log in or register to remove this ad

 

Marvel vs DC

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
I think the complaint is he does no rescues or those kinds of heroics in costume, as Superman. I think there's one soldier he whooshes out of the way of gunfire in Smallville.

Eh, I feel like that's way more specific than the complaint is usually made. 😕

At a certain level I think people react viscerally to the ending and end up painting with a broad brush. I mean, there are few movies I've seen the internet have such a knee-jerk reaction to as Man of Steel. It's a flawed movie, but I find most of the time people really go beyond what they need to trying to make a point.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Tony, I get not being in his wheelhouse. Reed and Hank, though...
Yeah, this is why I prefer distinct complete stories, and wish they’d make the next reboot a true reboot, at least in the case of DC.
Eh, I feel like that's way more specific than the complaint is usually made. 😕

At a certain level I think people react viscerally to the ending and end up painting with a broad brush. I mean, there are few movies I've seen the internet have such a knee-jerk reaction to as Man of Steel. It's a flawed movie, but I find most of the time people really go beyond what they need to trying to make a point.
Yeah the ending is viscerally bad.
However, the focus of Superman is that he saves people.

I have a fanfic project that I’m sure I’ll never finish, involving the main players of the DCU, starting on “Day One”. Bruce returns to Gotham, Clark starts at the Daily Planet, Diana returns from several years of recovery and refocusing in Paradise, and a few old heroes (here we recast the Justice Society of America as Alan Scott, Wonder Woman, Lucius Fox, Alfred Pennyworth, Steve Trevor, and most of the normal JSA team, now very retired) manipulate them and a few others toward heroism.

In that set of stories, the plan is to never even show Superman hit anyone until the end of “year one” when Zod finally shows up. He just saves people, and inspires others toward heroism.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Tony, I get not being in his wheelhouse. Reed and Hank, though...
It's not in Reed's wheelhouse either. He's a weird space and dimensional tech scientist. Hank Pym is a weird biological science and you'd think that Pym particles might be useful in shrinking tumors if they can be localized enough. And yet all the smart guys in the Marvel universe can't cure Captain Marvel's cancer with their technology, nor their magic (since Dr. Strange and Thor are both involved in the attempt to try to cure Mar-Vell's cancer).
Cancer, like other real, major problems were defined, at one time, as problems that superpowers, even super intelligence, simply can't fix. And, honestly, they should remain that way.
 

Ryujin

Hero
I think Snyder basically doesn't like Superman as-is, thinks he's corny, and sees him as other. There's a lot of xenophobia in Snyder's work.
I think that you may have hit on why so many of us don't like BvS. Maybe it isn't that Snyder doesn't like Superman as much as he was trying to show us all why Batman saw him as a danger, but went overboard. He set up the visuals in a way that gave us a brooding Superman, looking down from on-high, instead of the benevolent alien god amongst men that is his general portrayal. The grim-dark really doesn't suit (I know I've perhaps used this analogy too much) a sun god. Maybe Snyder just got too far up his own butt, to see?
 

ART!

Hero
Eh, I feel like that's way more specific than the complaint is usually made. 😕

At a certain level I think people react viscerally to the ending and end up painting with a broad brush. I mean, there are few movies I've seen the internet have such a knee-jerk reaction to as Man of Steel. It's a flawed movie, but I find most of the time people really go beyond what they need to trying to make a point.
The movie doesn't care about the destruction and loss of life in Metropolis at all. After Zod is dead, we get a scene with Superman telling a general not to track him and a soldier saying he's hot, and then he's Clark Kent riding his bike to work all hunky-dory in Metropolis. At best, Snyder just doesn't care about the violence and destruction.
In that set of stories, the plan is to never even show Superman hit anyone until the end of “year one” when Zod finally shows up. He just saves people, and inspires others toward heroism.
I'm sure I've said this on these forums before, but I have this theory that all people really want in a Superman movie is to see him rescuing people and mitigating or even stopping disasters.
 


Justice and Rule

Adventurer
The movie doesn't care about the destruction and loss of life in Metropolis at all. After Zod is dead, we get a scene with Superman telling a general not to track him and a soldier saying he's hot, and then he's Clark Kent riding his bike to work all hunky-dory in Metropolis. At best, Snyder just doesn't care about the violence and destruction.

I... I'm not going to go that far (given that he kills Zod specifically before he can evaporate a family), but I don't disagree with the critique of the carelessness in how that fight was done. Conceptually speaking having that thing be an insanely traumatic event could potentially be interesting, but Snyder doesn't have the storytelling chops to do it. Also the coda for that thing is incredibly tone-deaf; there's a such a weird sense of victory and moving on when an introspective ending that is somewhat bittersweet but also hopeful could have really alleviated some of the problems with the ending.

I'm sure I've said this on these forums before, but I have this theory that all people really want in a Superman movie is to see him rescuing people and mitigating or even stopping disasters.

You're not wrong, though I think I'd settle for having an indirect villain (which Superman has plenty of) causing havoc and Superman saving the day.
 

Ryujin

Hero
I'd settle for going back to Golden Age Superman levels of power, so destruction of cities (or even worlds) isn't really a thing anymore
 

I'd settle for going back to Golden Age Superman levels of power, so destruction of cities (or even worlds) isn't really a thing anymore
  • Super Strength: The character was depicted as having the ability to move large vehicles, including cars, trains, and ships.
  • Super Speed: Superman could run faster than an express train.
  • Enhanced Leaping: could leap over an 8th of a mile or over a tall building.
  • Super Durability: Superman was highly resistant to injury. However, he was not so invulnerable as in his modern depictions; although immune to conventional firearms, heavy artillery could injure and possibly kill him.
  • Super Senses: Superman’s eyesight and hearing were far in excess of a human being’s.

    then we can see if a M109A7 will kill him or if you'll need a Hellfire missile or just a few AC-130s maybe a nuke.
 

MarkB

Legend
Eh, I feel like that's way more specific than the complaint is usually made. 😕

At a certain level I think people react viscerally to the ending and end up painting with a broad brush. I mean, there are few movies I've seen the internet have such a knee-jerk reaction to as Man of Steel. It's a flawed movie, but I find most of the time people really go beyond what they need to trying to make a point.
It wasn't the ending that killed it for me. It was when he let his father die to preserve his secret identity. No Superman I can respect would place that secret above the life of even a complete stranger, let alone a loved one.
 

Ryujin

Hero
It wasn't the ending that killed it for me. It was when he let his father die to preserve his secret identity. No Superman I can respect would place that secret above the life of even a complete stranger, let alone a loved one.
Quite different from his father having a heart attack in a field.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
It's not in Reed's wheelhouse either. He's a weird space and dimensional tech scientist. Hank Pym is a weird biological science and you'd think that Pym particles might be useful in shrinking tumors if they can be localized enough. And yet all the smart guys in the Marvel universe can't cure Captain Marvel's cancer with their technology, nor their magic (since Dr. Strange and Thor are both involved in the attempt to try to cure Mar-Vell's cancer).
Cancer, like other real, major problems were defined, at one time, as problems that superpowers, even super intelligence, simply can't fix. And, honestly, they should remain that way.
(Emphasis mine)

I can appreciate that. But I can also see a comic book universe in which the logical, probable consequences of superheroic powers and super-science WAS able to affect things like global hunger or things like cancer.

It just wouldn’t work for established settings like the main Marvel or DC universes. Such changes would have HUGE effects in reshaping global human society.

I mean, we live in a world where people (rightfully) ask why wealthy people don’t do more for society in general- see the Chloé Kardassian kerfuffle over the GoFundMe she set up for a friend’s $60k surgery. So imagine what kinds of questions would be floating on the internet about beings who can create man-portable power plants that can generate gigawatts of power, plow a field in seconds, bring mineral rich asteroids safely to earth, or create new alloys with astounding properties...but then don’t.

Inquiring minds would want to know. So might governments.
 

Ryujin

Hero
Once again reminded of the movie "The Specials", specifically the quote about how all of the heroes with stretching powers seem to die of cancer.
 

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
It wasn't the ending that killed it for me. It was when he let his father die to preserve his secret identity. No Superman I can respect would place that secret above the life of even a complete stranger, let alone a loved one.

I mean, his father sacrificed himself because that's specifically what he wanted. But I also get that people weren't a fan of that, so I'm not really going to argue that all that hard. Pa Kent in those movies has potential as someone who isn't a saint but still trying to be a dad, but again Snyder doesn't have the storytelling chops to tell something that nuanced.

(Emphasis mine)

I can appreciate that. But I can also see a comic book universe in which the logical, probable consequences of superheroic powers and super-science WAS able to affect things like global hunger or things like cancer.

It just wouldn’t work for established settings like the main Marvel or DC universes. Such changes would have HUGE effects in reshaping global human society.

I mean, we live in a world where people (rightfully) ask why wealthy people don’t do more for society in general- see the Chloé Kardassian kerfuffle over the GoFundMe she set up for a friend’s $60k surgery. So imagine what kinds of questions would be floating on the internet about beings who can create man-portable power plants that can generate gigawatts of power, plow a field in seconds, bring mineral rich asteroids safely to earth, or create new alloys with astounding properties...but then don’t.

Inquiring minds would want to know. So might governments.

I'm reminded of when Mark Millar took over the FF over a decade ago and his first arc literally dealt with Earth being evacuated to a new Earth. I'm a fan of big stuff, but sometimes you can go too big.

I feel like Richards is almost unique in that regard, though I suppose how Iron Man has evolved he certainly could be revolutionizing life as we know it. Feels like less of a problem on the DC side given how many of the notable geniuses are generally focused in one area and/or evil (the and/or part is pretty important, depending on how Will Magnus is feeling that day), and I feel like most of Batman's genius is wrapped up in his planning ability, even though he does have some great gadgets. Though it'd be cool to see Mr. Terrific actually changing the world a bit, or at least at war with Lex Luthor, who would be trying to monetize such things.
 

If you take sups down to his golden age powers,you're also gonna have to have him go back to fighting the same bad guys as he did back then,otherwise sups is in real danger of getting killed permanently.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It wasn't the ending that killed it for me. It was when he let his father die to preserve his secret identity. No Superman I can respect would place that secret above the life of even a complete stranger, let alone a loved one.
Yeah.

Let me just say, when I first saw MoS, I didn’t even like Superman.

Then after a YouTube video about Clark by a garbage person who is good at words, I started to like Superman, read more Supes comics, and eventually later rewatched MoS.

First viewing, I liked it. It was fine.

Second viewing, strongly disliked it. Completely fails at any very very basic understanding of the character on nearly any level.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Spider-man has always appealed to me, because despite his super powers, Peter Parker's life kinda sucks. He's constantly juggling jobs, relationships, and other real life responsibilities, along with super villains making his life miserable. Spider-man also has quite a lot of antagonists that know his real identity, which must suck!

Being Spider-man is not easy. He has to sacrifice a lot to protect people, and then gets blamed for it in the newspaper. He can't form a relationship with anyone, without putting them in peril. His work is a terrible thankless one, and that makes him likeable. I like seeing characters be put through the wringer like that.

That is not to say that Superman has an easy life. But at least people appreciate his heroics. In comparison, I find Superman a bit bland and boring. For me, a compelling superhero is one with an interesting unique power, a struggle to keep their identity a secret, weaknesses, and a lot of hardship. Superman's only weakness seems to be one invented for the comic, and it seems like he has ALL of the powers. Not very compelling.

Batman is more relatable, although his vast fortune clearly is not. But what I like about him, is that in the end he is a vulnerable human being. He relies not on super powers, but on gadgets, martial arts, and detective work. His villains therefor don't need to rely on super powers either, and this adds a thin layer of realism to his adventures. Sure, 'some' of Batman's villains have super powers, but his best antagonists don't. They are 'normal' human beings, with a quirk that counters one of Batman's weaknesses. And to me, it is especially this last detail that makes his adventures intriguing.
To me Spiderman starts at a more relatable level, but Superman ends up feeling more of a real person. -At least going by the comics-. Over the years, Clark has managed to create a family, to grow up from young teen, to young man, to a father. He is very powerful, but he remains a farm boy who wanted to be a journalist at the core. He is a very developed and relatable character. Then I see Spiderman, and he is forever stuck between his early twenties and his mid teens. He isn't allowed to grow up beyond that, just when he was about to cross that bridge, he forgot all lessons and sold out his character growth to the Devil. No matter how much changes, everything goes back to the same status quo at the end. He is a static character, and at some point that ends up making him fell less like a real person and more like a character in a play. And the same for many Marvel characters, they keep rehashing the same story beats over and over for all eternity.
Eh, DC doesn’t do stasis so much as 5-year stretches and then a reboot, these days. Might as well actually use that structure to do soemthing interesting.
Something I find relatable from DC is the notion of constant change. Character development doesn't really go away.
 


So I suppose it depends on which comics you read. Surely there are comics where Peter Parker moves on and Miles Morales takes on the role of Spiderman? And surely there are Superman comics that keep him the same familiar Superman?
 

ART!

Hero
Yeah.

Let me just say, when I first saw MoS, I didn’t even like Superman.

Then after a YouTube video about Clark by a garbage person who is good at words, I started to like Superman, read more Supes comics, and eventually later rewatched MoS.

First viewing, I liked it. It was fine.

Second viewing, strongly disliked it. Completely fails at any very very basic understanding of the character on nearly any level.
I think the stuff with Clark as a kid is pretty good - if ham-fisted in parts - and I mostly like the stuff with Clark wandering, getting odd jobs, and trying to figure out what to do with himself. In a world with no super-heroes (yet, that he knows of), that makes great sense. It's just once he becomes Superman that Snyder doesn't seem to get him. I think there might be a movie in there somewhere that Snyder would rather make, or be better suited to make, that isn't a Superman movie.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top