I'm on my phone so could someone post a giant eye-roll gif here for me?
The Man of Steel.
- Thread starter Espy
- Start date
- Status
Why not take the time and just elaborate on what that giant eye-roll is supposed to be?
Dave
Staff member
Typing on a phone sucks. That's why I hardly ever post from my iPod.
See, that's not something I'm interested in seeing, especially if some of that destruction is caused by Superman directly as I hear it is. Again, that's not Superman to me. That's The Authority.
I'm sure you can figure out which camp you're in. No need to make it any more obvious with another post.
I already said my piece abput the movie in this thread Nick. Statements like the one i quoted are just inane trollish dickery.[DOUBLEPOST=1372087860][/DOUBLEPOST]
Oooooooh. Someone's a big tough Internet guy.
Calling Gilgamesh an inane troll is kinda like calling water wet.
I saw it. Zach Snyder couldn't hit an emotional beat to save his life. But the awe inspiring spectacle parts were very awe inspiring and spectacular.
Well yeah, but what do we know? Lets get back to our Dancing with the Call of Duty Stars marathon!
Hey if you put yourself in that camp, then there's nothingelse I can say.
Your water must be pretty dry then.
BananaHands
Staff member
Iron Man 3 was better.
Funny thing is, I'd actually disagree, but I posted my IM3 rant in the IM thread, so I won't go into detail here. I think Superman was the superior film, even if it wasn't a Superman movie.
I commented after I saw it that it was an Alien Invasion flick with a Superman sticker on it.
BananaHands
Staff member
At least Iron Man was in Iron Man 3 (albeit briefly), there was just some brooding dude in a red cape in Man of Steel.[DOUBLEPOST=1372091936][/DOUBLEPOST]Although I'll admit: Faora > Pepper.
That scene with her super-speed? Goddamn.
I say you go see it at matinee prices with the expectation you will hate it going in. Then one of two scenarios will play out:
1) You're pleasantly surprised. (unlikely)
2) You're vindicated in your argument that this movie sucks. You now have a ton of ammunition to fire at every twit who argues with you about it, and no one can hide behind the fact you haven't seen it.
I honestly think Nick's head would explode if he saw it.
Oh. I didn't plan for that outcome. Don't see it then.
BananaHands
Staff member
BananaHands
Staff member
I know another person who really, really collects one particular character, and they watch, read, and listen to everything that is put out about that character, even when it directly conflicts with their view of the character.
If ThatNickGuy is anything like this person then he will be unable to avoid this, whether it's a train wreck or not. He'll have to watch it at some point, no matter how bad or wrong it is. And if you're going to put yourself through that, might as well take the chance of seeing it in the theater, alone (ie, no friends or family - just experience it without any outside influence), and then walk away knowing whether it was bad or not. Being able to dismiss it and get past it is easier than sitting there in a state of limbo, never really knowing for yourself whether it's as bad as it seems.
Of course you also have to realize that it's now forever tainted by what you've been told. You can never go into it with a clean slate and open mind, so it probably doesn't matter whether it's good or not - to nick it'll be bad no matter what.
But he'll know.
And that, as we all know, is half the battle.
If ThatNickGuy is anything like this person then he will be unable to avoid this, whether it's a train wreck or not. He'll have to watch it at some point, no matter how bad or wrong it is. And if you're going to put yourself through that, might as well take the chance of seeing it in the theater, alone (ie, no friends or family - just experience it without any outside influence), and then walk away knowing whether it was bad or not. Being able to dismiss it and get past it is easier than sitting there in a state of limbo, never really knowing for yourself whether it's as bad as it seems.
Of course you also have to realize that it's now forever tainted by what you've been told. You can never go into it with a clean slate and open mind, so it probably doesn't matter whether it's good or not - to nick it'll be bad no matter what.
But he'll know.
And that, as we all know, is half the battle.
figmentPez
Staff member
He also tried to kill the Cyborg/Hank Henshaw, but no one has responded to that. Apparently it's okay for Superman to have the intent to kill if he doesn't actually succeed.
Dave
Staff member
Just think of it as one of the Infinity worlds where Supes is just a little different and really, it has nothing to do with Supes as much as the times in which it is set.
The original Superman is set in a more quaint time and his parents teach him to basically love life & trust in humankind. In this iteration, it is filled with the kinds of pessimism we are currently used to seeing in our media. Don't trust the government or anyone else as they will try and use you for their own ends. There's something to be said for this in today's fairly xenophobic society, and that's directly reflected in this Superman and reinforced by Pa Kent, who
This is a pessimistic take on a Superman who isn't as enamored with humanity and doesn't fully trust them. Possibly this could be what the series is about - how Superman stopped being just a powerful being into something we could all aspire to.
The original Superman is set in a more quaint time and his parents teach him to basically love life & trust in humankind. In this iteration, it is filled with the kinds of pessimism we are currently used to seeing in our media. Don't trust the government or anyone else as they will try and use you for their own ends. There's something to be said for this in today's fairly xenophobic society, and that's directly reflected in this Superman and reinforced by Pa Kent, who
allows himself to be killed rather than to let Clark reveal his powers.
This is a pessimistic take on a Superman who isn't as enamored with humanity and doesn't fully trust them. Possibly this could be what the series is about - how Superman stopped being just a powerful being into something we could all aspire to.
BananaHands
Staff member
For one, that was hated by a lot of people, both writers and fans, at the time. So much so that John Byrne left the book. Second, it absolutely mentally broke Superman. He had a complete breakdown and left Earth for awhile as a result because he felt his instability was harmful. Three, it was pretty much written out of continuity some years later, basically once DC decided that the version of Supergirl that came from that didn't exist. There are a LOT of people who disagree with that, including many top writers like Mark Waid and Grand Morrison.
As for Superman II, I've said it several times, already. One: no body, no death. That's super villain defeat rule #1. Who's to say he doesn't have a giant net or something down there in case Lois were to slip and fall? Two, there is a deleted scene showing them being arrested. The scene was included in Richard Donner's director's cut, which makes me assume that he intended on using it if he hadn't been forced out by the producers and the second director took over.
Also, that's still my favourite Superman moment of all time. Just how he he manages to win when you think he's lost, outsmarting the bad guy at what seems like his weakest moment. The way the music slowly comes up, along with Stamp's reaction to his hand being crushed? Still love it.
Out of curiosity what was superman's intent at that point? Is superman aware of this rule, and thus believes that he's not killing? You and the movie going public may believe the rule, and thus there isn't an actual killing, but what we're talking about is whether the character died or not, but whether superman's intent was to kill.
As for Hank Henshaw. Yes, that is one villain that Superman had to destroy to stop him. Henshaw was literally about to destroy the entire planet and there was literally no way to contain him. Warworld was essentially an entire planet of technology for him to escape into. I've said this already, it's not that Superman killed at all, it's that he did it when there were other options available, like moving his body a little bit. That's hardly him being forced into killing.[DOUBLEPOST=1372100467][/DOUBLEPOST]
That hinges largely on whether or not they lived. The fortress of solitude is his home. he'd be the one who would know how deep those cravasses are and whether or not there is anything down there to break their fall. If they lived, the fall was non fatal, and superman would have known that.
I doubt he intended to kill them and don't think he actually did, as I said about the deleted scene. Who the hell knows what throwing them into the pit did. Like I said, for all we know, there's a giant net down there or something. But given the portrayal that Donner and Reeve were giving us, I don't think his intention was to kill.
- Status