UltimateSMfan's forum posts

#1 Edited by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:
@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:

@ultimatesmfan said:

@innervenom123: yea and that's so silly,saying it bad cuz the writers did what no one else has ever done in that way.apparently superman has to always always overcome those situations even the one he was put in,in the movie n then that apparently makes him like us and hes supposed to be above us.....but he is above us,if this supes was anything like us he wldve seized every opportunity, gone all out and finished off zod from the start. what he did was the absolute last resort and even then the remorse shown was seriously powerful.

@eternal19 said:

I had a problem with it at first. But when i thought about it a bit, i understood that superman did the same thing to doomsday. I dont like the idea that they are using it to give a reason for why he doesnt kill. Now instead of refusing to kill because of an ideal, superman refuses to kill out of guilt. thats not the superman i read every month.

he still has ideals,why arn't ppl getting this,if he didn't he wld've finished zod off in from the start. its not guilt that gonna keep him from killing. he already had that ideal,and was completely forced to go against it and now he knows what it feels like to kill, so its not guilt,its that he'll try to never let himself be put in that kind of position again.

The only reason that Snyder and Goyer put that in the movie. Is to give a reason for why Clark doesnt kill, so they are pretty much saying that the pain of killing Zod was so much that he will never kill again. Which means that he refuses to kill out of guilt in my opinion. The Superman that i grew up with doesnt kill because he feels that it will lead to a better world. The superman in MOS refuses to kill because he doesnt want to go through the mental pain that comes with taking a life. Thats not my Superman.

hey that's fair, but in the movie he didn't just walk up to Zod and snap his neck, he avoided beating people up, he avoided killing, and in the last scene he said don't do this, he tried to talk him out of it first, so I doubt he had an objection simply because of guilt. He could have beat up the guy in the bar without killing him, and those bullies, he simply did not because standing down was just easier, he knew it was the better way. And people say "because it would raise questions" no it wouldn't...he is 6ft tall and huge, he could beat up people no questions asked.

Im saying that the entire scene was intended to give a reason for why clark doesnt kill. according to Snyder and Goyer, clark doesnt kill because he is scared of having to go through the mental pain of killing a person. That is guilt and shows that Goyer and Snyder dont know what Superman stands for. They were so focused on makeing him supposedly "relatable" that they forgot what made the character cool in the first place.

P.S. i personally enjoyed this movie. I understand that its a different version of Superman. But i definitly dont want this version to translate to the comics.

seems to me this version has already translated into the comics, the comics one is punch first ask questions later....and I don't know how many parademons he killed in that Justice League story. Seems to me the superman you don't want to carry over is already there but even worse. Unless you preferred that mouthy obnoxious one that mocked and taunted authority?

We're not even sure he actually killed a parademon. You must not have read the last several issues of action comics. Because he is more like the pre-new 52 superman.

Ya he's more like the pre-52 version After the 5 year timeline, when he was just begining he was still reckless and obnoxious. thats why it makes very little sense people hating on Mos,its still superman in like the first week he's donned the costume,not full fledged experienced Supes.

#2 Edited by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:
@w0nd said:

@eternal19 said:

@ultimatesmfan said:

@innervenom123: yea and that's so silly,saying it bad cuz the writers did what no one else has ever done in that way.apparently superman has to always always overcome those situations even the one he was put in,in the movie n then that apparently makes him like us and hes supposed to be above us.....but he is above us,if this supes was anything like us he wldve seized every opportunity, gone all out and finished off zod from the start. what he did was the absolute last resort and even then the remorse shown was seriously powerful.

@eternal19 said:

I had a problem with it at first. But when i thought about it a bit, i understood that superman did the same thing to doomsday. I dont like the idea that they are using it to give a reason for why he doesnt kill. Now instead of refusing to kill because of an ideal, superman refuses to kill out of guilt. thats not the superman i read every month.

he still has ideals,why arn't ppl getting this,if he didn't he wld've finished zod off in from the start. its not guilt that gonna keep him from killing. he already had that ideal,and was completely forced to go against it and now he knows what it feels like to kill, so its not guilt,its that he'll try to never let himself be put in that kind of position again.

The only reason that Snyder and Goyer put that in the movie. Is to give a reason for why Clark doesnt kill, so they are pretty much saying that the pain of killing Zod was so much that he will never kill again. Which means that he refuses to kill out of guilt in my opinion. The Superman that i grew up with doesnt kill because he feels that it will lead to a better world. The superman in MOS refuses to kill because he doesnt want to go through the mental pain that comes with taking a life. Thats not my Superman.

hey that's fair, but in the movie he didn't just walk up to Zod and snap his neck, he avoided beating people up, he avoided killing, and in the last scene he said don't do this, he tried to talk him out of it first, so I doubt he had an objection simply because of guilt. He could have beat up the guy in the bar without killing him, and those bullies, he simply did not because standing down was just easier, he knew it was the better way. And people say "because it would raise questions" no it wouldn't...he is 6ft tall and huge, he could beat up people no questions asked.

Im saying that the entire scene was intended to give a reason for why clark doesnt kill. according to Snyder and Goyer, clark doesnt kill because he is scared of having to go through the mental pain of killing a person. That is guilt and shows that Goyer and Snyder dont know what Superman stands for. They were so focused on makeing him supposedly "relatable" that they forgot what made the character cool in the first place.

P.S. i personally enjoyed this movie. I understand that its a different version of Superman. But i definitly dont want this version to translate to the comics.

seems to me this version has already translated into the comics, the comics one is punch first ask questions later....and I don't know how many parademons he killed in that Justice League story. Seems to me the superman you don't want to carry over is already there but even worse. Unless you preferred that mouthy obnoxious one that mocked and taunted authority?

Seriously!! people blindly forget the first 8 issues of action comics and then fast forward five years to the idealistic superman and everyones fine and dandy......this movie was an origin as well, he's not even superman yet,he's a guy discovering his heritage protecting his new home from the threat of his old one,And he's not an a$$ in the slightest,he handed himself over to the army for gods sake, this nitpicking is getting out of hand. everyones just forgotten he's been in a sense Superman for like a week or less.

#3 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

@gerald said:
@ultimatesmfan said:

@joshmightbe said:

I think the whole too much action complaint is weird because prior to this everyone was bitching about Superman not having enough action in his movies.

lol i kno right...

except for maybe the zod death Which is Highly debatable

That is what I want to debate. Did it "ruin" the movie for you?

Not in the slightest,keeping with the direction of the story and plot,it wasn't That much of a shock at all. its so lame people bashing the entire movie cuz of one detail,which if one paid attention and followed what was happening,would make perfect sense. and i commend the writers for having the stones to put Supes in that position which apparently he should never be in acc to some fans which i think is really stupid. anyway i don't kno how this is any less of "our" superman as people are saying.

#4 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't agree with any of your thoughts on the film I really enjoyed it. The movie set up Lex for the sequel well. As far as the other characters are concerned of course they can fit in here, the sci-fi elements in this film worked really well and if they make a good mature non marvelized green lantern film it easily fits in here,Flash as well, sci-fi elements- Speed force anyone. Plus if they can do this with Superman it won't be hard to do it with the others, granted the script is good. And there can be lots of comic relief when it comes to those characters but when it comes to serious battles joking then is just stupid.

#5 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

@drudox19 said:

Do people not get that MOS is the first film it isn't a third or second one yet and where losing are shit over a Superman that has been superman for what 2 DAYS!!!!!!! This is why these complaints anger me the fans tell me superman is relatable then when a film does that they want him to be mr perfect Silver Age Superman over night even though he was Superman for 2 days.

Dude,seriously! sometimes i dont get people....and im one of the diehard superman fans,i was really pleased with the film.

@drudox19 said:

or worse a Romantic Comedy with Superman in it.

Lol just thinking about this made me crack up..

#6 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

I think the whole too much action complaint is weird because prior to this everyone was bitching about Superman not having enough action in his movies.

lol i kno right...

When you look at the film as a whole every complaint against it except for maybe the zod death Which is Highly debatable is all just nit-picking blown out of proportion.....the fight scenes were long maybe,but one can't not admit it was the best representation of comic fights or at least what we would expect from a Kryptonian fight brought to the big screen.

#7 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh my God that Art!!! <3 and looks like Lobdell's got an interesting original story in the works so I'm game.

#8 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

@eternal19: if the writers really meant it like that then ya that would really suck.....im hopin that they intended that he was already averse to killing and being forced to kill zod and the remorse from that would just cement the aversion.Hence, solidifying the ideal....well thats all i can hope for.

#9 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

@innervenom123: yea and that's so silly,saying it bad cuz the writers did what no one else has ever done in that way.apparently superman has to always always overcome those situations even the one he was put in,in the movie n then that apparently makes him like us and hes supposed to be above us.....but he is above us,if this supes was anything like us he wldve seized every opportunity, gone all out and finished off zod from the start. what he did was the absolute last resort and even then the remorse shown was seriously powerful.

I had a problem with it at first. But when i thought about it a bit, i understood that superman did the same thing to doomsday. I dont like the idea that they are using it to give a reason for why he doesnt kill. Now instead of refusing to kill because of an ideal, superman refuses to kill out of guilt. thats not the superman i read every month.

he still has ideals,why arn't ppl getting this,if he didn't he wld've finished zod off in from the start. its not guilt that gonna keep him from killing. he already had that ideal,and was completely forced to go against it and now he knows what it feels like to kill, so its not guilt,its that he'll try to never let himself be put in that kind of position again.

#10 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1416 posts) - - Show Bio

What are people Talking about!? This is Superman,this is the character we know and this is who he is supposed to be, Firstly,this is an Origin Story......where do people get that he was ok with killing or he was willing to kill because of inexperience.....Seriously concentrating on one detail everyone overlooks all the others. He was never willing to kill he was forced to do it,hence the pleading with zod and the heart shattering Remorse shown directly after.....and oh my god on and on about the collateral damage,if you watch the movie carefully superman never tackled or punched Zod through anything!! the one place supes tackled Zod in the final fight was through an abandoned construction site when zod started flying. other than that Zod was controlling the battle cuz as he stated,if you paid attention and heard him,he was a trained soldier....No care for the people? after the world engine started f'in up the city don't you think people would start evacuating? seriously people give fictional people no credit. and you can chalk up Superman purely concentrating on Zod to prevent more destruction rather than shield the apparently blind people incapable of looking up and running the hell inside or underground to inexperience. Also if apparently Superman didn't care about the dumb-a$$ bystanders, why would he go against everything he believes in and kill Zod just to protect these people that were gonna fry in front of his face.

In the flash backs which covered like 20 minutes of his adolescence,we saw pa kent telling him he needs to keep his "special" side of him secret till he got it figured out,we didn't really see pa giving him his moral foundation but how is that not implied?? why else would he,wherever he goes if people were in trouble,help them? even at his own risk,not only because he didn't save his father,but because of his upbringing and the fact that he is a good person and also because he can.

and some people say they changed the core of the character...How? there are definitely changes but how does it change superman? because these writers dared to put him in a position no other writer has ever done before in this way? and then thats bad writing because Superman is not written to overcome that situation as apparently he always has to. he's still better than us,why else would he drag it out that long?im sure when he had the flight advantage he cldv'e taken out zod more easily,if as some people are saying here that Superman is above us and that he wouldn't kill and that this superman is like us,that really doesn't make alot of sense. if this superman was really like us he wouldnt give zod breathing room.he would have gone all out and killed him. we say prevention is better than cure right? then why didn't this apparently oh so human superman just finish him off in the start? forget being the last of his race, Zod was a monster threatening the World.

i thought this movie really humanized Superman,but not to the extent some people think just because of one detail. And thats my Opinion on the topic, i'm out.