Unpopular opinions go here

[Lanefan]

As for DC movies, unlike the MCU movies of which I quite like nearly all, the DC has offered rather slim pickin's over the years:

Wonder Woman is excellent. Fully on par with the best of the MCU.
Wonder Woman II isn't quite as good but still well worth it.
Batman Begins (2005) is very good.
Batman (1989) is good. You just can't cast any better than Jack Nicholson as the Joker....
Batman Returns is good. ...or Danny DeVito as the Penguin!
Aquaman has some great moments, too few and far between.

After that? For the ones I've seen, pretty much fuggeddaboudit. I've yet to see a Superman movie I wanted to see again; when Batman movies aren't good they're awful (include BvS here), and Justice League is - like Aquaman - both really good and really bad within the same movie.

 

[overgeeked]

While I respect the religious beliefs of others, witches are just as much a part of my cultural heritage as it is theirs. Just because some folks in the late 19th century decided to invent a new religion with witches doesn't mean the rest of us have to do without.

That’s certainly a take. The people following a real-world religion and their opinions about the use of their religion can take a back seat to your elfgame. That’s nice. Wonder where the line is on what religions you treat that way.

 

[MGibster]

That’s certainly a take. The people following a real-world religion and their opinions about the use of their religion can take a back seat to your elfgame. That’s nice. Wonder where the line is on what religions you treat that way.

Probably best to start a new thread rather than hijack this one. Or better yet, probably best to drop the discussion lest we attract the ire of devilish spirits.

 

[overgeeked]

Probably best to start a new thread rather than hijack this one. Or better yet, probably best to drop the discussion lest we attract the ire of devilish spirits.

Or...you know...respect people's religion and not use them as the bad guys in your elfgame.

 

[MGibster]

Or...you know...respect people's religion and not use them as the bad guys in your elfgame.

As witches are part of my cultural history, I'll use them as I see fit.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Pa Kent, however, has no concept of threats like Zod....

IDK. He would have seen human monsters like Hitler, Stalin and so forth. They’d have functionally the same personality, just not as much individual power.

The idea that there could be a super Hitler like his son is a super American wouldn’t be unimaginable.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: “Witches”

I 100% agree we need to be careful when dealing with people’s faiths, ethnicity, attributes, etc. The problem is this is a term that’s used in several ways in the English language- some of which are mutually exclusive. See also “Druids”, “Satanists”, “Dwarves” and other terms that pop up with different uses in fiction, RPGs, and real life.

It’s confusing and potentially inflammatory. When I ran a game for half a dozen Wiccans (all friends), it could have been awkward to use the term without being crystal clear. But witches were never part of the campaign.*

So IMHO, if potentially loaded terms are going to be used, it behooves the GM to to be clear with the other players what’s going on.






* That said, “witch” jokes were pretty common at that table, as well as in other social settings with those people.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Oh, no. I don't read it that way. Pa Kent drives it into the young Clark for his whole life that he must not reveal who he is or what he can do. Pa Kent is willing to die to protect that secret. You can't expect the young man to go against his father's last wish like that.

Which is also a bizarre depiction of Pa Kent. The superhero's father figure is a terrified man whose fear for his (invulnerable) son's safety is his overriding personal drive is ... well, it's certainly a choice.

And yes, I would expect that Superman would go against someone's wish when it means saving an innocent life. That's kind of core to being Superman.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Re: “Witches”

I 100% agree we need to be careful when dealing with people’s faiths, ethnicity, attributes, etc. The problem is this is a term that’s used in several ways in the English language- some of which are mutually exclusive. See also “Druids”, “Satanists”, “Dwarves” and other terms that pop up with different uses in fiction, RPGs, and real life.

It’s confusing and potentially inflammatory. When I ran a game for half a dozen Wiccans (all friends), it could have been awkward to use the term without being crystal clear. But witches were never part of the campaign.*

So IMHO, if potentially loaded terms are going to be used, it behooves the GM to to be clear with the other players what’s going on.

* That said, “witch” jokes were pretty common at that table, as well as in other social settings with those people.

Man, this is a complicated one. I am absolutely against giving offense when it's not necessary (and very much in favor of it when it is), so "dwarves" is a word that I wrestle with quite a bit, post-Peter Dinklage coming out and telling everyone to knock it off already. And I have completely dropped the word the Romani would like us all to.

That said, the druids, witches and ninjas in the world are people who have attempted to recreate a tradition that died off, voluntarily or otherwise. And Satanists are cosplaying as an intentional joke. Them getting upset about people referring to the fictional/mythical version of the traditions they have attempts to start up feels voluntary on their part, like me deciding to get offended on behalf of redheads as a non-redhead.

I also don't know many wiccans -- although you had more at your table than I know personally -- who would have gotten offended at "witch" references.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And I again think this is a bad misread. It ignores the fact that Clark is not used to being Superman, and is not used to dealing with anything resembling the threat he's under and the number of things he's keeping track of. We're used to seeing supers do that, because we're used to seeing experienced supers (and/or framing that suggests that "coincidentally" the superfight isn't as damaging as it could be).

Clark grew up on a farm, throwing hay bales around and using farm equipment with the power to shred a human to bits, even before his powers fully manifested. He's driven pick-up trucks (earlier than 16, too, because they're farm vehicles) which means -- unless Snyder's Pa Kent is as bad of a driver's ed instructor as he is a father -- that he's also had the discussion of, if you have to crash a vehicle, how to do the least harm when doing so.

The idea that Clark doesn't understand how to be careful with dangerous power is bizarre. I don't have superpowers and I know that. And I didn't even have to kill a single alien general with my bare hands.

Thoughout most of the scenes where a lot of damage is being done, Clark is fighting for his life against people who, unlike him, are trained combatants even if they aren't quite as powerful (and the gap is not vast). He's not infrequently dealing with multiples. I just think asking the brand-new Superman who has never had to deal with anything like this before to be as capable of dealing with collateral damage as an experienced hero is, frankly, patently unreasonable.

He knows how to use his powers before Zod shows up. He can direct his own flight, meaning he can affect where he crashes when he's getting attacked by Zod and company.

He would only have to change his trajectory by a few degrees to have not destroyed Smallville.

The reason he doesn't is because Zack Snyder's thesis is that humans shouldn't trust superheroes. He's basically using Superman, and later the Justice League, to argue the same point as Watchmen, not seeming to realize that they are separate stories with different takes on superheroes.

Superman should no more be a dangerous being humans should fear than Batman should be a guy who turns into a giant bat when he gets angry. That's just not either of their stories.