Page 210 of 229 FirstFirst ... 110160200206207208209210211212213214220 ... LastLast
Results 3,136 to 3,150 of 3428
  1. #3136
    THE MARK OF MY DIGNITY Superlad93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,937

    Default

    I guess no one has seen this?

    https://www.slashfilm.com/man-of-ste...g-david-goyer/

    For anyone wondering if there was an even remotely possible alternative to Clark killing Zod that existed within the continuity of the film, but simply was not used. The answer is yes, there was. The reasoning for the writers not taking that option was because they likened Superman to military or a cop, and felt like after their big 9/11 battle it would've been a "cop out" for Clark to come up with this solution. I don't agree, but I also didn't write the film.

    David Goyer (writer of Man of Steel): "The idea was that Superman would – there was one of those sort of cryopods on the ship that ends up becoming the Fortress of Solitude that he’s able to put Zod back into and then throw out into space."
    "Mark my words! This drill will open a hole in the universe. And that hole will become a path for those that follow after us. The dreams of those who have fallen. The hopes of those who will follow. Those two sets of dreams weave together into a double helix, drilling a path towards tomorrow. THAT's Tengen Toppa! THAT'S Gurren Lagann! MY DRILL IS THE DRILL THAT CREATES THE HEAVENS!"

    - The Digger

    We walk on the path to Secher Nbiw. Though hard fought, we walk the Golden Path.

  2. #3137
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    They did it because that was what they wanted to do it isn't a valid defense. Snyder could have turned Superman into Bugs Bunny half way into the movie, it still wouldn't be right simply because he made it so. No, its not supported by the source material. People are jumping on the fact that Superman killed in the past so every Superman did it in Snyder's movies should be ok because he's Superman, ignoring the context of why those weren't as controversial.
    I'm pretty sure him killing Zod and co with Kryptonite poisoning in the Byrne run was very controversial. And is less morally defensible than what we got in the movie.

    The DCEU Superman gives us plenty of material to criticize. The basic idea of killing Zod isn't one of them. The event's placement and their lack of real, satisfactory follow up? Yes. Clark killing by itself? Little more wiggle room with that.

  3. #3138
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,927

    Default

    I believe, in the 1960s, it was a special jury in the bottle city of Kandor that condemned criminals to the Phantom Zone. If Superman did this, it was usually him returning a villain back to the Zone from whence he or she had escaped. And there were other stories, where Superman released criminals from the Zone for time served.
    🇨🇦
    [Exit, pursued
    by a bear.

  4. #3139
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    15,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    The DCEU Superman gives us plenty of material to criticize. The basic idea of killing Zod isn't one of them. The event's placement and their lack of real, satisfactory follow up? Yes. Clark killing by itself? Little more wiggle room with that.
    This is exactly it. We can nitpick the execution of the idea, and the film gives us plenty to nitpick about, not just in this instance but practically every sequence and scene. But the basic concept itself is very well established in the source material.

    And I do miss the stories where Clark would release a Zoner for time served. I actually just finished a trade all about Clark's interactions with the Zoners in fact. Good stuff. Silver Age isn't my favorite era but I'll be damned if it didn't have the biggest, craziest, best ideas. A lot of awful ideas too, but so many elements of the Super mythos that we take for granted today came from that era.

    So here's a question to get us away from the tired MoS arguments; did Clark kill Imperiex in Our Worlds At War (insofar as a cosmic manifestation of entropy can be "killed")? Or was that something else? How about the time Clark threw Darkseid into the Source Wall? Was that just a fancy prison, or was that as close to death (as we understand it) as a New God can get?
    "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.

  5. #3140
    Astonishing Member marhawkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    3,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The World View Post
    About the most American thing I can think of is the fact that a self absorbed billionaire heiress going on a killing spree received significantly less push back than an alien killing someone to save innocent lives. It's funny because Morrison tried to imply that Superman having an aversion to killing might come from his alien nature which people pushed back against because the wanted the Kent's (i.e the human race) to have credit for Superman being Jesus wannabe even though ultimately everyone and their momma knows no one wants to be like Jesus.
    The problem with making it an alien thing is that it A: requires Kryptonians to be nicer as a race than Humans(which they aren't), and B: implies that his inherent nature is the reason he's a nice guy and not a conscious choice.

  6. #3141
    Extraordinary Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,261

    Default

    How can they give a follow up to man of steel When these guys decided to stuff batman in there, to "fix it" . Honestly, i am glad we atleast got some follow up than none or worse shitty follow up like justice league. Yeesh!They even cutout parts from theatrical of superman at last minute. Shows you their priority.

  7. #3142
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    No one who criticizes the no killing rule has ever claimed killing is the only way to solve problems so this argument is just a straw man. Wonder Woman and Captain America are every bit as moral as Superman and they've used lethal force as well.
    I was just involved with a conversation like that in this very thread pages back. They also try harder to not kill people than Snyder Superman does.



    Why is it that this question only ever comes up when it comes to superheroes killing? As if locking someone up for a crime they didn't commit can not be ruinous.
    Sure they could, but the DCEU ins't interested in doing that. How is the death penalty anymore moral then that? Those criminals should be put on trial for their crimes and be humanely treated in prison. Discussions like this occur with Punisher all the time, as well as Batman.



    Firstly, this scene is from Justice League Unlimited not Superman TAS. Secondly, if this is his reaction to being able to "cut loose" then I think the way he represses himself is a bigger problem than if he simply killed Darkseid (which is what it looked like he was trying to do anyway).


    Furthermore, the morality of this rule has strangely mutated over the years to the point that it seems Clark views any punishment as acceptable so long as it is non-lethal. Like how he hid the League's mindwipes but condemned Diana for killing Max Lord.
    Everyone hated what the League did in Identity Crisis, and what she did to Max Lord was controversial both in and out of universe. The world didn't simply move on and she never spoke of it again right afterward unlike with cavill.

    To say nothing of how this rule only applies to human or human-looking characters but not non-human ones like Doomsday, Imperiex or Brainiac.
    It's not about appearance. Doomsday was barely sentient, Imperirex was a universal threat and Brainaic is like Ultron, kill one body another appears if a molecule survives and he always survives. They're not standard super-villains Superman faces and the writers try to give them more resources at their disposal then the DCEU does.

  8. #3143
    Fantastic Member llozymandias's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Often on this board people talk as though Superman is either an agent of change or a protector of the status quo. For him to actually be either of those things he would have had to become humanity's dictator/owner. In the comics he has often been referred to earth's/humanity's protector. besically he sees his main job on earth as preventing humanity's extinction. He is not on earth to solve humanity's problems or dictate how to live. Just to insure that humanity survivess until it can protect itself.
    Last edited by llozymandias; 08-03-2020 at 11:50 AM.
    John Martin, citizen & rightful ruler of the omniverse.

  9. #3144
    Extraordinary Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by llozymandias View Post
    Often on this board people talk as though Superman is either an agent of change or a protector of the status quo. For him to actually be either of those things he would have had to become humanity's dictator/owner. In the comics he has often been referred to earth's/humanity's protector. besically he sees his main job on earth as preventing humanity's extinction. He is on earth to solve humanity's problems or dictate how to live. Just to insure that humanity survivess until it can protect itself.
    No, he doesn't. This is basically power corrupts argument. What you are saying is superman can have power but he can't use it. Why? Cause it will corrupt. So, superman shouldn't use his abilities. Essentially, making the power he has not power at all. Which makes superman rather a useless and pointless.

    Superman is the antithesis of this argument . A guy could have power, use it and not try to control people. He is called "super" man. He should know how to lead. And no, taking charge and leading people isn't totalitarianism or authoritarianism. What good is a superman who is just a follower?I don't care if he is defending a status quo or changing it. But, superman should be at the eye of the tornado. The man of action should act. Its that simple. He isn't some observer like the watcher or some guardian protecting a run down fortress like the Teela Na. Atleast, doomsday clock got that part right. A superman who doesn't act isn't superman but a mere parody.

  10. #3145
    Astonishing Member Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    No, he doesn't. This is basically power corrupts argument. What you are saying is superman can have power but he can't use it. Why? Cause it will corrupt. So, superman shouldn't use his abilities. Essentially, making the power he has not power at all. Which makes superman rather a useless and pointless.

    Superman is the antithesis of this argument . A guy could have power, use it and not try to control people. He is called "super" man. He should know how to lead. And no, taking charge and leading people isn't totalitarianism or authoritarianism. What good is a superman who is just a follower?I don't care if he is defending a status quo or changing it. But, superman should be at the eye of the tornado. The man of action should act. Its that simple. He isn't some observer like the watcher or some guardian protecting a run down fortress like the Teela Na. Atleast, doomsday clock got that part right. A superman who doesn't act isn't superman but a mere parody.
    He would if we weren't in continuous publication. If it was a set story with a beginning, middle and end, you would see some real change as a result of Superman's actions... But they need to publish stories next month and next year, so he can't run all the problems of the world out. They need him to basically act as a safety net to catch us when we fail trying to make change on our own because otherwise they write themselves into a corner the IP cannot get itself out of. Effectively, Clark's take that he wants us to get there on our own to ensure the change is sincere and that we won't backslide once he dies is there because they need to be able to publish that story next month as well.

    Same with how Batman can wage war on crime and not really make any dent on it.

    The Superman you likely want to read about can only exist in limited series or media adaptions because any lasting change Clark institutes will have to backslide eventually, if not immediately.

  11. #3146
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ra-El View Post
    I believe the only true problem with MoS is BvS.
    Not the only problem, but the biggest problem, IMO. It was not the story Superman needed after MOS. At least not like BvS turned out.


    I think someone mentioned it before, but I don't like the idea of Superman being trained by Wonder Woman or Batman to be a better fighter. He should learn it somewhere else like a program in The Fortress of Solitude. The FOS should have so much information that Kal can use and learn.

  12. #3147
    Fantastic Member llozymandias's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    No, he doesn't. This is basically power corrupts argument. What you are saying is superman can have power but he can't use it. Why? Cause it will corrupt. So, superman shouldn't use his abilities. Essentially, making the power he has not power at all. Which makes superman rather a useless and pointless.

    Superman is the antithesis of this argument . A guy could have power, use it and not try to control people. He is called "super" man. He should know how to lead. And no, taking charge and leading people isn't totalitarianism or authoritarianism. What good is a superman who is just a follower?I don't care if he is defending a status quo or changing it. But, superman should be at the eye of the tornado. The man of action should act. Its that simple. He isn't some observer like the watcher or some guardian protecting a run down fortress like the Teela Na. Atleast, doomsday clock got that part right. A superman who doesn't act isn't superman but a mere parody.



    If Superman were real and solving all of our problems for us, that would have a bad ending. He would be in charge. Whether or not he wanted to be. No he would not be corrupted, just disappointed. Too many people are willing to be taken care of. From cradle to grave. And they are willing to surrender their freedom in exchange for that "care".
    John Martin, citizen & rightful ruler of the omniverse.

  13. #3148
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    No, he doesn't. This is basically power corrupts argument. What you are saying is superman can have power but he can't use it. Why? Cause it will corrupt. So, superman shouldn't use his abilities. Essentially, making the power he has not power at all. Which makes superman rather a useless and pointless.

    Superman is the antithesis of this argument . A guy could have power, use it and not try to control people. He is called "super" man. He should know how to lead. And no, taking charge and leading people isn't totalitarianism or authoritarianism. What good is a superman who is just a follower?I don't care if he is defending a status quo or changing it. But, superman should be at the eye of the tornado. The man of action should act. Its that simple. He isn't some observer like the watcher or some guardian protecting a run down fortress like the Teela Na. Atleast, doomsday clock got that part right. A superman who doesn't act isn't superman but a mere parody.
    This isn't about power, Superman already uses that power to protect humanity as a super-hero - that's about governing the world as a politician and destabilising countries. There are heroes who do this, they're very rare in the DCU. One group does to mind as Black Adam's splinter group in JSA who took over Black Adam's country so he could rule it. Others are super-heroes in the WildStorm universe, notably the Authority. They take out governments on Earth and other hostile worlds and eventually made themselves rulers of their Earth.



    Superman fought and beat their DC counterparts, the Elite, in Kelly's run.

  14. #3149
    Extraordinary Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by llozymandias View Post
    If Superman were real and solving all of our problems for us, that would have a bad ending. He would be in charge. Whether or not he wanted to be. No he would not be corrupted, just disappointed. Too many people are willing to be taken care of. From cradle to grave. And they are willing to surrender their freedom in exchange for that "care".
    He is not solving problems for us. He solving problems with us and as part of the society he lives in. Really? Would you ask Leonardo da vichi to not paint? Would you ask Shakespeare to not write? Would you ask Einstein to not be interested in gravity and physics? Would you ask goku to not train? Why does Superman differ? These guys are leaders as well in their feilds and the times. There are many kinds of leaders. You want superman as soon as some messiah who watches over people beating each other up? That was never the character. The character always acted, even when he messed up. Superman's philosophy is more action based.Why would he be disappointed?He isn't earth's or metropolis's father? He does what's right. If people want to do something else they can.If that leads to harm superman will be there to stop you or change your mind in anyway possible. Some people require getting knocked some sense,others require debate, some won' t change and have some justified stance that superman may disagree with. There in lies the conflict.Frankly, i am baffled i am having this debate. No wonder i think superman lost his fangs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    This isn't about power, Superman already uses that power to protect humanity as a super-hero - that's about governing the world as a politician and destabilising countries. There are heroes who do this, they're very rare in the DCU. One group does to mind as Black Adam's splinter group in JSA who took over Black Adam's country so he could rule it. Others are super-heroes in the WildStorm universe, notably the Authority. They take out governments on Earth and other hostile worlds and eventually made themselves rulers of their Earth.



    Superman fought and beat their DC counterparts, the Elite, in Kelly's run.
    Please, that's nonsensical portrayal of a character. As hitman says, "Superheroes are a joke". Superman was wayy more interesting as the strongman vigilante from space . Superman isn't earths nanny(a bad one. I mean, nanny's do generally interfere ).i have said this before there are many types of leaders. Superman doesn't need to be a politician to lead people. He can just be a people's champion who works as an independent agent. As for, destabilising governments. If superman sees people being oppressed with consent of the people or through his moral conviction he woulr act . The guy who took stalin and hitler by the belt should act (btw, this was printed when these guys were alive and very much powerful political entities. Not in the age where they are seen as just another villains that is allowed to be hit). None, of that has any bearing on what i am saying. The champion of the oppressed,acts to fight for freedom and against the corrupt. Superman isn't the authority nor black adam. He isn't interested in being a king or creating some totalitarian oligarchy. Didn't you read what i wrote? A guy could have power, use it and not control people/enslave them. That's superman . He just fights any corrupt establishment that doesn't have the welfare of its people in mind. And its upto the people of the nation to rebuild, if its destabilised. Superman would be there to help anr he is competent enough to control the chaos. Him being people's champion doesn't mean he would be a cult of personality either. He is a man of convictions and an idealist. If people have problems with real people being used.Sure, enough they can create fictional places and characters to get the point across.

    Are you serious? The elite are a joke. Superman doesn't address the point in the story. What's so funny is bad example. Superman there was just against exectution or something( I am not really sure) . I have issues with the story as well. The only thing good about what's so funny is dreams speech. In it, superman specifically says he would never stop fighting and how dreams save us. Yet, superman isn't portrayed as the man of action most of the time. Honestly, this is why i think luffy is more superman than Superman in modern days. Clark is royalty. He doesn't do anything. He is lazy, complacent and too comfortable with himself . He is messiah on top of that. What an idiotic combination.
    Man of rubber >>>>> Man of steel.
    Luffy would punch any dictator in his jaws for his ideals, regardless of any consequences. As if superman is any more complicated. Its all just window dressing to say postcrisis superman and his stories are worth more. When in reality it ain't. It's wayyyy less.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 08-03-2020 at 10:51 PM.

  15. #3150
    Astonishing Member Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    He is not solving problems for us. He solving problems with us and as part of the society he lives in. Really? Would you ask Leonardo da vichi to not paint? Would you ask Shakespeare to not write? Would you ask Einstein to not be interested in gravity and physics? Would you ask goku to not train? Why does Superman differ? These guys are leaders as well in their feilds and the times. There are many kinds of leaders. You want superman as soon as some messiah who watches over people beating each other up? That was never the character. The character always acted, even when he messed up. Superman's philosophy is more action based.Why would he be disappointed?He isn't earth's or metropolis's father? He does what's right. If people want to do something else they can.If that leads to harm superman will be there to stop you or change your mind in anyway possible. Some people require getting knocked some sense,others require debate, some won' t change and have some justified stance that superman may disagree with. There in lies the conflict.Frankly, i am baffled i am having this debate. No wonder i think superman lost his fangs.

    Please, that's nonsensical portrayal of a character. As hitman says, "Superheroes are a joke". Superman was wayy more interesting as the strongman vigilante from space . Superman isn't earths nanny(a bad one. I mean, nanny's do generally interfere ).i have said this before there are many types of leaders. Superman doesn't need to be a politician to lead people. He can just be a people's champion who works as an independent agent. As for, destabilising governments. If superman sees people being oppressed with consent of the people or through his moral conviction he woulr act . The guy who took stalin and hitler by the belt should act (btw, this was printed when these guys were alive and very much powerful political entities. Not in the age where they are seen as just another villains that is allowed to be hit). None, of that has any bearing on what i am saying. The champion of the oppressed,acts to fight for freedom and against the corrupt. Superman isn't the authority nor black adam. He isn't interested in being a king or creating some totalitarian oligarchy. Didn't you read what i wrote? A guy could have power, use it and not control people/enslave them. That's superman . He just fights any corrupt establishment that doesn't have the welfare of its people in mind. And its upto the people of the nation to rebuild, if its destabilised. Superman would be there to help anr he is competent enough to control the chaos. Him being people's champion doesn't mean he would be a cult of personality either. He is a man of convictions and an idealist. If people have problems with real people being used.Sure, enough they can create fictional places and characters to get the point across.

    Are you serious? The elite are a joke. Superman doesn't address the point in the story. What's so funny is bad example. Superman there was just against exectution or something( I am not really sure) . I have issues with the story as well. The only thing good about what's so funny is dreams speech. In it, superman specifically says he would never stop fighting and how dreams save us. Yet, superman isn't portrayed as the man of action most of the time. Honestly, this is why i think luffy is more superman than Superman in modern days. Clark is royalty. He doesn't do anything. He is lazy, complacent and too comfortable with himself . He is messiah on top of that. What an idiotic combination.
    Man of rubber >>>>> Man of steel.
    Luffy would punch any dictator in his jaws for his ideals, regardless of any consequences. As if superman is any more complicated. Its all just window dressing to say postcrisis superman and his stories are worth more. When in reality it ain't. It's wayyyy less.
    Luffy also has the luxury of existing in a narrative that revolves entirely around him whereas Clark needs to share a universe with a ton of IP, so everything can go his way. Moreover, Luffy's world is a lot more straight-forward and allows him to solve everything with a direct approach. Clark's can quickly go to shit around him and he has still has a personal life. Luffy's life revolves around punching whoever approaches him wrong and eating. There is zero complexity. He's the most basic shounen protagonist there is. Hot-blooded, loves to fight and eat, strong bond with friends. That's ultimately fine, it doesn't have to be complicated, but much of that is a child's approach to a problem. If I don't like it, hit it until I do and damn the consequences. Great. Luffy gets to live in a universe where that doesn't bite him in the ass. Clark does. It's not the same.

    It's apples and oranges, dude. Their situations are very different. Or at least that's what my reading of One Piece revealed (I left after the time skip/Ace's death).

Posting Permissions

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