Here we go again. JL Atlantis DVD SPOILER

[king of hybrids]

supes' no kill policy is/hs generally narrowed to "will not kill humans/baseline humans" in adaptations; just ask all the white martian-knockoffs, thanagarians, parademons, darkseid, roaches and wolves in JLU; same with batman

[Sacred Knight]

I would have preferred if he just trapped the creature but I don't see it as a huge problem. Either way I can get not caring for it. But the burning off the tentacles was completely justified and well within Superman's moral compass. If maiming something will save a life, he'll do it. I don't know how that's even a point of contention.

[Burning Eyes]

Reply to OP.
I've never had a problem with Superman killing.
And the fact that it's a monster from the oceans . . . on some primal level, Mankind has always loved heroes who triumph against sea monsters.

[DochaDocha]

I would have preferred if he just trapped the creature but I don't see it as a huge problem. Either way I can get not caring for it. But the burning off the tentacles was completely justified and well within Superman's moral compass. If maiming something will save a life, he'll do it. I don't know how that's even a point of contention.

Plus some real species of octopi grow back detached limbs, so it's the cartoon equivalent of breaking a guy's arm, assuming you don't think the monster died (and I don't).

[Francisco]

anyway... Was it good the movie?

[DochaDocha]

I thought War was a movie that had some parts I enjoyed, but ultimately, it was kind of weak. I feel the opposite of Throne of Atlantis; it has various scenes here and there that I don't like, but overall I enjoyed it.

There's a general discussion on the DC Comics page, so I'll limit my comments on the Superman-related aspects. We already covered his showdown with the creature of the deep. Superman's involvement in the plot is rather third tier, as there's not a heck of a lot he does to move the story's main plot. While that could be said of any of the JL members, since it's really an Aquaman movie guest starring the JL, I get the feeling that Wonder Woman, Cyborg, and Batman move the primary story along much more so than Flash, Green Lantern, and Shazam. Superman and Wonder Woman's burgeoning relationship is one of the central secondary plots, where most of Superman's characterization time gets invested, so if you hate that, maybe you'll want to pass on this movie. On the other hand, there is a total of four supporting characters from the Super-verse that appear in this movie, which perhaps might foreshadow a more Super-centric story in the not too distant future.

As far as Superman's dialogue goes, it's decent. There's only one line in particular (besides the WW lines, for those who hate that) I can imagine a lot of fans would end up hating. Jerry O'Connell now has done Supes and Captain Marvel, and he does okay. In the personal segments, his delivery is good, and his lines come across as natural. In the action/JL-related segments, he doesn't really sound quite like the experienced hero. Part of that is because he wasn't in War, and the time elapse between that movie and this one is not very long. There's one scene in which I thought Batman was going to make it a "learning moment" for Superman, but Superman at least gets to demonstrate some independent thinking and problem solving, which has not been overly emphasized in past JL movies. This is not Superpacifist, and if you provoke him enough he does get angry. However, his portrayal in the movie isn't all gloomy and dark, as New 52 Superman (probably wrongly) has a reputation for. There's a funny scene with him, and at one point, he has a Christopher Reeve-like moment after doing something heroic.

One negative that isn't blatantly bad, but apparent nonetheless, is that the Worf Effect was in play a few times. Part of it is because the villain in this movie is a bit over-powered, and as such he does put a hurting to the entire JL, but I got the distinct impression that the scenes are set up showing that here comes Superman, the big guy, and... down goes Superman. At least it wasn't as bad as season 1 of the Justice League cartoon, in which Superman was the first in and then out of the fight, and at times made it seem like Superman was the least capable guy fighting, but he does get set up to get knocked down to show how powerful the big bad is.

EDIT: The comics version of "Throne of Atlantis" is a better story, but I generally expect that to be the case with these animated movies, with the exceptions of Under the Red Hood, and the Miller Batman stories that were less adapted for animation and more quoted verbatim.

[Vinsanity]

It is tough to convert comics into films because they is so much to cover. Anyway I felt Superman was a secondary character along with Batman and GL and that is not a bad thing at all because in JL War they got a lot of screen time. It is pretty fine.

[Robotman]

One of the things I love about Supes is his compassion. The scene in All Star with the baby Sun Eater is one of my favorite Superman moments. With that in mind I don't think you're going to get that Superman in these action oriented movies. But Supes may not have killed the tenticled creature.
If it has similar anatomy as an octopus is can regrow it's limbs. Burying it under rubble is an ambiguous death. There's a very good chance that it's still alive.

[evangelionofasgard]

In justice League the new frontier the best animated movie about super heroes ever other than MAYBE mask of the phantasm had superman burning whole swarms of dinosaurs coming off the center with his eye beams.

What's the point of having a Superman when you take everything that is Super and special about the character out.

Cus Many prople don't consider it special they consider it a crippling defect.
some of us love his origin, his powers, his side characters, his villains his mythos, his human persona and general personality but hate the tone and the boy scout no killing crap.

[Superlad93]

In justice League the new frontier the best animated movie about super heroes ever other than MAYBE mask of the phantasm had superman burning whole swarms of dinosaurs coming off the center with his eye beams.


Cus Many prople don't consider it special they consider it a crippling defect.
some of us love his origin, his powers, his side characters, his villains his mythos, his human persona and general personality but hate the tone and the boy scout no killing crap.

Those dinosaurs were artificially made from the Center. They were more extensions of it's will than actual living breathing creatures. They were clay or tools to be shaped into whatever the Center needed at the moment. This is illustrated by the pterodactyl exploding with a swarm of monsters like a suicide bomber. They were FAR from the living breathing creature that was shown in Throne of Atlantes.

When I see that scene I'm thinking to myself "why did he actually have to try an kill it?". I mean I have no indication that this Superman knew that thing would live or did live so I'm left scratching my head as to why he's made to try an kill it. Would it not have been more bad-ass for Superman to get in some good shots and then scare it away with a puffed out chest and stern look in his eye? Then he'd look back at Aquaman with a smile indicating that the creature didn't know any better. He would have look like less of a desperate random cape just looking to get out of there by the skin of his teeth and looked more like Superman the biggest gun with the biggest heart. He's Superman he works on the scale of the giants, so their monsters are right in his wheel house to be tamed.

To your second point I have to say that then there are those of us who obviously like the more compassionate benevolent nature he is normally known to exude. Crippling defect? Dear god, that is hyperbole. I mean is it such a crippling defect that ever profitable and human (!) Batman doesn't kill? What stories are we really missing out on? The end of the Joker? Then last Lex story? Superman not killing only becomes an issue if one insist on making literal what is clearly a figurative and expressive character that's was created for allegory, escapism and the venting of ideas. It was all tikker taped together in a bright gaudy suit, big smile and cheek bones.

Superman and the superhero is short hand for articulating the best in us. It's not articulating the best in us if he is a character that is constantly made to compromise and bend knee to "it was a necessary evil", "I didn't see any other way", or "it was in the heat of the moment". Those are excuses that we shouldn't instantly look to as our safe passage from hard work and being just a bit more clever to get the job done right. Superman is the short hand expression of the feeling of being at your very best. He's not a fire man, police man, doctor, or politician. Those people can let you down. Superman can never let you down no matter what the situation throws his way. He's simply better than them and he's better than that. That's not discrediting those people or professions because of the simple fact that Superman is made up. He has the power to do anything so he does.

Edit: With all this said I don't see why Superman has to kill. You can harp about contrivances all you'd like but is it any more contrived that the good guys always win? That earth isn't blown up? Or that somehow during a fight with a super powered alien our man of steel finds this never before seen grip strength and puts the evil alien in an inescapable headlock that affords no other option but death? All while the one family is being targeted for death? Just because there are "realistic" elements in a comic book doesn't make it any less contrived. All it does make me feel sad that people enjoy the contrivance where the people die as opposed to the one where they live.

With all this said I don't mean to "take this out on you". My intent is more to reply to the thread rather than you specifically (you are however welcome to reply back along with anyone else). In any case I hope I was able to share myself in a clear and polite manner as that was my intent with this.

Cheers everyone!

[Agent Z]

Those dinosaurs were artificially made from the Center. They were more extensions of it's will than actual living breathing creatures. They were clay or tools to be shaped into whatever the Center needed at the moment. This is illustrated by the pterodactyl exploding with was swarm of monsters like a suicide bomber. They were FAR from the living breathing creature that was shown in Throne of Atlantes.

When I see that scene I'm thinking to myself "why did he actually have to try an kill it?". I mean I have no indication that this Superman knew that thing would live or did live so I'm left scratching my head as to why he trying to kill it. Would it not have been more bad-ass for Superman to get in some good shots and then scare it away with a puffed out chest and stern look in his eye? Then he'd look back at Aquaman with a smile indicating that the creature didn't know any better. He would have look like less of a desperate random cape just looking to get out of there by the skin of his teeth. He's Superman he works on the scale of the giants, so their monsters are right in his wheel house.

To your second point I have to say that then there are those of us who obviously like the more compassionate benevolent nature he is known to exude. Crippling defect? Dear god, that is hyperbole. I mean is it such a crippling defect that Batman doesn't kill? What stories are we really missing out on? The end of the Joker? Then last Lex story? Superman not killing is only only becomes an issue if one insist on internalizing what is clearly a fugitive character that's was created for allegory and the venting of ideas. It was all ticker taped together in a bright gaudy suit, big smile and cheek bones.

Superman and the superhero is short hand for articulating the best in us. It's not articulating the best in us if he is a character that is constantly made to compromise and bend knee to "it was a necessary evil", "I didn't see any other way", or "it was in the heat of the moment". Those are excuses that we shouldn't instantly look to as our safe passage from hard work and being just a bit more clever. Superman is the short hand expression of the feeling of being at your very best. He's not a fire man, police man, doctor, or politician. Those people can let you down. Superman can never let you down no matter what the situation throws his way.

Superman is that monolithic idea you have of your dad or mom when you're little.

With all this said I don't see why Superman has to kill

I can understand not wanting Superman to kill. I myself would like it if writers can come up with ways for him to neutralize threats without lethal force. That said, this creature was quite powerful and took a great deal of effort to kill. Remember Doomsday and how he shrugged off almost anything that was thrown at him? That's what this creature was.

Oh and Batman gets just as much flak about his no kill rule as Superman does.

[Agent Z]

double post.

[Superlad93]

I can understand not wanting Superman to kill. I myself would like it if writers can come up with ways for him to neutralize threats without lethal force. That said, this creature was quite powerful and took a great deal of effort to kill. Remember Doomsday and how he shrugged off almost anything that was thrown at him? That's what this creature was.

Then have him be more clever and find a way to take care of it without just power. He's us at our best. I don't want the message to be that even at our very best that we can imagine we are still slave to "it was the only way I could see to win at the time" or "what else could I do". I don't really think that Doomsday or Superman's death was done very well for my money. The story, like Superman in that situation, could have been more clever and still got across the death of Superman.

Also see back to my post if you like since I've made a few edits.

Oh and Batman gets just as much flak about his no kill rule as Superman does.

Yet his popularity dwarfs Superman's. Making one, again, wonder if the no killing is actually a real problem and what it actually solves for the stories being told.

[ekrolo2]

Then have him be more clever and find a way to take care of it without just power. He's us at our best. I don't want the message to be that even at our very best that we can imagine we are still slave to "it was the only way I could see to win at the time" or "what else could I do". I don't really think that Doomsday or Superman's death was done very well for my money. The story, like Superman in that situation, could have been more clever and still got across the death of Superman.

Also see back to my post if you like since I've made a few edits.



Yet his popularity dwarfs Superman's. Making one, again, wonder if the no killing is actually a real problem and what it actually solves for the stories being told.

I didn't see anyone bitch and moan about Batman clearly killing people in the original movie series from the 90s nor in the Nolan films nearly as much as when people complained about Superman's killing of Zod (which was totally justified given the no win situation imo). So yeah, I definitely think its a story quality issue over a "Should he or shouldn't he kill issue".

[DochaDocha]

Well, the first Burton Batflick came out in 1989, so it's not like people could sign onto the favorite internet message boards and complain about that movie.

I do remember some fans complained that Bruce Wayne left Ra's for dead in the train, and it's a little surprising that people make a big difference between that and what Supes did to Zod. There is a difference, for sure, but I find Bruce was just trying to keep his hands clean and clear his conscience whereas at least Superman has to live with the consequences.