Page 24 of 48 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526272834 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 719
  1. #346
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    2,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superduperman View Post
    WB is going out of their way to go in the opposite direction as Snyder so that tells you all you need to know about how well his philosophy works. The most popular DC movies are the ones that diverted from his "vision". Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam!. Even that Harely Quinn movie where they pretend to care about the BOP is going more in a comedic direction.
    Yes. I don't think they need to go quite as far as they have, but absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by manymade1 View Post
    And that's not necessarily a good thing, as Aquaman and Shazam are some of the least ambitious movies out there.

    I know Scorcese's been getting a lot of flack for his comments on the MCU, but I got what he was saying by likening those movies to "Theme Parks" and I honestly think SNyder was trying to add a bit more variety to the genre. Shame he's getting burned, as a result.
    Variety is good - and for as much as I will always deride the DCEU for what (imo) it royally screwed up, there was real potential for some solid gravitas in there. If it could have been less wallow-y and had more active (in the narrative sense, not the standard meaning) protagonists along with a bit more power fantasy in there, I think they would have had something better than what the MCU brought to the table - certainly more unique.

    The problem for WB now is that they've had the "dark" rep stick hard enough that they almost have to overdo the opposite just to knock the calcified opinion off of their name - which, while unfortunate, is entirely of their own making.
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

  2. #347
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAK View Post
    Maybe this is a "different country, different mentality" thing. Because here, feeling remorse for "having to" kill someone, no matter how bad, is in no way cowardice. It's empathy. And it doesn't mean he regrets saving the lives of everyone else. It means he regrets having to do what he did to save them. That is not the same thing, there's a ton of nuance in between there that glossed over with that thinking.

    This thinking that the only options are that Superman kills Zod or Zod kills people is wild to me. Zod is alive in the comics, after all. Yes, Zod made his choice. Clark has choices, too - and the writers could have presented impressive choices for Clark to break through the choices that the audience saw. They chose not to do that and, along with some of their other decisions, are reaping the consequences of that.



    Lex killed almost everyone in the Capitol building at the Congressional hearing (which holds 6000 people), and all of those people in the first part of the film. One or both of those qualify as genocide (the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation). He's a terrorist, several times over. He clearly felt no remorse, and if left alone he's shown that he'll absolutely do it again. He's not just a brat. I'm saying that, if the perspective is that he should feel no remorse for killing bad guys when he knows it will definitely save innocent lives... DCEU Lex needs to die.
    It isn't culture differences. Atleast i don't think it. I am talking from entirely western perspective . I never said clark shouldn't show empathy. But, his empathy was conveyed when the act took place. His scream is more than enough. But, he can't walk down that path because it would mean dishonouring the innocent dead. I know you didn't mean, clark doesn't regret the people he failed. But, what i am saying here. The deaths of the innocent and the killing of the zod are connected. That connection is why i feel it would come of pathetic. If clark moped around or went for an exile for penance for his "sin" . This is Clark's cross to carry it.
    Well, People like that have existed in history. Haven't they? This isn't the same comic book zod. He is a shell of a man who lost everything including his purpose. He wants death to mankind to smite kal el. He wouldn't stop until everyone is dead.Comic zod still has a purpose. No matter how villainy type it is.sure,writer can create phantom zone or something. But, tell me do soldiers or people like that have choices.do you think they like killing? Most of them would say, no.
    He did. But when clark found him. He wasn't an active participant. But, one that had done the deed.As i said, clark doesn't go around killing people. He only did it because he was put in that place to protect everyone by killing. Here, He could easily take luthor back alive. The system can do its work(comic book judicial system sucks. Why aren't these guy getting death sentence? ) . That's what happened. That would only work if lex was an active participant of bombing and clark had to kill him in order to save the 6000 people or as much as he can by means of lethal force. Here, lex's death would be connected to others. Otherwise, in non active case lex is still connected. But, Clark isn't the only one in position of authority nor is he needed to be that for sake of everyone. It's similar to an encounter killing situation for a cop.

  3. #348
    Incredible Member The_Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EsotericFailures View Post
    Zack Snyder on his critics: "You're living in an f-ing dreamworld!"
    Whenever I see that line I always think of "No douche, I live in the real world; but I love to dive into a dreamworld when watching/reading Superhero stories".

    I like, bought and watched his movies multiple times though so I'm not sure I'm the critic he was aiming at even though I do have some critical opinions the way he kicked off the DCEU.

  4. #349
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    It strikes me as an important part of his dynamic with Lex at least, especially pre-COIE when writers like Maggin were writing them. it's touched upon in All Star as well, where Clark is trying to save Lex from a death sentence and is endlessly frustrated at Lex squandering his potential. I don't know if it's the same with other hero-arch villain pairings, at least at DC; Wonder Woman-Cheetah could probably top it, but they need to consistently publish as it as much as Superman-Lex.

    About Batman, he's become too much of a hardass in the previous decades. The guy who holds out hope that Harvey will get better, buys Harley her dress after her insane "bad day" and encourages her to keep trying to get rehabilitated, and even reaches out a hand to the Joker in TKJ definitely believes in redemption and it's a failing on DC's part that we even have to question it now.
    I guess it depends on whether or not DC has a vested interest in not portraying the villain as completely monstrous. If there's money to be made in Luthor not being an irredeemable monster he and Superman's dynamic will likely be a bit less adversarial.

  5. #350
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Clark isn’t a soldier or cop though, and in fact over here in the States there has been a lot of controversy recently about judicious use of lethal force by law enforcement. So I don’t really see the problem with Clark’s no kill rule, I think it actually matters more nowadays than it used to because it separates Clark from others, especially the Marvel heroes (barring Spidey) who kill judiciously.

    Plus look at it from a pure storytelling standpoint. Clark is powerful enough that he can kill most of his villains easily, so the challenge comes from figuring out a way to beat them without killing them. That’s the same storytelling drive Batman and Spidey have as well.
    Police officers are also getting backlash from assault, torture, privacy violation and harassment. Yet superheroes face little to no criticism from fans when they do this as well. It's only when they start killing that people suddenly have an issue with extrajudicial actions and I don't think it's a total coincidence that killing villains (at least in adaptations) means the hero doesn't fight them over and over again.

  6. #351
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Police officers are also getting backlash from assault, torture, privacy violation and harassment. Yet superheroes face little to no criticism from fans when they do this as well. It's only when they start killing that people suddenly have an issue with extrajudicial actions and I don't think it's a total coincidence that killing villains (at least in adaptations) means the hero doesn't fight them over and over again.
    People seemed to have forget that superman at the end of the day is a vigilante. The morality of Clark's actions was always meant to be scrutinised and looked into. Morality of Clark's situation was for us readers to decide, always. Siegel and shuster never meant the character to be some moral authority we can emulate or aspire to. Sure, during the silverage the character morphed into "man of tomorrow" and space jesus. But, that doesn’t mean seizes to be a vigilante.

  7. #352
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    To be honest, I feel like saying Clark is big on redemption is a bit of an exaggeration. IÂ’m not saying he doesnÂ’t do it or encourage it at times but it never struck me as any more important to him than your average superhero. IÂ’ve heard the same said about Batman and I disagree with it even less given his actions.
    It's arguably not one of the core tenants he lives by, the same way it is for Wonder Woman (who, especially in the Golden Age, tried really hard to rehabilitate her foes) but it is absolutely a hero-sized part of who Clark is. Go read the current Action Comics; how many times did he try to talk Red Cloud into changing her ways, even after she kept attacking him? And what is she to him? Just another villain who're a dime a dozen. Clark tries to help; that's his main driving force. Not stopping evil, but helping those in need. That includes people who have lost their way but could still perhaps find their way back to the right side.

    I agree about Batman though. Modern versions don't seem to care that much about this at all. Bruce isn't very interested in redeeming anyone, just punishing criminals. He leaves the redemption to Arkham and Wayne charities, which kind of shows how little he personally cares. If Batman really championed redemption he'd take a more direct hand in its efforts.

    Wait, when has Zod saved the world?
    ....I'm sure there's been a time or two he helped out? Sorry, was awake for 30-something hours, as I drove home (and then immediately back) for a funeral. So the brain isn't firing on all cylinders right now.

    The current direction where Zod is becoming a political ally of Clark's serves the same purpose anyway. Zod's a villain who is (perhaps) growing into something more. If Clark had killed Zod years before (in this continuity) then earth has lost an ally in the new United Planets, and who knows how that could change things going forward? My point stands; compared to things like Darkseid, Zod's not all bad. He's certainly bad, and I personally don't mind when he's killed because it's Zod. But he's not exactly the Anti-God and embodiment of all evil, yknow?

    Quote Originally Posted by JAK View Post
    Well done, sir. I'll never be wild about the times he does in any medium, but then that's also partly my affinity for the character talking. When the narrative fails, though, it's game over. (which, from the looks of things, it is - and frankly much faster than I anticipated).
    Thank you sir!

    He's a self-righteous jackass if he feels badly about killing? Okie-dokie, then...
    I mean, if we're being really honest? Yeah, Clark is a little bit of a jackass sometimes.

    Super Dickery isn't *just* limited to weird Silver Age covers, after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Yeah! He is. Feeling bad or guilty for stopping someone like hitler or stalin or in this case zod by any means necessary while they are causing genocide. Is basically, stepping on the gravestones of their innocent victims. Superman should never do that. No amount of judo-Christian ethics based on some words on a rock is going to change that. I am sorry. But, That is just how i feel.
    Personal question but have you ever killed anyone or even had to seriously, truly consider it? Did you ever serve as a soldier or cop and have to take a life to protect others? People who take lives in the service of justice very often do feel bad about it. There's studies and stats out there to show it if you don't want to take my word for it. Just because the person they killed was a bad guy doesn't mean they don't have a weight on their conscience. And sure, some cops and soldiers don't feel bad about it at all. And those are usually the guys who end up in serious trouble because they killed people they didn't need to, or turned it into a gross game. I doubt anyone here is interested in seeing that kind of guilt-free Superman.

    This isn't a christian thing. I'm not a christian and never have been. And depending on the version neither is Superman (Clark's religion is a weird topic, but anyway). This is a "basic human decency" thing. Clark's a decent person, he *should* be saying "Damn, I really wish I hadn't been forced into killing that guy. It saved lives so I'd do it again, but it doesn't feel good to watch a body shut down like that and I don't like doing it, I wish I could have found another option."
    Last edited by Ascended; 10-18-2019 at 08:51 AM.
    "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.

  8. #353
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    2,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    It isn't culture differences. Atleast i don't think it. I am talking from entirely western perspective . I never said clark shouldn't show empathy. But, his empathy was conveyed when the act took place. His scream is more than enough. But, he can't walk down that path because it would mean dishonouring the innocent dead. I know you didn't mean, clark doesn't regret the people he failed. But, what i am saying here. The deaths of the innocent and the killing of the zod are connected. That connection is why i feel it would come of pathetic. If clark moped around or went for an exile for penance for his "sin" . This is Clark's cross to carry it.
    I'm not sure that feeling guilty for having to kill Zod is dishonouring the innocent dead, at least in Superman's mind. That's not really a mentality that we see with Superman, even in MoS. Zod is also the last piece of Krypton on Earth, so there's that as well.

    Well, People like that have existed in history. Haven't they? This isn't the same comic book zod. He is a shell of a man who lost everything including his purpose. He wants death to mankind to smite kal el. He wouldn't stop until everyone is dead.Comic zod still has a purpose. No matter how villainy type it is.sure,writer can create phantom zone or something. But, tell me do soldiers or people like that have choices.do you think they like killing? Most of them would say, no.
    I think we get into thinking of Clark as a "solider," we have problems. That is not his function. And when writers put him there, particularly in the first film, it casts a pallor over the character (which it did). It's not that the writer *can* create the Phantom Zone, it's that the Phantom Zone and that solution was already in place. It was Snyder and Goyer who decided to take Superman from that and *make* him kill. Which means there was a narrative reason for the change... except there wasn't.

    We're actually pretty lucky that the DCEU Superman doesn't seem to've stuck in people's heads - because if it had, I'm not sure when you and I would see a Superman we prefer (in live action, at least) to the direction that was taken here. This was a culmination of the way WB had wanted to take the character for some time now, and if it had gone well and taken off, that's where they'd stay because they understand that better. Imo, there's a reason why the last time a Superman movie was universally loved, they had nothing to do with it.

    He did. But when clark found him. He wasn't an active participant. But, one that had done the deed.As i said, clark doesn't go around killing people. He only did it because he was put in that place to protect everyone by killing. Here, He could easily take luthor back alive. The system can do its work(comic book judicial system sucks. Why aren't these guy getting death sentence? ) . That's what happened. That would only work if lex was an active participant of bombing and clark had to kill him in order to save the 6000 people or as much as he can by means of lethal force. Here, lex's death would be connected to others. Otherwise, in non active case lex is still connected. But, Clark isn't the only one in position of authority nor is he needed to be that for sake of everyone. It's similar to an encounter killing situation for a cop.
    So Lex can kill as many people as he wants, as long as Clark doesn't catch him while it's happening. After a while, that starts to look like a pretty arbitrary line.
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

  9. #354
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    2,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lurk View Post
    Whenever I see that line I always think of "No douche, I live in the real world; but I love to dive into a dreamworld when watching/reading Superhero stories".

    I like, bought and watched his movies multiple times though so I'm not sure I'm the critic he was aiming at even though I do have some critical opinions the way he kicked off the DCEU.
    I almost wish I'd been there when he said that. If he had, my response would have been, "Yeah, I'm living in a dream world when it comes to Superman. A dream world that, thankfully, you don't get to mess with anymore."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I mean, if we're being really honest? Yeah, Clark is a little bit of a jackass sometimes.

    Super Dickery isn't *just* limited to weird Silver Age covers, after all.
    Good point - but he's not a jackass in this one way. lol

    Personal question but have you ever killed anyone or even had to seriously, truly consider it? Did you ever serve as a soldier or cop and have to take a life to protect others? People who take lives in the service of justice very often do feel bad about it. There's studies and stats out there to show it if you don't want to take my word for it. Just because the person they killed was a bad guy doesn't mean they don't have a weight on their conscience. And sure, some cops and soldiers don't feel bad about it at all. And those are usually the guys who end up in serious trouble because they killed people they didn't need to, or turned it into a gross game. I doubt anyone here is interested in seeing that kind of guilt-free Superman.

    This isn't a christian thing. I'm not a christian and never have been. And depending on the version neither is Superman (Clark's religion is a weird topic, but anyway). This is a "basic human decency" thing. Clark's a decent person, he *should* be saying "Damn, I really wish I hadn't been forced into killing that guy. It saved lives so I'd do it again, but it doesn't feel good to watch a body shut down like that and I don't like doing it, I wish I could have found another option."
    That's a very good point, actually.
    Last edited by JAK; 10-18-2019 at 09:21 AM.
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

  10. #355
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,963

    Default

    I feel really bad just thinking about killing someone or some creature by accident or to defend myself or my loved ones. I try to be a good person but I'm not perfect. I imagine Clark would feel similar to me because he values life.

    Even soldiers and cops have mental problems due to killing in their jobs.

  11. #356
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    2,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargazer01 View Post
    I feel really bad just thinking about killing someone or some creature by accident or to defend myself or my loved ones. I try to be a good person but I'm not perfect. I imagine Clark would feel similar to me because he values life.

    Even soldiers and cops have mental problems due to killing in their jobs.
    Speaking of that, there's an episode in season one of "The Rookie" (great show, btw, love Nathan Fillion) that specifically talks about the legal and (more importantly) mental ramifications for honest/empathetic officers involved in killing someone. Not sure why that hadn't occurred to me until now.
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

  12. #357
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAK View Post
    I'm not sure that feeling guilty for having to kill Zod is dishonouring the innocent dead, at least in Superman's mind. That's not really a mentality that we see with Superman, even in MoS. Zod is also the last piece of Krypton on Earth, so there's that as well.



    I think we get into thinking of Clark as a "solider," we have problems. That is not his function. And when writers put him there, particularly in the first film, it casts a pallor over the character (which it did). It's not that the writer *can* create the Phantom Zone, it's that the Phantom Zone and that solution was already in place. It was Snyder and Goyer who decided to take Superman from that and *make* him kill. Which means there was a narrative reason for the change... except there wasn't.

    We're actually pretty lucky that the DCEU Superman doesn't seem to've stuck in people's heads - because if it had, I'm not sure when you and I would see a Superman we prefer (in live action, at least) to the direction that was taken here. This was a culmination of the way WB had wanted to take the character for some time now, and if it had gone well and taken off, that's where they'd stay because they understand that better. Imo, there's a reason why the last time a Superman movie was universally loved, they had nothing to do with it.



    So Lex can kill as many people as he wants, as long as Clark doesn't catch him while it's happening. After a while, that starts to look like a pretty arbitrary line.
    "Krypton is dead". This was clark. But, that doesn’t change the fact that it is entirely connected. Clark didn't walk down that path and chose to walk down the path where he will be honouring the innocent.
    Do you think those who got sucked into phantom zone are alive?no,i don't think so. Goyer and snyder decided to put the character in challenging situation. I see no problem with that. The character should be challenged. We shoukd be having conversations about "superman" his choices. He is a vigilante at the end of the day. Clark isn't a soldier. But, he is put in a situation that where he people like cops or soldiers are put in. Clark "shouldn't" be put in those situation is not even an argument. How can anybody create anything engaging or out of the box with this "should" and "shouldn't".
    I just want engaging stories with characters. Snyder's superman isn't engaging for me. He is a little passive to be the man of action. But, there are those who like this version. I am not going to say their superman is bad or inferior. And as for me, i am not getting my superman. Superdad isn't a thing anymore. Jon is gone, might be erased. Morrison's superman is'nt getting a book(my hope is gets to meet wally) . Goldenage and silverage guys are erased except for in doomsday clock. You have to realise it has been decades since last universally loved superman movie. Donner didn't just paste the silverage guy. He made his own concepts and made his own changes. Snyder isn't trying to change anything. He just tried to amalgamate. That was his down fall. Amalgamating different versions results in a shoddy vision. Dcau suffered from the same thing.
    No, lex can't kill. Period.if he does he would have to pay his dues. But, clark isn't put in a position of where he has to take authority or charge of the situation . There is a bigger authority that is actively in charge. Clark would be subservient to that authority and cannot kill. If he does he will be held accountable. Superman himself is not against that. Superman was a character that took charge by his own violation. When the existing authority was corrupt and failed the people. Clark taking authority sometimes is necessary given the right reasons.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 10-18-2019 at 08:36 PM.

  13. #358
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAK View Post
    Speaking of that, there's an episode in season one of "The Rookie" (great show, btw, love Nathan Fillion) that specifically talks about the legal and (more importantly) mental ramifications for honest/empathetic officers involved in killing someone. Not sure why that hadn't occurred to me until now.
    Empathy has nothing to do with what i am saying. My argument is strictly against clark going on a penance for either breaking his moral integrity or his for killing zod. Both of these things are connected to the lives of thousands that died that day. It will be incredibly petty for clark to do so. He will come of as bruce who constantly whines about "the darkness and justice". (This superman doesn't need more mopping around anyway).

  14. #359
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    2,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    "Krypton is dead". This was clark. But, that doesn’t change the fact that it is entirely connected. Clark didn't walk down that path and chose to walk down the path where he will be honouring the innocent.
    That wording brings to mind Ryu's ending from SFII more than it conjures up images of Superman to me. Clark chose to sever ties to Krypton and chose to live with the people of Earth. There's something about the "honoring the innocent" sentence... I can't put my finger on it, exactly. But it's too "stiff," for lack of a better word. Like I could hear that said by the Eradicator, or something. Maybe someone else can better express what I'm talking about, as I'm not finding the words. Maybe Ascended knows what I mean?

    Do you think those who got sucked into phantom zone are alive?no,i don't think so. Goyer and snyder decided to put the character in challenging situation. I see no problem with that. The character should be challenged. We shoukd be having conversations about "superman" his choices. He is a vigilante at the end of the day. Clark isn't a soldier. But, he is put in a situation that where he people like cops or soldiers are put in. Clark "shouldn't" be put in those situation is not even an argument. How can anybody create anything engaging or out of the box with this "should" and "shouldn't".
    But it's more complicated than that. Writers, in my opinion not great writers, called the shots of what happened. The mentality behind those decisions, also in my opinion, is why their vision is no longer moving forward. There are things that don't work for the character if they aren't going to weave it fully into the narrative - things that open a pandora's box that you just can't close again. It technically *can* be done, but given most cinematic constraints, is just a bad idea. Challenge the character, yes - nobody said they can't. But when doing so, understand the limits of the format. They chose not to do that.

    And btw - yes, those in the Phantom Zone are still alive. Superman may not be aware of this, of course, but they are. The Phantom Zone has never meant death.

    I just want engaging stories with characters. Snyder's superman isn't engaging for me. He is a little passive to be the man of action. But, there are those who like this version. I am not going to say their superman is bad or inferior. And as for me, i am not getting my superman. Superdad isn't a thing anymore. Jon is gone, might be erased. Morrison's superman is'nt getting a book(my hope is gets to meet wally) . Goldenage and silverage guys are erased except for in doomsday clock. You have to realise it has been decades since last universally loved superman movie. Donner didn't just paste the silverage guy. He made his own concepts and made his own changes. Snyder isn't trying to change anything. He just tried to amalgamate. That was his down fall. Amalgamating different versions results in a shoddy vision. Dcau suffered from the same thing.
    I'm not saying people can't enjoy those movies or those versions of the character. There are things to like in them - and as I've often said, there are folks in very dire situations who took inspiration in them, and I'd never take that away from those folks, especially. What I am saying is that certain decisions led to them not having more of that version of the character (something I've lamented, even as much distaste as I've heaped on them) - and it's important to be specific about what we like and don't like about a version so that WB doesn't just hear "white noise" and botch the next version of the character... which we hopefully won't have to wait 7-10 years before we get a fresh one. As for amalgamation.. Snyder did make changes, at least in what he focused on and how. I don't think his downfall was amalgamation so much as worldview. And even then, there are ways to make that really work it you apply an even hand, which imo isn't what happened (which has as much to do with WB as it does Snyder/Goyer).

    And it being decades since we had a universally-loved Superman film isn't something I have to realize - it's something I basically said outright in my last post. And it happened because WB had such little faith in their own properties that they let someone else (the Salkinds) run it. WB has yet to repeat that success, and I don't think that's a fluke. To me, there's decades of evidence to show that they don't understand the character.

    As for Morrison's Superman - he is "out there" again, and I hope he pops up from time to time at least (as I liked him). As for Superdad.. yeah, that one really sucks to lose. I'll miss the heck outta that, as I loved that time (overall). But maybe after the next Crisis, we'll get him back. May not happen, but then again it might.

    No, lex can't kill. Period.if he does he would have to pay his dues. But, clark isn't put in a position of where he has to take authority or charge of the situation . There is a bigger authority that is actively in charge. Clark would be subservient to that authority and cannot kill. If he does he will be held accountable. Superman himself is not against that. Superman was a character that took charge by his own violation. When the existing authority was corrupt and failed the people. Clark taking authority sometimes is necessary given the right reasons.
    Still, though, you get my point - if we're talking about soldiers and war and using that mentality as justification (which isn't even what it seems, as Ascended and others have said above), killing Lex makes perfect sense in that framework.
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

  15. #360
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    2,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Empathy has nothing to do with what i am saying. My argument is strictly against clark going on a penance for either breaking his moral integrity or his for killing zod. Both of these things are connected to the lives of thousands that died that day. It will be incredibly petty for clark to do so. He will come of as bruce who constantly whines about "the darkness and justice".
    It has everything to do with it, whether you want it there or not is irrelevant - it's just real. As others have said, cops and soldiers can feel the same way and have to go through therapy and a ton of other things to get themselves back in the right headspace to continue. Especially if they have the kind of general mentality Clark has. If cops and soldiers aren't "petty" for needing that, Superman should be no different - though his form of therapy would be a bit more fantastical, given that it's fiction.... nobody I can think of wants a movie about Superman and his psychiatrist, after all, lol..

    (This superman doesn't need more mopping around anyway).
    That much, I'm with you on. But go back and re-read "Exile" if you've read it already - it's got sadness in parts, but I wouldn't call it "mopey". Heck, it led to Mongul, war-world and some solid adventures - not to mention world-building that would gives the comics decades of great story opportunities to "mine" from.
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

Posting Permissions

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