 'upgrade' him.

    (As the dust settles, though, that's when a gloved hand retrieves a piece of green mineral...)


    And this is the problem. Its because of this that it is hard to defend the killing of zod now.
    I never liked it. I understood it, but I never liked it. Heck, I disliked it so much that I rewrote the darn thing

  6. #111
    Mighty Member adkal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carabas View Post
    And yet WB has made an entire quadrilogy of movies that might as well have been called Superman: The Stuff That Does Not Fit Parts 1-4. Yes, I'm including Singer's Superman: Deadbeat Dad.
    I'm still a bit miffed that he allows Kal Penn et al to get crushed...


    (It's probably because of an interview Christopher Reeve had in the lead-up to the release of Superman IV, where he said that across the movies... no one died (other than, maybe, in the first one). Yeah, many nowadays say that he misremembered but since the interviewer never called him out on it (ie, didn't mentioned the 'deaths' of the Zod Crew in Superman II), the deaths never happened... )

  7. #112
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Oh, shock value was definitely a big part of it, but I think there were some deeper reasons to go along with that.

    I think one of the big things is that Snyder wanted to challenge people's notions about who and what Superman is. There's tons of instances in the comics where Clark has taken a life (hell he's killed Zod in like, half a dozen different stories across various formats). So its not out of character, but the general public doesn't realize that. I think this was just one more way in which Snyder wanted to show people that Clark has more to him than what Donner showed us.

    I think it was also about how far Clark was willing to go. How much would he sacrifice for humanity? How much *could* he? Clark had already destroyed the genesis chamber, ensuring that at least one Kryptonian tradition would never return. Clark had already killed Krypton's future for the sake of earth, would he/could he also kill its past? Sure, Zod was crazy and bent on genocide but he was also one of the only remaining Kryptonians in the universe. I don't think we can truly appreciate what it's like to be part of an extinct species, but it should go without saying that killing one of the only ones left must have hurt in a way we can't imagine.

    The ramifications *should* have been explored. It *should* have had more of an impact in BvS. But if we're just talking about MoS, and not factoring in the other films, I think they handled it fine. The last couple scenes aren't places where Clark would be showing his pain; its not like he's gonna run up to the military general trying to spy on him and unload his emotional burden. Nor would he do that on his first day of work at his new job.

    I mean, yeah obviously a huge part of the reasoning there was shock value, but I dont think it was the *only* reason.
    I agree. I think MOS works as it is. I remember the first time I saw it I was very impressed and moved. Sure I have my issues with it, but it's nothing too big to ruin it for me. I think it does a lot right. I consider it up there with Superman The Movie, which is another film I love and think it's great BUT I also have issues with it like the climax with Superman reversing time just to save Lois. He didn't consider it for anyone else just her...

    And I don't consider Superman 2 great. It's very enjoyable and a solid movie, but I can't accept a Superman that so early in the game quits being Superman for a woman he has never even kissed. That film worked for the 80s but it feels very contrived now. And I also find it very weird to see Superman not caring much that he kills Zod and co in this film and then erasing Lois' mind without her permission and then have a big smile at the end of the movie. At least Clark in MOS showed deep sadness for killing Zod. I don't see how this is worse than what happened in Superman 2.

  8. #113
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DochaDocha View Post
    This was made difficult due to the fact that BvS was essentially not a Superman film.
    Henry Cavill recently mentioned he wanted a MOS sequel to continue to explore the killing of Zod thread, but WB ruined that chance when they went for BvS instead. Can you see why Henry is so pissed at WB and don't want to continue to be their toy to play with? I do. I wouldn't blame the guy is he quits if he thinks he can't trust that studio anymore.

  9. #114
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargazer01 View Post
    Henry Cavill recently mentioned he wanted a MOS sequel to continue to explore the killing of Zod thread, but WB ruined that chance when they went for BvS instead. Can you see why Henry is so pissed at WB and don't want to continue to be their toy to play with? I do. I wouldn't blame the guy is he quits if he thinks he can't trust that studio anymore.
    He gets paid good money for that and Warner Brothers can replace him in a minute, so I feel no sympathy for him. Let him reject a huge contract and take a but part in a musical.

  10. #115
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    Exactly.

    And I agree that we should have been more of how Clark deals with Zod's death in BvS. Even if he doesn't exactly mourn Zod, it would have been nice to see Superman start to develop his code against killing. Or his need to show restraint. In a movie that was supposed to be about the consequences of Superman's actions for the world, we didn't get to see too much about the consequences of Superman's actions on himself.
    How do you turn that inward in a way that satisfies the complaints that he spent too much time mourning, reflecting, and reacting to judgment? I remember people saying they tried too hard for a messiah but that entirely misses the guy reaping what was sown for like 3 hours.

    We see that the three weapons Lex has are borne specifically from the man is steel fallout: Batman, public opinion, and the monster. For the examples you have, we see restraint in that Superman does not kill; technically Doomsday is undead. We see restraint against the warlord who holds Lois and the two encounters with Batman. The last making the explicit point that his restraint will even override his self preservation. His wrestle against himself, to the tune of common complaints, is alleviated on three occasions by the people who matter most to him. I don’t know what else he could deal with and resolve, but I can definitely agree that a Superman movie featuring those other two should have been the presentation.

  11. #116
    Mighty Member adkal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrbrklyn View Post
    He gets paid good money for that and Warner Brothers can replace him in a minute, so I feel no sympathy for him. Let him reject a huge contract and take a but part in a musical.
    What's your definition of 'good money'? What's your definition of 'a huge contract'?

    He made around US$300,000-ish for Man of Steel.

    He may have received various 'boosts' via endorsements etc but it likely wouldn't have overtaken Amy Adams' fee for her role as Lois Lane (which, apparently, was in the seven-figures and made her the highest paid actor on set).

  12. #117
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrbrklyn View Post
    He gets paid good money for that and Warner Brothers can replace him in a minute, so I feel no sympathy for him. Let him reject a huge contract and take a but part in a musical.
    I don't think Henry trusts WB with Superman. He wants to have a say. I can't blame him because so far he has gotten a lot of hate from those who don't like MOS, BvS and JL. He wants to make sure they do the character justice. Maybe he doesn't need the money anymore, it's about his love and respect for the character. $$ can't buy that. He doesn't want to be a tool anymore. At least that's the vibe he gives to me.

  13. #118
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargazer01 View Post
    I don't think Henry trusts WB with Superman. He wants to have a say.
    Nobody died and made that his job. He is just an actor and there will be another one in the future.

  14. #119
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adkal View Post
    What's your definition of 'good money'? What's your definition of 'a huge contract'?

    He made around US$300,000-ish for Man of Steel.
    I would have paid him less. $50 bucks an hour seems fair.


    Last edited by mrbrklyn; 09-17-2018 at 11:02 AM.

  15. #120
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrbrklyn View Post
    He gets paid good money for that and Warner Brothers can replace him in a minute, so I feel no sympathy for him. Let him reject a huge contract and take a but part in a musical.
    Quote Originally Posted by mrbrklyn View Post
    Nobody died and made that his job. He is just an actor and there will be another one in the future.
    Quote Originally Posted by mrbrklyn View Post
    I would have paid him less. $50 bucks an hour seems fair.
    Jeez, when did he poop in your cornflakes?

    Of course Cavill should be grateful for the opportunity to play Superman...up to a point. I'd love to know why you think he should be grateful for being the face of Superman in two movies that were critically toxic and lead to WB's attempts at a shared superhero universe being considered a joke, and even the comparatively much better MOS was still a rocky start. Wanting a proper solo sequel and more creative control is understandable, these idiots in charge clearly don't know what they're doing. This is also his chosen career, asking for money as an incentive for a job with not much pros isn't a wrong action.

    I also love that you think a new actor or the character will suddenly be treated better than what we've had so far. let's be real here, that ain't happening.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •