Double standards! MOS V.S. Avengers:AOS

Critics and fans made a big deal about destruction in Man of Steel, but why isn't anyone talking about the destruction in Age of Ultron? Just as much, if not more property was destroyed in Avengers

The biggest chunk of damage came from a floating city that could have destroyed the world. The next biggest chunk came from the Hulk/Iron Man fight where Hulk was uncontrollable. This isn't the same as Supes vs. Zod, where Supes could have led Zod out of a populated area and didn't. Also, the Avengers were fighting an armies worth of robots.....not just 3 people.

Hulk vs Iron man was pretty destructive

Two totally different scenarios ..

He did, he took him to space and Zod knocked him down with a sattelite. Zod's entire purpose was to hurt humans and Clark. Hulk was just being Hulk. Superman was dealing with the bigger threat.

And yet those robots were jobbers. Those three Kryptonians would have made the human characters in Avengers useless and it's why they loose in every battle board scenario again'st Zod's army. Don't brag about a team of highly trained heroes fighting a level 3 threat but then mock the hero who beat a level 5 threat on his own. That's just dumb

Because Age of Ultrons Superheroes spent their time saving people, where Man of Steel only had the heroes fight destroy more and more stuff.

A blog written by @k4tzm4n on the very subject- http://greggkatzman.blogspot.com/2015/05/man-of-steel-vs-avengers-age-of-ultron.html?showComment=1431177104598#c7580893444275053585

A quote from the blog

What's more inspiring:

A team of highly-skilled and well co-ordinated heroes saving people from a world destroying monster and his army, that one of their own created?

or

A sheltered and humble man using his powers in combat for the first time, against a team of highly-skilled and well co-ordinated warriors bent on destroying the planet, and not once thinking surrender is an option?

The former are risking their lives to clean up a mess they made.

The latter is taking a 'leap of faith' to risk his life protecting people that don't trust him.

And something I noticed that is hypocritical of the movies.

Within the movie we see Stark check that the building he's going to wreck is clear, Once he destroys it by ramming Hulk into it, the Hulk notices that people are hurt, but as Tony made sure of no one died. But in the last movie after the battle was done Tony finished it off with a one liner even though people did die in that battle. So do the math

People covered in boo boos- Hulk Sad

People died- WOO HOO! SHAWARMA ON ME GUYS! HERP DERP SO FUNNY!

^^^This applies to you too^^^

Look above

It was actually pretty similar, their's no way to control Zod, plus his goal was to destroy human kind, reason why he threw Clark back to Earth. While Iron Man could have led Hulk out of the city once he pissed him off enough to make follow him out the city, but no let's just destroy this huge building that probably killed people with shrapnel flying everywhere.

Anything is possible when the threat are jobber robots that even humans can take down

also it is kind of funny with an army of robots against 10 of them and they still managed to destroy all robots and save all the people...not much realistic is it?

What I am saying is that it is easier for 1 person to worry about 3 things than it is for 9 people to worry about hundreds of things...all while evacuating an entire city of people to a helicarrier.

@saintwildcard: Yawn. The day Superman is a real life superhero saving us from a real life alien invasion I cut him all the slack in the world for not having been able to save people in the middle of it. As it stands this is a movie. There could have been a scene, where Superman stops Zod from crashing them straight through a building full of people? Or knocks him away to prevent him from hurting people? Or tells his army allies before the battle, they should evacuate the city? Nope Zack Snyder decided that wasn't necessary we only need to see these two break as much shit as possible, because superman fanboys would be making excuses for the movies shortcomings anyways, because in a time full of successful superhero movies a superman movie could not possibly suck, right?.

I can see the powered heroes taking them down (even though those robots are just cannon fodder). But in MoS the military wasn't of any help until they hit Faora with that missile, cus most of the time Clark was saving their asses. In the first Avengers and in AoU, kung fu kicks and arrows took down robots, showing that the threats weren't anywhere near the same level.

A more pressing issue:

Why do so many people on this site type the initials of Age Of Ultron (AoU) incorrectly???

No it really isnt. Imagine fighting 3 Hulk level characters. Those 3 Hulks level characters with martial training and full control of their actions, would rip through that army of hundreds of robots like tissue paper. The Ultron drones were kind of a joke when you think about it. They were literally killing several at a time. The Avengers had a full team that they could designate evacuation duty to. Superman was pretty much by himself. The Hulk V Iron Man fight is actually very comparable to the Zod V Superman fight. Iron Man and Superman were both fighting super powerful beings that they couldnt control. They both tried to move the fight elsewhere, but in both cases they were forced back into the city. Make no mistake, people died in that city during the Hulk fight. There is no way they didnt. Buildings, cars, and streets all got crushed and destroye, while Hulk and Iron Man threw eachother around and through bulidings. How many people died from the shrapnel and debris from that convinent building that Iron Man thre Hulk through? We will never know, and it will likely never be answered.

What I'm saying is, that those 100's are about as powerful as one full powered Kryptonian, and are nowhere near the same threat as Zod and his Army. Not to mention most of the destruction was caused by the World Engine which is a force of nature not some jobber army.

So much wrong and misunderstanding of story telling. I don't think you understand how story, character progression and villains work. There was no time to evacuate a city because the villain had a force of nature destroying it, not Loki's/Ultron's jobber army. When the Zod fight began, they thought Zod was gone so he appeared out of nowhere. He did care cus we see that when the gas tanker explodes he looks back to see if anyone is hurt before Zod punches him, he took Zod into space, and he snapped Zod's neck when he knew the fight would go on even longer and that he was going to kill the family. A fight is a fight, if you wanna have some unrealistic high standard or want you heroes to face jobber threats (which is most of Marvels villains), that's on you. But a real threat was what Superman overcame and beat even though he's had no training. This is him on the road to become Superman, you want a happy bow tie at the end that undermines the people who died, go watch Avengers (the first one). I'm a Superman fan but a fan of storytelling first, and MoS was a great start to an epic story. Most of your points are rose colored glasses points. You see the story through 75 years of history and Marvel movies where the threats are lame, Superman was the first hero with no experience and no comic books to look at, you are simply playing MOnday Morning Quarterback. Look back at all the good he did in that movie, and if you still say he doesn't care then that's your problem.

It's Superman

'People will always try to find fault in the things you do and try to bring you down" .

That's all it is whether it's Superman or Zack Snyder or WB or DC in general.

As a soldier who deployed to Iraq twice and had my share of shootouts and near death experiences, I can say sometimes you need to slow down and celebrate. You know that whole laugh so you don't cry bit? It's that. It's coming down from the high of battle and just recouping. These people had a fight with the world at stake. Don't fault them for being human and needing to recharge a bit.

Sure, but I'm simply using it as a tactic to defend MoS. While I'm indifferent to the whole thing (didn't really care for the first movie but liked the 2nd), I'm using it as a tactic to defend MoS. And every action I take, no matter how violent or how cruel, is for the greater good of MoS.

Sounding like a supervillain here, chum. Did you drop Clark as a role model and take after Zod? :D

Why would they bring up damages in AOU ? There were no visible deaths hell if they never said hundreds of people died how would we have known people even died in the first Avengers ? " But Tony made a joke about Shawarma after the fight with the chitauri " so ? He wasn't standing in a quarry of dead bodies and it's possible he didn't even know that people died during the invasion

Because its Superman. If one thing, all those 'Superman Overpowered' , 'Superman Boring' & 'Superdick' threads have taught is that, there always gonna be double standard against Superman no matter he do. Other characters can get away doing far more worse things than him but he can't , he always have to take criticisms & bear the brunt. He's still taking criticisms over silver age shenanigans that he did 40 years ago so what else can you expect from people.

"Superman is too goody, boyscout , does everything by book , never kills anyone, never fights real threats"..... then MOS happened "Superman is irresponsible , he destroyed properties , he killed millions of people, he killed Zod, he didn't cared about the city or people's lives while fighting kryptonians"

In fact, i remember before MOS, everyone used to complain over not being much action in Superman movies or awesome fights like he does in comics or animated shows & when MOS finally gave us some Superman action , everyone complained about too much action and some even called it destruction porn lol.

@deadgod: Those people like the icon, I like the man.

If I gotta snap a neck or two to get my point across, so be it .___.

@saintwildcard: So much wrong and misunderstanding of story telling. I don't think you understand how story, character progression and villains work. There was no time to evacuate a city because the villain had a force of nature destroying it, not Loki's/Ultron's jobber army. When the Zod fight began, they thought Zod was gone so he appeared out of nowhere. He did care cus we see that when the gas tanker explodes he looks back to see if anyone is hurt before Zod punches him, he took Zod into space, and he snapped Zod's neck when he knew the fight would go on even longer and that he was going to kill the family. A fight is a fight, if you wanna have some unrealistic high standard or want you heroes to face jobber threats (which is most of Marvels villains), that's on you. But a real threat was what Superman overcame and beat even though he's had no training. This is him on the road to become Superman, you want a happy bow tie at the end that undermines the people who died, go watch Avengers (the first one). I'm a Superman fan but a fan of storytelling first, and MoS was a great start to an epic story. Most of your points are rose colored glasses points. You see the story through 75 years of history and Marvel movies where the threats are lame, Superman was the first hero with no experience and no comic books to look at, you are simply playing MOnday Morning Quarterback. Look back at all the good he did in that movie, and if you still say he doesn't care then that's your problem.

What character? He did barely have a personality.

I guess he has to be funny for him to have a personality right? He was a humble caring dude who liked to help others. That's his personality. As for character development, I meant him going from Clark Kent to the Superman from the comics. MoS was the start of his journey, we'll see him grow and gain experience as we go on.

There are no movie shortcomings, just insanely dumb high standards and people ignoring plot points. I've pointed several out to you, none of your points are factual or concrete. I can however point to many times in the comics where things don't go Supe's way.

Like destroying the truck of the guy, that couldn't hurt him? Like letting his father die in a tornado? Sure he asked him to, but who would leave his perfectly healthy father die, because he asks him to. You know that what you call his personality isn't very well rounded?

No shortcomings? At all? Like Lois being on a military mission? Like Lois falling while the rubble of the city all around her was pulled upwards. Like Zod trying to convince Superman with a vision of him drowning in skulls? Even if he would have been ready to destroy the planet he grow up on, why would he like showering in skeleton parts. Like Jor-El taking control of Zods ship and not blasting it out of orbit. Like the horrendous product placement? Like that one joke in the movie? Not that there is only one, the specific joke. Like super technological krypton that genetically engineers their own population uses animals for transport?

Insanely high expectations. My expectations were insanely low, because I heard about the critic points before I watched it. Grand scale destruction, happened in the comics, nothing new. Superman killing, shrug he was ready to kill darkseid before. But it still underwhelmed me when I watched it.

That scene is meant to mirror a scene from Action COmics number one. Is there a problem with a movie about Superman or heck a superhero movie at all paying tribute to the comic that started it all. Plus, how is that hurting him? The dude was a jerk who got his comeuppance? Superman beat the hell out of a trucker (actual physical harm) in Superman 2. Plus, you point out that, but he saved the life of a military solider who shot at him and of Pete who was a bully. There's being a bully and then letting innocent people die. His dad sacrificed himself so that his son who was just a teen at that age wouldn't get hunted down, there wasn't enough time to save him and Clark was in charge of keeping his mom and the other people safe. And don't even say he had super speed, cus at that point he didn't nor did he at 33. What is he lacking from his personality? Cus I could go on. He doubts himself at times, he can get angry and he sympathies even with those who have wronged him.

No shortcomings? At all? Like Lois being on a military mission?

Lois was there because Jor-El told her how to stop the Kryptonians plus she's ballsy so she wouldn't take no for an ansewr. They need all the help they can get, and she was qualified

Like Lois falling while the rubble of the city all around her was pulled upwards.

Eh, that doesn't affect the story. But yeah, minor plot hole.

Like Zod trying to convince Superman with a vision of him drowning in skulls? Even if he would have been ready to destroy the planet he grow up on, why would he like showering in skeleton parts.

Zod wasn't some smooth seducing villain. He was a man on a mission who wants loyalty. Plus he has no care for Kal-El, he's either on board or not. He's almost getting revenge on Jor-El by hurting Kal, which he told Holo JOr-El.

Like Jor-El taking control of Zods ship and not blasting it out of orbit.

He didn't when he first took over because his son and Lois were on it. Also, considering that the computer program on Zod's ship was able to knock him out, it's safe to say his power was limited anyway. He only opened doors and changed the atmosphere.

Like the horrendous product placement?

Personal problem. It happened in the real world, they didn't focus on the product placement for a whole scene like WS and AoU did. Plus that has no effect on the plot. Wanna complain about how he doens't have trunks on the outside as well?

Like that one joke in the movie?Not that there is only one, the specific joke. Like super technological krypton that genetically engineers their own population uses animals for transport?

... who said they used animals for transport? He flew one in the beginning which was his pet. Everyone else flew ships.

Insanely high expectations. My expectations were insanely low, because I heard about the critic points before I watched it. Grand scale destruction, happened in the comics, nothing new. Superman killing, shrug he was ready to kill darkseid before. But it still underwhelmed me when I watched it.

You contradict yourself here. You were complaining about all the things that he could have done, but say that destruction happens anyway.

@saintwildcard: I did not complain about the destruction my very first post was:

I don't have a problem with the destruction itself.

The destruction in the scene was not just to destroy stuff like in a Tranformers movie. It has purpose as we are seeing that they will be dealing with it in the sequel, something that should be admired as to where the Avengers just does a half assed apology and moves on. That fight was a big deal, it can't be dealt in a half assed way in the first movie (because we still don't know how the world will react to Superman, in Marvel they just accept them and move on, CLARK IS A F**KING ALIEN). Plus as we saw it was a fight between Power Experience and Fight Experience (who also had no regards for life), Superman did everything that he could in that fight and was evenly matched. Hulk Buster on the other hand was prepared with taking down the Hulk.

So what your really saying is that your have a preference for Superman and Man of Steel over Avengers and Avengers movies and you dislike that other people are critical of something you loved and now you want something to shove in their fat hypocritical face, for even daring to criticize something you like and treating something else you don't care for, in a better way? No? Maybe?

Can't just be that people have different expectations, for different characters, movies, that subjective elements of a movie can lean to having some people draw certain conclusions, just based on their intuition, and how that might differ from others, including the subjective negative and positive values we assign different ideas, how and why we make assumptions? All that? Like factually, was there really more damage in AoU? Your best mates with Joss Whedon and Zack Snyder and they go into great concrete detail about exactly how much financial, structural, environmental damage, lost of human life, all that was down to the exact cent? Or just based on your personal interpretation, one movie seemed to have more damage than the other? Which is fair, fairer, but just makes statements that ring with certainty, as if factual ring hollow. Then again different characters involved so thats a variable too… one of many variables actually, because the complaint for some isn't that damage occurred, rather the context and for some there is no complaint.

Also plenty of people are talking about the destruction in AoU and this isn't the first time people have even mentioned it in the context of "Hey hey, guys Man of Steel, you guys are hypocrites now right cause you know… you criticized a movie I love, but now a movie I don't care about as much did equal or worse… so admit it guys, Man of Steel was awesome or the movie you guys love more sucks, you hypocrites!!! Checkmate!" thats how it comes across.

I don't know, maybe its because I like and appreciate DC and Marvel movies, for the most part, and am a naturally critical person, so do not mind other peoples criticisms, sometimes I even agree with and criticize movies myself… but its still very easy to enjoy a movie even when its being criticized by myself and other people. So other people have different opinions and arguments than me? So what exactly? Its a movie? They pay for that entertainment, their interpretation is theirs to have, its fine, its okay. Not everyones viewing experience of a movie is going to be the same, destruction and deaths in movies are often intended by its creators to create drama and give high stakes to a situation. Viewer mileage will differ, some people may find such tactics cheap, others buy in and are engrossed, personally I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I can understand the complaints that it was too dark for and heavy for a Superman movie. I have long learned that my interpretation of Superman isn't the absolute or right one. Also people view and treat and have different expectations of different heroes. People also make assumptions and interpret tone differently as well on certain subjective/objective elements. Am finding Daredevil… quite dark, darker than the Marvel/DC movies, even though more people probably died in them respectively (MoS/AoU), because the violence in Daredevil is a lot more intimate and personal. Which is contextually fitting for that show, its format, its themes, its character development. Context. Context.

So I reject the premise there is some double standard, its just context, and how different individuals handle that context, on their own terms and when interacting with other individuals whose terms might be different as per their right as customers buying into fiction. Sometimes they may seem hypocritical, but actually have a sincere conversation with them, they probably have contextual reasons for the diversity/variety in their opinion/interpretation.

1.) your ether blind or a bloody liar, he clearly tried twice

at 1:31

and at 3:00 here

PS. BTFO!

2.) 3 people that are immensely more powerful and durable than the entire army of robots

1. Superman was halfway across the world when the WORLD ENGINE DESTROYED 99% OF METROPOLIS. I feel like I shouldn't have to keep saying this. Clark couldn't have done anything to prevent the destruction of the city.

2. The city in AoU was conveniently a random city in like, Ukraine or something. If it was New York there would be more outcry.

QFT

cuz haters gonna hate

This. And while we can clearly see that there was collateral damage from the movies' fights and prior battles, I think it is safe to say that the Avengers generally try to minimize civilian casualties.

I think it is safe to compare MoS' fights to "Dragonball Z" level fights, where the power levels of the combatants are so high that it might be impossible to minimize casualties, though.

i think its factual to say that, this is not in ANY way comparable, because the villains the avengers fought in ether film do not move even a 6th as fast as the kryptonians do.

superman saved lives by NOT, actively saving people one by one, it would have been utterly futile and would have accomplished nothing but brings zod's attention to them, superman saved hundreds by keeping zods attention on him and only him.

Here's my thoughts on it: (SaintWildcard pointed out it's from my blog)

Avengers: Age of Ultron is finally in U.S. theaters and comparisons to Man of Steelhave already begun. In Joss Whedon's sequel to The Avengers, an especially big focus is placed on the Avengers doing everything they can to make sure innocent people aren't harmed during their explosive and crazy battles. Obviously, this is pretty different from Superman's struggle with Kryptonian forces who sought to terraform Earth -- a process that would kill every single human on the planet. Do I think Superman could have done more in his conflict and he made a few foolish decisions? Absolutely. However, I do think the handling of destruction was used to illustrate different points in both movies. In Avengers: Age of Ultron, it's there to remind us that being a hero is all about saving people. In Man of Steel, it's all about showing the seemingly unbelievable nightmare Kal-El had to overcome in his very first conflict as a superhero.

First and foremost, I feel obligated to point out differences that should be obvious. In Avengers: Age of Ultron, the team is mostly full of experienced characters who have worked together and they follow Captain America, a guy who's just oozing hope and he makes you want to be a better person. When a train is speeding through a crowded area, would Quicksilver have saved civilians if Captain America hadn't given the order? If it wasn't for the super-soldier, would the speedster have focused on grabbing his sister, Scarlet Witch, and raced both of them to safety, only to then feel heartbreak as he realizes how many people were killed by that swift decision? With everything happening so quickly, I'd say it's a possibility and it's one worth thinking about. That just goes to show the influence Steve Rogers can have on even an inexperienced individual. In addition to being an experienced team led by a tactical genius with a heart of gold, it's worth noting the Marvel team had prep time and way more resources. As a battle with Baron von Stucker sent explosives into a city, Tony Stark had the means to order robots into the city and had them warn the people to evacuate. They don't listen to Stark's technology, but hey, A for effort, right? In the final conflict, the Avengers had time to warn the authorities about what's coming their way and did everything they can to help people evacuate. And then when everything did hit the fan, they still tried to save people while fighting plenty of Ultron robots. Each of them had their own task and they were often spread out. For many, the balancing act of saving people and defeating the immediate threats was fairly doable. They have experience in the field, many teammates, a whole lot of resources, and they even had time to prepare. DC's powerful hero didn't have any of those luxuries.

It's a pretty common misconception that Superman destroyed most of Metropolis. While Superman does make some errors in his fights -- don't worry, I'll address those in a bit -- it's the World Engine that's responsible for a vast majority of the destruction in the city. Some people called Zack Snyder's handling of those sequences "disaster porn." All of the violent madness didn't have me cheering or exclaiming "awesome!" It's not there to enthrall you; it's there to shock you. To me, it shows just how ridiculously formidable Superman's first challenge is. How can anyone hope to overcome something so disastrous? The movie didn't pull any punches; it showed us Zod's forces are heartless and they had no problem slaughtering humanity. They viewed us as ants and had no hesitation whatsoever crushing us under their absurdly strong and durable feet. This wasn't a threat that had me saying, "Yeah, Superman will obviously win and all will be well." It's a threat that had me thinking, "Superman needs to stop this right away because this is freaking insane and humanity has no chance stopping it on their own."

I would have loved to see a more inspiring big screen version of Superman, but instead what we did receive is one that I believe feels more appropriate for the DC Cinematic Universe's "realistic" tone. They're going for something different and, so far, I'm liking it. Clark spent his entire life holding back and avoiding conflicts. Now, his first day as a superhero is against characters who are just as powerful as he is and they're more experienced in combat. With civilians out of the way in the Smallville battle -- a luxury the Avengers didn't have -- this novice hero still attempted to move the fight twice (he failed both times as his enemies grabbed him). Even though the odds aren't in his favor, he's still able to save a few troops who are unlucky enough to be in the war zone. He obviously can't save everyone when two powerhouses are on top of him, but you can't really say he didn't try to, either.

"Why couldn't he fly Zod out of the city?" That's a question I often hear. It's just a one-on-one brawl, right? Well, I imagine it's for the very same reason that Iron Man couldn't take Hulk away from a populated region. Clark spends much of the skirmish getting handled; he's still new to using his powers against others and he's spent his entire life trying not to get into fights. He's the one who's knocked into orbit! During that encounter, much of the damage is caused by Zod's attacks. I'm not saying Superman didn't cause any damage, but it always baffles me how someone can watch the Battle of Metropolis with an open mind and say, "Yeah, Superman destroyed most of the city." When Zod throws Superman through multiple buildings, are we really blaming Big Blue for that destruction? Or what about when Zod takes down a building with heat vision? Or all of the damage the World Engine unleashed? When Superman does briefly have the edge, he's punching Zod between and around buildings. He's not smashing the villain through anything and everything he can -- a tactic that Zod used just moments later against the hero.

Look, I'm not saying Superman's actions are without blame. Stuff like his punch after the "you die or I do" line is obviously a big mistake. Part of me wonders whether that building was already empty. Seeing as that takes place quite some time after an alien ship started attacking the city, you would imagine most people have fled the buildings in that region. The first building the two go crashing into -- the one that Zod destroys with heat vision -- appears to be empty, after all. Honestly, it probably wasn'tcompletely empty, though. Aside from that punch and Superman smashing Zod's face against glass (which is pretty minor damage compared to what we regularly see in comics), I think a huge portion of the damage done in that encounter is because of Zod's actions, and with the alien general being on top of him, Superman doesn't exactly have time to fly around and pull everyone out of the rubble.

When the LexCorp truck hits a parking garage and blows up, Superman is left gazing at the chaos. I'd say there's two possible reasons for this. The first: the dude is simply staring at the blast and would probably love Michael Bay's movies. The second: he's looking in the structure to see if anyone needs help. I'd like to believe it's the latter and itseems safe to assume so, but seeing as Zod comes rushing in, there's no way to tell for sure. That said, I absolutely think Clark's responsible for taking at least a few lives in the Smallville fight. I mean, I do get what Snyder was going for when Clark lashed out. The hero spent decades holding back, but now, someone who can withstand his punches has crossed a line by attacking his mother. After years of attempting to keep it cool, Clark finally unleashes. He tackles Zod all the way through what appears to be power plants and they eventually plow through a gas station and the location explodes. There was at least one car at a pump and you know there's at least one employee in there. So, Clark snapping (I swear that pun is unintentional) absolutely resulted in killing at least two innocent people in that scene.

While I do think Clark made a few mistakes, it's important to remember this is his journey to becoming Superman and the guy just learned how to fly -- that really goes to show just how new he is to all of this. To top it off, he's on his own against overwhelming odds. I view it as someone doing everything they can to stand up against the ultimate threat and they'll push themselves as hard as they can to make sure the villain doesn't succeed. It may not be a "cheerworthy" action sequence, but that's also kind of why I love it; it's offering something different. He may not feel like the comic book Superman many have come to know and expect, but he held his own against a threat that seemed impossible to overcome. He didn't destroy the city. Because of his actions, much of Metropolis is still standing. (There's several shots that reveal just how vast the city is.) You may not like how he saved the day, but in the end, he did indeed save the entire planet and there were certainly more than a few instances of him putting himself in danger to save others throughout the movie. So, I still view Man of Steel as Clark's path to becoming Superman. Now that he's made his debut and protected Earth from its first alien threat, here's hoping the dude shows more of the qualities you'd expect from him in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. The first trailer shows how the world is reacting to him, but we've yet to see how he's responding to all of the praise and hatred. This will be a critical movie for the character.

If there's one thing both movies are guilty of, it's glossing over the ramifications of the destruction. In Avengers, the Battle of New York receives a little bit of follow-up, but it's mostly there to quickly say how the world feels about the team and then goes to offering more humor. In Age of Ultron, we see a statue is built that honors the humans who did what they could to protect each other on that day, but aside from a body count and talk of construction in Daredevil, the Battle of New York is basically forgotten before another large city (and in turn, the world) is put in danger. Tony Stark says he sends aid to the city ravaged by his fight with the Hulk and, in the big finale, the Avengers are able to get a majority of a city's population to safety. However, once the day is saved, it rushes to teasing the Marvel Cinematic Universe's future. We can assume Stark will once again send aid, but I imagine many people are now left without homes. A huge portion of the country was removed, after all. It would be fitting to see something like Stark saying he'll dedicate some of his resources to creating housing complexes and what not. You'd think he would feel a little guilty after his weapons previously caused so much pain and suffering to those people and now so many of them have lost everything they own.

In Man of Steel, we go from one of the most powerful scenes to a more lighthearted sequence. A major U.S. city just suffered a devastating attack and there's no follow-up whatsoever. There's no talk of Superman helping to search for people in the rubble or him helping them rebuild. It just jumps to business as usual. People are back in the city like nothing has changed! It's an odd move seeing as the world just witnessed such a colossal tragedy. Thankfully, it looks like the Battle of Metropolis will play a key role in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice's story. Better late than never, yeah?

Watching Avengers: Age of Ultron and then saying that's how the destruction should have been handled in MoS just isn't an opinion I agree with. They're totally different situations with totally different tones. I do understand why someone would feel that way, though. Could Superman have made a few smarter decisions? Absolutely. Do I think the handling in AoU is more inspiring? For sure. But to me, the horrifying and shocking way the destruction is handled in Man of Steel fits the story's tone. It goes to show just how staggering the alien invasion is and illustrates just how far Superman must go to save humanity. It's a movie that shows us how just one man stands against a devastating, overwhelming, and terrifying alien invasion. If people that powerful are going to clash in a populated area and it's taking a more "grounded" approach, the battle's going to be devastating no matter how much the hero tries to contain the damage.

Avengers: Age of Ultron reminds me why Captain America and his allies are heroes that deserve our admiration. As the world around them crumbles, they want to make sure they use their abilities to protect the people who are trapped in the middle of all the craziness. Man of Steel reminds me that Kal-El went through a ridiculously daunting and frightening experience to save humanity from his very own people. Both movies involve a whole lot of destruction, and both involve heroes doing everything they can to prevent the death of more innocent people. They just go about presenting it in completely different ways.

Although the last AOU fight was them saving civilians. Superman vs Zod and Hulk vs Ironman was literally the same thing.

Sorta, Stark had help from Banner creating the prep. Superman had no prep

*two thumbs way up*

@saintwildcard: nah spider-man is better

Can a brother get some context? What are you replying too?

@saintwildcard: everything

Zod was so highly skilled that he got his ass kicked by a scientist on Krypton.
Supes only had decades to adjust to the powers that Kryptonians get while on Earth, Zod had a day.