#1 Edited by Termination (74 posts) - - Show Bio

Man of Steel was really good as far as comic book movies go, but I've just been getting the feeling that people are overrating his power.

First off, people claim he could "mop the floor with the entire Avengers team." What did Superman do, other than withstand an artificial gravity beam and break buildings, to suggest he is better than Thor alone? Sure, he's faster and probably stronger, but do people forget that Thor leveled a city-sized landmass with Mjolnir? Do they forget that Hulk actually has better strength feats? And that he failed to support the oil rig? Now, for the fans of MoS that are about to say that it's because the floor broke and not Superman's lack of strength, you're wrong. Superman was screaming and passed out, he wasn't strong enough to hold the oil rig.

Second: his feats are overestimated. He broke a whole lot of buildings, but that's not very quantifiable at all. The world engine is also overestimated. Gravity doesn't work the way people think it does. The fact that he resisted a gravity beam that altered Earth's environment doesn't actually make him that strong. Right now, we're resisting the gravity that pulls the moon through its orbit, the gravity that pulls the ocean in its tide. See what I'm saying? Also, people like to use the black hole feat, but forget that it wasn't strong enough to pull Lois off her feet. Therefore, that feat is utterly useless. People just seem to look at the amount of damage they caused and think: "wow, he's amazingly powerful." When in reality, he isn't.

So in all honesty, I think MoS Superman is much weaker than people claim he is. I'll probably get a lot of hate for this, but I'm just throwing it out there.

#2 Posted by ColaNicole (598 posts) - - Show Bio

I think he's got the potential to be as powerful as people claim. If he was completely one with his abilities then he could probably take the avengers with speed alone. It's really hard to say. We haven't seen what the avengers can really do. It's not like their film showcased any of their feats.

#3 Posted by silkyballfro94 (1827 posts) - - Show Bio

I think we'll have to wait for more movies. Superman had never perfected his superpowers and the avengers had just one movie between all of them. In my opinion, if Man of Steel Superman is shown in his more experienced years. I think he STOMPS The Avengers hard.

#4 Posted by Guardian_of_Gravity (2979 posts) - - Show Bio

Speed makes killers out of CD discs and Hay straws, and Man of Steel was one of the few CBMs to properly display super speed. None of this slow-mo nonsense, just blurs that left you with a sense of being overwhelmed and in awe.

Unless Thor shows something way the hell impressive in his upcoming movie, Clark is just out of their league.

#5 Edited by ThatGuyWithHeadPhones (11512 posts) - - Show Bio

No, I don't see anyone calling it DA GREATEST MOVIE EVAR most people say it's a pretty good movie, which it was.

Edit: Oh you mean feat wise, well...I guess but that mainly because how vague the action was I mean he and Zodd were crashing thought building yet there was not a single scratch on them.

Shine on you crazy Diamond

ThatGuyWithHeadPhones

#6 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (11426 posts) - - Show Bio

People confuse the idea of what overrated and underrated means.

Even when the word itself say what it means.

No, it just show how overrated and over hyped Marvel characters are.

#7 Posted by DareHulk (216 posts) - - Show Bio

There will be always be fanboys of characters, Superman wouldn't stomp the Avengers. Would he win? Maybe, it's possible but he wouldn't stomp. That's the same as people saying Hulk can be as strong as infinity, or Batman can beat anyone given preparation. Fanboy overhyping can happen to any character.

#8 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (11426 posts) - - Show Bio

@darehulk said:

There will be always be fanboys of characters, Superman wouldn't stomp the Avengers. Would he win? Maybe, it's possible but he wouldn't stomp. That's the same as people saying Hulk can be as strong as infinity, or Batman can beat anyone given preparation. Fanboy overhyping can happen to any character.

He stop an alien invasion by itself.

An alien invasion, that was an actual invasion, not just some random aliens that decide to just walk around a city and destroy cars.

Please dont go with the random argument, it was a better invasion, because they had a plan, an invasion mean take the place, the best to take a place is to destroy any enemy force you could have, cars arent weapons, they never even try to attack the army, just go and attack cars for some reason.

#9 Posted by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

Miss-leading thread title.

Man of Steel was really good as far as comic book movies go, but I've just been getting the feeling that people are overrating his power.

First off, people claim he could "mop the floor with the entire Avengers team." What did Superman do, other than withstand an artificial gravity beam and break buildings, to suggest he is better than Thor alone? Sure, he's faster and probably stronger, but do people forget that Thor leveled a city-sized landmass with Mjolnir? Do they forget that Hulk actually has better strength feats? And that he failed to support the oil rig? Now, for the fans of MoS that are about to say that it's because the floor broke and not Superman's lack of strength, you're wrong. Superman was screaming and passed out, he wasn't strong enough to hold the oil rig.

Second: his feats are overestimated. He broke a whole lot of buildings, but that's not very quantifiable at all. The world engine is also overestimated. Gravity doesn't work the way people think it does. The fact that he resisted a gravity beam that altered Earth's environment doesn't actually make him that strong. Right now, we're resisting the gravity that pulls the moon through its orbit, the gravity that pulls the ocean in its tide. See what I'm saying? Also, people like to use the black hole feat, but forget that it wasn't strong enough to pull Lois off her feet. Therefore, that feat is utterly useless. People just seem to look at the amount of damage they caused and think: "wow, he's amazingly powerful." When in reality, he isn't.

So in all honesty, I think MoS Superman is much weaker than people claim he is. I'll probably get a lot of hate for this, but I'm just throwing it out there.

This sounds a lot like you're flame baiting the community to argue with you. Either way every character is overrated here on the battleforums. And for all his power he was pummelled by movie critics - so I wouldn't say he's overrated critically. Some people seemed to like the movie and that's what matters at the end of the day.

This is the wrong forum at the end of the day.

#10 Edited by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

@deathpoolthet1000 said:

An alien invasion, that was an actual invasion, not just some random aliens that decide to just walk around a city and destroy cars.

Please dont go with the random argument, it was a better invasion, because they had a plan, an invasion mean take the place, the best to take a place is to destroy any enemy force you could have, cars arent weapons, they never even try to attack the army, just go and attack cars for some reason.

Plot devices stopped both invasions. He couldn't do it all on his lonesome when you had single characters that rolled him over in fights. Funny images - though.

As for the invasion without a plan. The whole plan was centered around taking down the Avengers - in a sense crumbling any sense of hope humanity has by killing it's heroes in a public display. The damage infrastructure did well enough to isolate people and the death toll would have made it unlikely to see much resistance after a while given Loki's sporting the superior equipment and numbers. The only reason it was somewhat contained was the Avenger's resistance.

@deathpoolthet1000 said:

People confuse the idea of what overrated and underrated means.

Even when the word itself say what it means.

No, it just show how overrated and over hyped Marvel characters are.

You took the flame-bait.

#11 Posted by Guardiandevil83 (5782 posts) - - Show Bio

Once. Just once I would like to log in to comicvine and not see angry nerds comparing one brand to another. "Marvel is stupid..and if you like it, Then your stupid" "Nah son DC is the realest, Marvel sucks balls" TDKR vs Avengers. Nolan vs Whedon. Over and fking over!

Damn mix it up atleast. Can a brotha get some Valient vs Dynamite in this bisch

#12 Posted by blastaar (110 posts) - - Show Bio

Some people say it's the best comic book movie ever made. I don't know if that's true or not, but its up there. I think The Dark Knight is the best so far. People who claim its complete garbage have to be trolls, either mad the movie didn't go the way they wanted to or hating on it just for fun.

#13 Posted by The_Titan_Lord (6764 posts) - - Show Bio

@darehulk said:

There will be always be fanboys of characters, Superman wouldn't stomp the Avengers. Would he win? Maybe, it's possible but he wouldn't stomp. That's the same as people saying Hulk can be as strong as infinity, or Batman can beat anyone given preparation. Fanboy overhyping can happen to any character.

He stop an alien invasion by itself.

An alien invasion, that was an actual invasion, not just some random aliens that decide to just walk around a city and destroy cars.

Please dont go with the random argument, it was a better invasion, because they had a plan, an invasion mean take the place, the best to take a place is to destroy any enemy force you could have, cars arent weapons, they never even try to attack the army, just go and attack cars for some reason.

Nice. lol.

#14 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (11426 posts) - - Show Bio

@isaac_clarke: They never show they wanted to kill the Avengers, they just were a bunch of guys that were in there, that is just you trying to find any plan behind thi, i mean it looks like they never got a plan, there is no evidence that Loki wanted to go to Asgard as many people say, we only have evidence he wanted to be capture by Shield.

This is like when The Joker in Batman 89 goes to the streets and people go around him all happy, even when 5 minutes ago he pretty much said he poison all food, water, medicine and said he was going to kill everybody.

Is obvious that if you want to cause people to get against the Avengers, you should destroy as much as you can, not only try to kill them, besides this is a plant earth that has a bunch of super humans, caring for the random one that decide to use a costume is a bad idea.

Worst since the X Men got a cameo in Ironman 1 and they are trying to get Spiderman a cameo.

Since The Wolverine pretty much confirms that Wolverine cant be killed, he is a bigger risk that the Avengers, Xavier and Magneto too.

The army are more people and have more power, is like saying that if you invade Irak, the logic thing is too look for the people that know how to fight in the country and dont care about the army.

The bad guys looks to have no plan, they only attack at random thing and never try to actually invade.

Destroy the army, then go and attack the goverment and the last thing in your list are The Avengers, since they are 7 mortals, i mean is obvious that there are way more people with powers that them, only attacking the Avengers make no sense.

Is like making a plan to invade earth and only attack the USA army, because if the USA army is killed the earth is doom, even when the rest of the world also have armies and other countries have bigger armies or there is guerillas around the world, besides they decide not to destroy the nuclear weapons, because the USA army was a bigger problem.

It makes no sense, like attacking the Avengers and Shield, even if they died, there is more people that will fight and the bigger chances people will fight, 6 billion humans are a bigger risk that The Avengers, a team of people that most of human never hear about them and mean nothing to them, since it was their first mission.

#15 Posted by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

@isaac_clarke: They never show they wanted to kill the Avengers, they just were a bunch of guys that were in there, that is just you trying to find any plan behind thi, i mean it looks like they never got a plan, there is no evidence that Loki wanted to go to Asgard as many people say, we only have evidence he wanted to be capture by Shield.

This is like when The Joker in Batman 89 goes to the streets and people go around him all happy, even when 5 minutes ago he pretty much said he poison all food, water, medicine and said he was going to kill everybody.

Is obvious that if you want to cause people to get against the Avengers, you should destroy as much as you can, not only try to kill them, besides this is a plant earth that has a bunch of super humans, caring for the random one that decide to use a costume is a bad idea.

Worst since the X Men got a cameo in Ironman 1 and they are trying to get Spiderman a cameo.

Since The Wolverine pretty much confirms that Wolverine cant be killed, he is a bigger risk that the Avengers, Xavier and Magneto too.

The army are more people and have more power, is like saying that if you invade Irak, the logic thing is too look for the people that know how to fight in the country and dont care about the army.

The bad guys looks to have no plan, they only attack at random thing and never try to actually invade.

Destroy the army, then go and attack the goverment and the last thing in your list are The Avengers, since they are 7 mortals, i mean is obvious that there are way more people with powers that them, only attacking the Avengers make no sense.

Is like making a plan to invade earth and only attack the USA army, because if the USA army is killed the earth is doom, even when the rest of the world also have armies and other countries have bigger armies or there is guerillas around the world, besides they decide not to destroy the nuclear weapons, because the USA army was a bigger problem.

It makes no sense, like attacking the Avengers and Shield, even if they died, there is more people that will fight and the bigger chances people will fight, 6 billion humans are a bigger risk that The Avengers, a team of people that most of human never hear about them and mean nothing to them, since it was their first mission.

First off - this nonsense about Loki wanting to go to Asgard or something doesn't make any sense. He was bitter about his removal by Thor from the throne and wanted to get back at him by taking the Earth for his own / carve his own place in the universe by having his own kingdom. He strikes a deal with Thanos - the cube for an army to take over Earth. I'm not going to argue the effort the film puts to have Tony Stark tell the audience exactly what Loki's intent behind striking at the Hellicarrier 'making it personal' and wanting to beat them in-front of the public.

There's nothing implied about him trying to turn the public against the Avengers or exactly what other super humans are on Earth at this point (that's what the SHIELD TV series to go into).

Wolverine was nearly killed in 'The Wolverine' more than once. He's also currently in a different continuity. The X men didn't get a cameo in IM1. This train of logic you're going on about sounds more like you are the OP and me bothering to try to discuss anything with you seems to be reverse 'flame bait.'

With that I'm done here.

#16 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (11426 posts) - - Show Bio

@isaac_clarke: Again, nothing of this is show or even implied in the movie, this is more people trying to make the comics fit the movies, but not explain in the movie at all.

Is the exact none sense that The Joker did everything without help, even when TDK shows you he was working with the mobsters and crazy people, besides the fact he had millions and millions of bucks to pay anything he needs.

Ironman 1, you can see the things Tony needs to know are in the air, so he dont crash with them, the image of the X Jet can be seen in the movie, they dont call it the X Jet, but still, is the image of the X Jet and his actual name.

Wolverine got hit by a bullet in the brain and by a sword in the heart, the guy is still alive, the only way to kill him, looks to be to stop his powers, you need to know him to get into this theory, aliens that have no idea about Wolverine would get in huge problems, since the guy survive a bullet to the brain and a sword into the heart.

#17 Posted by PowerHerc (85043 posts) - - Show Bio

No.

The movie wasn't overrated and neither is Superman's power.

#18 Edited by russellmania77 (15666 posts) - - Show Bio

@darehulk said:

There will be always be fanboys of characters, Superman wouldn't stomp the Avengers. Would he win? Maybe, it's possible but he wouldn't stomp. That's the same as people saying Hulk can be as strong as infinity, or Batman can beat anyone given preparation. Fanboy overhyping can happen to any character.

He stop an alien invasion by itself.

An alien invasion, that was an actual invasion, not just some random aliens that decide to just walk around a city and destroy cars.

Please dont go with the random argument, it was a better invasion, because they had a plan, an invasion mean take the place, the best to take a place is to destroy any enemy force you could have, cars arent weapons, they never even try to attack the army, just go and attack cars for some reason.

yes.... yes

#19 Edited by MonsterStomp (19239 posts) - - Show Bio

No.

The movie wasn't overrated and neither is Superman's power.

#20 Posted by logy5000 (5927 posts) - - Show Bio

While I do agree that the title doesn't lead up to what I expected it to be, I do think people are assuming Superman is more powerful than he really is.

#21 Posted by ccraft (5384 posts) - - Show Bio

Once. Just once I would like to log in to comicvine and not see angry nerds comparing one brand to another. "Marvel is stupid..and if you like it, Then your stupid" "Nah son DC is the realest, Marvel sucks balls" TDKR vs Avengers. Nolan vs Whedon. Over and fking over!

Damn mix it up atleast. Can a brotha get some Valient vs Dynamite in this bisch

I've been feeling the same way

#22 Edited by Fallschirmjager (18391 posts) - - Show Bio

I think Man of Steel is underrated.

Best CBM of all time? No.

Damn good? Yup.

But then again, I also don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod when there was no other choice. I don't have a problem with Garfield spending approx 60 seconds of screen time riding a skateboard. And the lack of any real consequences in The Avengers didn't stop me from enjoying that movie either.

#23 Edited by dbatdog (548 posts) - - Show Bio

I think Man of Steel is underrated.

Best CBM of all time? No.

Damn good? Yup.

But then again, I also don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod when there was no other choice. I don't have a problem with Garfield spending approx 60 seconds of screen time riding a skateboard. And the lack of any real consequences in The Avengers didn't stop me from enjoying that movie either.

you didn't read the whole thread did you...its ok, its really misleading...

#24 Posted by Fallschirmjager (18391 posts) - - Show Bio
#25 Posted by Yokergeist (12355 posts) - - Show Bio

I think he could beat them all in a close fight.

#26 Posted by dbatdog (548 posts) - - Show Bio

I think he could beat them all in a close fight.

Thor and Hulk will be a major problem with Sups, the others, he can just throw them in space....

He could try throwing Thor and Hulk into the Sun...

#27 Posted by Emp3rorD4v1d (109 posts) - - Show Bio

wait,wait,wait. your saying that the avengers a team that together leveled a city against an army of aliens that are as strong as a normal human(except that giant worm) could defeat a guy who defeated 3 kryptonians, 2 at the same) that can level an entire planet ? your trolling right? supermans power isnt overrated in this movie. your talking about that flew at super sonic speeds,can speed blitz, can destroy ships with heat vision, punchres other beings as strong as him through walls.

#28 Posted by Saint_Wildcard (11344 posts) - - Show Bio

@dbatdog said:

@supernategames said:

I think he could beat them all in a close fight.

Thor and Hulk will be a major problem with Sups, the others, he can just throw them in space....

He could try throwing Thor and Hulk into the Sun...

Comics- The only one who's a threat is Thor and maybe Hulk, but Superman has beaten him twice already and with Superman's benching the earth feat, He just slaps Hulk into orbit. If he doesnt break a sweat he beats thor by about 6/10.

Movieverse- Superman stomps, none of them have high speed feats to catch up or hit Kal.

#29 Edited by Saint_Wildcard (11344 posts) - - Show Bio

@darehulk said:

There will be always be fanboys of characters, Superman wouldn't stomp the Avengers. Would he win? Maybe, it's possible but he wouldn't stomp. That's the same as people saying Hulk can be as strong as infinity, or Batman can beat anyone given preparation. Fanboy overhyping can happen to any character.

He stop an alien invasion by itself.

An alien invasion, that was an actual invasion, not just some random aliens that decide to just walk around a city and destroy cars.

Please dont go with the random argument, it was a better invasion, because they had a plan, an invasion mean take the place, the best to take a place is to destroy any enemy force you could have, cars arent weapons, they never even try to attack the army, just go and attack cars for some reason.

#30 Posted by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

If there was ever a thread to get locked because it was an obvious bait thread - this would be it.

#31 Posted by logy5000 (5927 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, the guy was right. He's getting a lot of hate for this.

#32 Edited by ImmortalOne (3495 posts) - - Show Bio
#33 Posted by JediXMan (30916 posts) - - Show Bio

@darehulk said:

There will be always be fanboys of characters, Superman wouldn't stomp the Avengers. Would he win? Maybe, it's possible but he wouldn't stomp. That's the same as people saying Hulk can be as strong as infinity, or Batman can beat anyone given preparation. Fanboy overhyping can happen to any character.

He stop an alien invasion by itself.

An alien invasion, that was an actual invasion, not just some random aliens that decide to just walk around a city and destroy cars.

Please dont go with the random argument, it was a better invasion, because they had a plan, an invasion mean take the place, the best to take a place is to destroy any enemy force you could have, cars arent weapons, they never even try to attack the army, just go and attack cars for some reason.

This is essentially the end of the Superman vs Avengers "debate." It really is that simple.

Not to mention an alien invasion involving people with better tech and were more powerful than anyone the Avengers ever fought.

Moderator
#34 Edited by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@deathpoolthet1000 said:

An alien invasion, that was an actual invasion, not just some random aliens that decide to just walk around a city and destroy cars.

Please dont go with the random argument, it was a better invasion, because they had a plan, an invasion mean take the place, the best to take a place is to destroy any enemy force you could have, cars arent weapons, they never even try to attack the army, just go and attack cars for some reason.

This is essentially the end of the Superman vs Avengers "debate." It really is that simple.

Not to mention an alien invasion involving people with better tech and were more powerful than anyone the Avengers ever fought.

Given plot devices saved the day in both films and any of the non-half-witt Kryptonians could have given Clark a run for his money - this interpretation of events just isn't accurate. Its clear the invaders in Avengers were bombing the hell out of their entry point, gathering people up to grenade them etc. Its just that the Avengers actually put some effort in keeping the fight on them / going out of their way to save people.

I mean hell Superman could have avoided the invasion with a bit of thought - less faith - more space dad(HISHE). Instead he just decides to go the massive collateral damage route for kick - even bullrushing Zod into populated cities. Its like a complete reversal of what the Avengers tried to do - for really no reason.

Just sayin.

#35 Edited by JediXMan (30916 posts) - - Show Bio

Given plot devices saved the day in both films and any of the non-half-witt Kryptonians could have given Clark a run for his money - this interpretation of events just isn't accurate. Its clear the invaders in Avengers were bombing the hell out of their entry point, gathering people up to grenade them etc. Its just that the Avengers actually put some effort in keeping the fight on them / going out of their way to save people.

On this note, I agree. I was mostly agreeing with the sentiment that Superman was able to face a threat equal to, or greater than, what the Avengers did alone ("alone" in the same way that the Avengers did it "alone," IE with the help of the military / SHIELD / the enemy's tech). That said, you have to admit that Superman faced more powerful foes.

Moderator
#36 Edited by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@isaac_clarke said:

Given plot devices saved the day in both films and any of the non-half-witt Kryptonians could have given Clark a run for his money - this interpretation of events just isn't accurate. Its clear the invaders in Avengers were bombing the hell out of their entry point, gathering people up to grenade them etc. Its just that the Avengers actually put some effort in keeping the fight on them / going out of their way to save people.

On this note, I agree. I was mostly agreeing with the sentiment that Superman was able to face a threat equal to, or greater than, what the Avengers did alone ("alone" in the same way that the Avengers did it "alone," IE with the help of the military / SHIELD / the enemy's tech). That said, you have to admit that Superman faced more powerful foes.

Superman's threat was greater - Zod was planning on killing everyone - Loki was just planning to enslave all man-kind. Both bad ends, but at least in the latter humanity gets to go on.

Sure - they were Kryptonians, not a bunch of Phantom Menaceisque foot-soldiers with lazer beams. I mean the biggest threat the Avengers dealt with were the floating space-whales and un-ending numbers of more stuff comming out of the portal. If it wasn't for Erik, the real hero, they would have died.

#37 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@isaac_clarke said:

@jedixman said:

@deathpoolthet1000 said:

An alien invasion, that was an actual invasion, not just some random aliens that decide to just walk around a city and destroy cars.

Please dont go with the random argument, it was a better invasion, because they had a plan, an invasion mean take the place, the best to take a place is to destroy any enemy force you could have, cars arent weapons, they never even try to attack the army, just go and attack cars for some reason.

This is essentially the end of the Superman vs Avengers "debate." It really is that simple.

Not to mention an alien invasion involving people with better tech and were more powerful than anyone the Avengers ever fought.

Given plot devices saved the day in both films and any of the non-half-witt Kryptonians could have given Clark a run for his money - this interpretation of events just isn't accurate. Its clear the invaders in Avengers were bombing the hell out of their entry point, gathering people up to grenade them etc. Its just that the Avengers actually put some effort in keeping the fight on them / going out of their way to save people.

I mean hell Superman could have avoided the invasion with a bit of thought - less faith - more space dad(HISHE). Instead he just decides to go the massive collateral damage route for kick - even bullrushing Zod into populated cities. Its like a complete reversal of what the Avengers tried to do - for really no reason.

Just sayin.

It's quite impressive how completely you misunderstood the entire movie. Well done. Talking to a Kryptonian, who Clark doesn't know if he can trust, considering it's just a virtual intelligence mimicking consciousness, about the coming Kryptonian invasion of Earth kind of defeats the whole purpose of Clark being a human deep down. He went to the human authorities because he was humanity's choice whether or not to hand him over. If he flew and attacked Zod's ship based on intelligence gained from his father's AI, he's just declared war on a foreign power in humanity's name, which is bad. And the massive collateral damage route wasn't done for kicks (saying that just proves how little you got the movie, not surprising since you're defending Avengers), it was done because when superbeings of godlike power fight on a scale as Clark/Zod did, the earth shakes. That's what happens. Cars don't get attacked and civilians ignored because the villain is an idiot, cities fall when gods go to war. That's the whole point. Superman saved the Earth, and protected as many people as he could against a vastly superior foe, but even he can't save everyone, because while's a god, he's not the God. The Phantom Drive was not a plot device either, since it was explained much earlier in the film what it would do, and how best to utilise it.

In Avengers, the mothership blows up and all the troops die for no reason that is ever explained. And "gathering people to grenade them", you know what's more effective than taking prisoners, escorting them to a building, and then waiting for Captain America to show up? ACTUALLY KILLING THEM.

#38 Posted by Wolverine08 (43637 posts) - - Show Bio

The only problems I had with MOS were Lois Lane, Pa Kent's death, Zod's death, and a little too much CGI.

Online
#39 Posted by DeathpooltheT1000 (11426 posts) - - Show Bio

@isaac_clarke said:

@jedixman said:

@deathpoolthet1000 said:

An alien invasion, that was an actual invasion, not just some random aliens that decide to just walk around a city and destroy cars.

Please dont go with the random argument, it was a better invasion, because they had a plan, an invasion mean take the place, the best to take a place is to destroy any enemy force you could have, cars arent weapons, they never even try to attack the army, just go and attack cars for some reason.

This is essentially the end of the Superman vs Avengers "debate." It really is that simple.

Not to mention an alien invasion involving people with better tech and were more powerful than anyone the Avengers ever fought.

Given plot devices saved the day in both films and any of the non-half-witt Kryptonians could have given Clark a run for his money - this interpretation of events just isn't accurate. Its clear the invaders in Avengers were bombing the hell out of their entry point, gathering people up to grenade them etc. Its just that the Avengers actually put some effort in keeping the fight on them / going out of their way to save people.

I mean hell Superman could have avoided the invasion with a bit of thought - less faith - more space dad(HISHE). Instead he just decides to go the massive collateral damage route for kick - even bullrushing Zod into populated cities. Its like a complete reversal of what the Avengers tried to do - for really no reason.

Just sayin.

It's quite impressive how completely you misunderstood the entire movie. Well done. Talking to a Kryptonian, who Clark doesn't know if he can trust, considering it's just a virtual intelligence mimicking consciousness, about the coming Kryptonian invasion of Earth kind of defeats the whole purpose of Clark being a human deep down. He went to the human authorities because he was humanity's choice whether or not to hand him over. If he flew and attacked Zod's ship based on intelligence gained from his father's AI, he's just declared war on a foreign power in humanity's name, which is bad. And the massive collateral damage route wasn't done for kicks (saying that just proves how little you got the movie, not surprising since you're defending Avengers), it was done because when superbeings of godlike power fight on a scale as Clark/Zod did, the earth shakes. That's what happens. Cars don't get attacked and civilians ignored because the villain is an idiot, cities fall when gods go to war. That's the whole point. Superman saved the Earth, and protected as many people as he could against a vastly superior foe, but even he can't save everyone, because while's a god, he's not the God. The Phantom Drive was not a plot device either, since it was explained much earlier in the film what it would do, and how best to utilise it.

In Avengers, the mothership blows up and all the troops die for no reason that is ever explained. And "gathering people to grenade them", you know what's more effective than taking prisoners, escorting them to a building, and then waiting for Captain America to show up? ACTUALLY KILLING THEM.

People often forgets that Superman dont save Metropolis, because he had to save mankind as a whole.

He Saves Metropolis and that means all humans dies, since the damn terraforming machine was a bigger problem.

Besides, they didn destroy as muchs as people like to say, they destroy the part of the Downtown.

#40 Posted by Batman242 (4862 posts) - - Show Bio

The only problems I had with MOS were Lois Lane, Pa Kent's death, Zod's death, and a little too much CGI.

The way Zod died in that situation was a bit, eh. But, it was still sort of a shocker, but it was necessary.

Everything else, I agree with you on.

#41 Posted by TheAcidSkull (18032 posts) - - Show Bio

If anything it is underrated.

#42 Posted by The_Titan_Lord (6764 posts) - - Show Bio

If there was ever a thread to get locked because it was an obvious bait thread - this would be it.

#43 Posted by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

It's quite impressive how completely you misunderstood the entire movie. Well done.

Why are you being defensive? Nothing I said worth getting worked up over and honestly Man of Steel isn't worth getting worked up over.

Talking to a Kryptonian, who Clark doesn't know if he can trust, considering it's just a virtual intelligence mimicking consciousness, about the coming Kryptonian invasion of Earth kind of defeats the whole purpose of Clark being a human deep down.

The first thing that comes to mind: What does Clark have to lose by asking his space-dad? He doesn't have to trust it, but there there for him to use. A fountain of information directly related to the threat at hand and its completely ignored. It comes off as stupid when the world is at risk.

He went to the human authorities because he was humanity's choice whether or not to hand him over. If he flew and attacked Zod's ship based on intelligence gained from his father's AI, he's just declared war on a foreign power in humanity's name, which is bad.

And why would it have mattered if he defeated Zod? The threat would have been gone and everyone would have been fine - assuming space dad could help.

And the massive collateral damage route wasn't done for kicks (saying that just proves how little you got the movie, not surprising since you're defending Avengers),

My 'defense' of Avengers consisted of pointing out that entire interpretation of both films was off. And why would me 'not getting' the movie prompt me to defend Avengers to begin with? Am I debating who would win in a fight? Am I proclaiming which was the better film? At the end of the day all I said is 'you're wrong - this isn't what happened in either film.'

I mean seriously - this response from you is over-top considering how I picked at what I considered to be something that came off as inherently silly to begin with.

it was done because when superbeings of godlike power fight on a scale as Clark/Zod did, the earth shakes. That's what happens.

And in all of Kansas - Clark had to pummel Zod into / through a major city why? Its like you're ignoring how inherently stupid Superman is comming off in this film by bringing the fight into a populated area under his own choice when he has literally dozens of other locations he could bullrush Zod into - threatening the life of Corn or Cows - rather than people.

Cars don't get attacked and civilians ignored because the villain is an idiot

And again - this isn't what happened in Avengers. Don't mistake the heroes actually - you know - being heroes and defending the people of New York as 'Loki's army just blows up cars / ignores people.' We're talking two situations where the invading force is planning to exterminate humanity regardless / the other is going to enslave.

, cities fall when gods go to war. That's the whole point. Superman saved the Earth, and protected as many people as he could against a vastly superior foe, but even he can't save everyone, because while's a god, he's not the God. The Phantom Drive was not a plot device either, since it was explained much earlier in the film what it would do, and how best to utilise it.

Don't recount Zack Snyder's defense of why there is so much unnecessary destruction in the film. I've already read them and even then I thought it was a silly excuse for Zack to have his destruction orgy for a third of the film. How is a plot device to get rid of the alien invaders not a plot device? The entire point is it is deus ex machine to save the day. Same happened in Avengers. Same happened in Independence Day.

Its not new - it happens in Greek Myth all the time. Why are you rejecting that notion?

In Avengers, the mothership blows up and all the troops die for no reason that is ever explained. And "gathering people to grenade them", you know what's more effective than taking prisoners, escorting them to a building, and then waiting for Captain America to show up? ACTUALLY KILLING THEM.

Its almost like these aliens where somehow connected the Mother-Ship. Don't mistake plot convenience for plot holes: and I believe the Marvel short with that alien weapon (which all their tech stopped working too after the mothership goes boom) goes into it more. Either way in regards to gathering people, that was Captain America - my bad:

You know - where Cap stops fighting off an alien invasion to organize the police to get people somewhere safe / keep them indoors so they wouldn't run into the line of fire. Hero stuff that Superman was too busy to do in his film as he plowed people through buildings. Don't let that stop you from jumping the Avengers hating gravy train for the sake of defending MOS.

BTW this thread is full-filling its purpose. I've said its a flame bait thread and apparently you folks are taking the bait.

Its clear the OP wants you to argue with someone that might agree with the notion that MOS is a flawed film. Its not that Avengers isn't perfect - but the point is to get the usual DC vs Marvel crowd in here and you're taking the bait.

#44 Edited by dum529001 (1635 posts) - - Show Bio

The fight coreography for "Man of Steel" could use some work.

How cheaply they made the CG in combination with how poorly they used it, mainly the lack of different angles and such, disappointed me. CG should not look like a videogame in this day and age. Take a look at the movies of last year, 2012, and you'll know what i'm talking about.

If you're going to do high-flying action then do it right.

How "Man of Steel" handled its CG was even more annoying than when I watched the Avengers and noticed how underused Thor was. They focused more on Hulk, and I like the Hulk, but I think the juicy parts of the action fighting should have been closer to equal between the two. The whole Aveners final battle fight could have used a bit more kick. The action should have been a bit more ramped up for every member of the team.