josai21's forum posts

#1 Posted by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio

@amazingwebhead: I do agree to a point. The world has generally disliked Superman for being too perfect. However I feel Man of Steel changed that for a lot of people. At least in terms of the general populace. Superman was still an inherently good character, but he's not perfect. He can be killed. He can make mistakes, but ultimately he persevered and survived.

I didn't dislike Superman before this movie...but I certainly had no desire to know more about him or care about his character. Man of Steel changed that for me.

#2 Posted by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: He actually does have the legal right. This was self-defense. It was not like he could just hold Zod back. Zod was about to kill that family.

Superman does not have the deputized right to kill in the same way as a police-officer or soldier. You are correct in that; however self-defense is allowed. It's not like he had any other choice.

I understand where you are coming from in terms of it not fitting previous incarnations of his character. I do understand that. I just don't think that the movie should get all the hatred it does because of this point. This is a Superman for the modern era. And while it is not true for all, to many this movie made Superman interesting again. It appealed to the common audience.

Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of things wrong with this movie (Pa kent's whole spiel about hiding things; why didn't jor-el tell them about the phantom zone thing from the beginning; product placement)...but the killing thing is not something wrong with the movie. It is highly different, but not wrong.

My apologies for my frustrated earlier sentiments. It had been a rough day, but I should not have taken it out on you. My point comes from long irritation from the whole "killing makes us just as bad as them" train of thought. My apologies.

#3 Edited by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: The entire premise of your argument is flawed. You are arguing this on a basis of decades of comic book history that states that these things are integral to his character. Why should they be integral to his character? What reason do we have other than, 'oh it's superman.' There has to be a logical reasoning for him not to kill in this timeline. If it was written with all that back story then yes I would disagree with it, but quite frankly there has to be a logical reason other than some esoteric morality that is flawed even in the comic books.

Also I am appalled that you call Clark killing Zod murder and 'compromising his morals'. By that logic every soldier who has fought in the defense of their country and killed someone should be in prison for "murder." There is a huge difference between killing someone and murdering someone.

Just because you kill someone in self-defense (For example: a police-officer, or a person on a street defending themselves, Or Clark killing Zod to save that family) does not mean that you are not a good person. Your argument is an insult to the people who defend innocent civilians.

Clark Kent gets his morals his parents. Ma and Pa Kent are from Kansas farmland which most likely means they support soldiers and police officers etc. Clark has no reason to think otherwise that it is wrong to kill in self-defense based on these morals.

#4 Edited by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: Sheesh, People really don't understand the whole death thing do they?

It is correct that Superman in the Comics does not kill people. Why should that be a thing in the movie? Superman decides not to kill Zod. Why? Why shouldn't he kill this threat to his home?

People will state is the morals of Pa and Ma Kent. That does not mesh with the current modern culture of Kansas. People on a farm like that will typically be all for Gun Rights and while they might not like it...they view a soldier killing an enemy as the right thing to do.

So how does Clark Kent as Superman raised by this kind of mentality make the decision not to kill a huge threat to his home? Simple. He doesn't. He makes the decision that rends his heart in two. He in mental anguish kills the last of his race to protect humanity.

You want to talk about hope? This is it. Clark put aside his own desire to belong for humanity. Because he hopes that the human race will be better.

On a final is the fact that Clark killed the 'last' of his race that will make the no killing thing an integral part of his character. He has destroyed the 'last' of his race and the pain that causes will make him decide to never kill again.

#5 Edited by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio

@joygirl: The first one was the best; but if you can, get KOTOR 2 for PC and get the Sith Lords restored content mod. It adds so much to the game that was cut. Fixes a good portion of the bugs as well. It makes the story make more sense.

#6 Posted by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio
#7 Edited by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio

@sasukemilesmorales: Miles would

A. Have to find Bruce.

B. According to Marvel Wiki, Miles only has camoflage. Not true invisibility. It's dark and everything, so sight is basically nonexistent. But Bruce has fought invisible foes before. He is trained to fight without his sight.

"Miles, including his clothing, can blend into his surroundings, allowing him to sneak up on his enemies or, in some cases, flee from them. The resulting effect closely resembles that of invisibility."

C. Miles would have to think to use that on Bruce. Bruce disappears and disengages. Miles thinks the guy's fled. Why would he need to go invisible. Might be different in morals off, but I see Miles charging after Bruce.

Edit: Just to clarify, Miles has all the physical stats needed to beat Batman. In a pure unadulterated fight, Miles wins. Unfortunately, Miles lacks the experience/intelligence at this time to take Bruce down. Give Miles a few more years and I'd say Miles hands down.

#8 Edited by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio

At the moment? I gotta give it to Batman. Batman has fought similarly powered characters before with no prep and though he got tore up, he still won.

The reason I say at the moment is as others have stated, Experience. When People say no prep/Bruce gets torn apart, a lot of times they are thinking that no prep means Bruce is going to Rush in. That's not who he is. Bruce, when facing an unknown meta (and he will assume such due to Mile's costume) will most likely attempt to retreat and observe. He won't be rushing in.

In a straight up brawl? Yeah, Miles wins. However considering the darkness and everything...Bruce will be able to retreat and observe. He has the experience Miles doesn't to be able to slip away and lose him. So Bruce slips away, observes, and takes Miles out.

#9 Posted by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio

Technically Bulma is the most powerful of all these. I *might* get past Lois Lane, but Bulma stops any human being.

#10 Posted by josai21 (62 posts) - - Show Bio

Doctor Strange? Has his his movie been given a date yet?