Amph Here's Some Money, Go See A Swap Thing: DCU/Elseworlds Discussion

I all the nitpicking. Everyone's trying to find every moment in The Avengers & Man of Steel where someone tried to protect someone or acted flippantly when civilians were in danger. I mean, Jesus. These details are never going to make someone be like, "Oh, you're right, that movie was good" or "Oh, I guess that movie was terrible after all." When a movie is good, we forgive the nits we could pick; when a movie is bad, we don't mind picking the nits. That's all there is to it. You can nitpick a good movie for all you're worth; it'll still be a good movie.

 

That Humbert fellow... why couldn't he just have admired a girl of the right age!

 

That's just an inherent problem with the genre. Big massive superpowered fights (which are also extremely destructive) are an established part of the genre, and them happening in highly-populated areas is because writers believe that it "raises the stakes." More immediate danger and all that. Stuff like what happens in Avengers, or MOS, happens ALL the time in the comics. Also, in the finale of JLU, Superman intentionally punches Darkseid through like five skyscrapers (and we clearly see people directly below looking up at it) and then slammes him down into the heart of Metropolis causing a massive crater. And that was an older, more experienced Superman who'd been doing it for years (unlike MOS Superman, who had no real training, had never been in a real fight before, and had just put on the costume for the first time like a day before Zod and co shows up). I could also point out all of the people that likely died/were maimed when those three massive hellicarriers crashed into Washington DC at the end of TWS, and Cap and co's plan seemingly was ALWAYS to get them to destroy each other.

It's part of the reasons why storylines like, say Civil War are so hard to pull of well (or at least in Big Two comics anyway). They're intentionally pointing out this flaw, but it's a flaw that kind of has to be there. So the same type of things that CW was commenting on STILL happen a lot in Big Two comics, nothing really changes (which renders the commentary pretty meaningless).

 

Except that I don't buy that he could have moved the fight. He DIDN'T have control of the fight from what I saw, he was barely holding his own against Zod because he had a strength advantage (due to being on Earth for longer) and even that was disappearing since Zod was getting stronger by the second. Zod was constantly throwin him around and Superman was lucky to get Zod in that chokehold at all (if they'd landed differently, the reverse might very well have happened).

And even if I bought that he was in control, the question that I keep asking (and no one has been answer) is then what? He cannot imprison Zod since no prison can hold him, he cannotsend him to the Phantom Zone because the drive had been destroyed, and Zod made it clear that he' NEVER going to stop. So what was he supposed to do, keep forever because then he'd definitely lose eventually. And that's another thing, Zod made it clear that his only goal by that point was to make Superman suffer by killing everyone on the planet. So Superman tries to move the battle, Zod says "later sucker," and then proceeds to everyone in the city. It's also why the SII/Returns comparisons don't work. Reeves/Routh Superman was much more experienced (which a lot of people simply refuse to acknowledge) and Stamp-Zod wasn't trying to kill EVERYONE.

And finally, he didn't move the fight into Metropolis, it was already there. As for the Martha thing, reacting rashly/angry when your mom's life is threatened. What an incredibly belivable/human reaction (on that a lot of us would probably have).

Oh and btw it was Zod who threw the tanker at Superman. Can people at least get basic facts right if they're going to complain please?

 

Frankly, I had no issue with Superman killing Zod. The issue I had was the ridiculous way they motivated it. Those civilians who were "trapped" by the heat vision or whatever had a totally clear path to safety. That was maybe the most ridiculous single moment in the film.

 

That's because if you want a good motivation for a character with a staunch ethical code to kill as a last resort you have to earn it and show a fair amount of ramifications. Goyer and Snyder were less concerned with a satisfying - albeit depressing, because of course such a moment ought to be a downer - character moment than they were with simply having "Our Superman is willing to kill people!" as a rebuttal, because it's not your dad's pansy pacifist Superman, man. Any lip-service given to a lack of alternatives or the full minute, possibly even a brutal minute and a half, of resulting introspection is their acknowledging the need for such trappings without actually wanting to include them.

 

Followed immediately by:

//destroys millions of dollars of government equipment for doing... exactly what the government should be doing with an unknown quantity

"I'm as American as they come!"

 

To get away for a moment from this thread's ur-debate, the official Batman v. Superman plot synopsis dropped, complete with sensational new mild spoilers!

http://comicsalliance.com/official-batman-vs-superman-plot-synopsis/ (Note also that the article contains a rumor that may very well be a huge spoiler, though they warn you before you get to it)

The synopsis reveals why they're fighting. Is it for Lois Lane's affections? Is it over who needs to pay off the tab at the café? Is it because it is only with fists that one can understand the soul of a man? Is it because they're at war, huh, good God y'all, what is it good for? Nope, it's because

Spoiler

Batman doesn't think Superman should be allowed to operate freely. Literally no surprises here, folks.

 

Wait

Does that mean...

Spoiler

Batman hasn't been operating freely?!? Otherwise... what? PS - I'm not reading the rest of the link because of potential major spoiler as you said.

 

It's unclear.

Spoiler

They don't talk about it either way. It's entirely possible that Batman just assumes he's "naturally" kept in check by virtue of being human, I guess?

 

Spoiler

Kept in check like all of the other humans in his entire Rogue's Gallery? Like the Joker?

 

It was "Grounded", where Clark felt guilty for the deaths caused by the war between Earth's heroes and Zod's forces. He began wondering the US with the intention of trying to relate to people again, since he had spent more time on New Krypton than on Earth. And to show that he did care. It wasn't the best of stories, though once JMS left the title and Chris Roberson took over. But the idea of Superman failing, as with other DC heroes, was one of the things to come out of the first Crisis. The 1992 story, "Crisis At Hand" illustrated that Superman couldn't save everyone when Dan Jurgens and Louise Simonson decided to expand upon the domestic disturbance incident from Action Comics #1, by showing that there was a failure after all. Likewise, Dan Jurgens two "Metropolis Mailbag" stories from 91 and 92 illustrated how frustrating it is to be Superman and not fix every problem.

The another way comes from the old adage that Superman always finds another way, which was the mantra of the Silver and Bronze Age Superman. The downfall of that is that it eventually became boring and helped in sales of his books diminishing. Having Superman kill in "The Supergirl Saga" opened up a whole new avenue to explore, which then had long term ramifications for the character and the DCU at large.

The Hulk stopped the Abomination because Betty told him to stop, otherwise the Hulk would have broke his neck or choked him to death.

That was a Richard Donner scene and was the last scene that he filmed for the second film, before going on to complete the first film.

In the Lester cut. In the Donner cut, they already made like the beast with two backs when he gives up his powers. Both versions though, he is told that he cannot be Superman and Clark Kent with a mortal woman. He had to choose between endless service or giving it up to be a normal person.

As to

Spoiler

being kept in check, I think it refers to something like this...

 

Richard Donner is the man. Although, I still have yet to watch the Donner cut of Superman II.

 

I'm totally fine watching this movie because the twist they "hint" at is clearly them teaming up to fight Lex Luthor, which...is sort of how most of their team-ups play out, actually.

But yeah, if Zizek thought The Dark Knight was really a treatise on the merits of an authoritarian state, I can't wait to see what he thinks of this movie.

 

Images of Wonder Woman's Costume. YAY! (and Batman and Superman but I don't care about them)
http://collider.com/batman-vs-super...ersocial&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Are SPOILERS in check here? Can we post the Wonder Woman images?

 

It'll be this but with more beard and Slovenia.

 

Looks like the WW suit from Injustice: Gods Among Us

 

Looks like her current JL costume to me. Not 100%, but close. The writing on her sword/shield is interesting. If they're creating an Amazonian language/alphabet for the film-verse, then that'd be a nice touch (I'd like to see Atlantis get one as well).

 

I'm still surprised some people honestly thought her costume was bronze and brown and not obviously red, blue, and gold.

 

That Wonder Woman costume is pretty badass.

And the Batman suit is the boss.

Superman still is need of color around the waist.

 

A clip from the upcoming animated film Justice League: Gods and Monsters Chronicles, featuring a twisted Harley Quinn.





Also an interesting article:
Bruce Timm on Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel" Ending: "I Wanted To Do That"

 

That's about it. T o things though. I wish WW belt whatwver was W, and her sword looks plastic.

 

Her sword is plastic!

 

Nah, I assumed it was all actual props and costumes.