log in or register to remove this ad

 

Marvel vs DC

embee

Lawyer by day. Rules lawyer by night.
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.
I think people also have this preconceived notion of Superman based on really hazy memories of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies - which were pretty bad.

And yes, they were bad.

With the exception of some very good scenes, the movie itself is mediocre. For every "You've got me?! Who's got you?!" from Lois, you get idiocy like "How many Rs in massacre?" You've got Superman telling a reporter about his weaknesses. You've got a frankly stupid plot to flip a real estate investment in Nevada? The comic relief is, by and large, dad jokes ("Bad vibrations?"). Then there's the cringey fact that Superman has one POC with any lines in it - a "jive-talking" Black stereotype.

Superman II is pretty bad. The progenitor of Marvel bloodless destruction in scenes like the fight in downtown Metropolis coupled with clumsy writing. Not to mention that not only does Superman straight up murder Zod in the end, he's happy to do so. Go back and watch it. Superman depowers Zod and then happily drops him into a bottomless pit. And then Lois murders Ursa. After doing all this, Superman then goes back to a diner to get revenge on someone. That's the Christopher Reeve Superman that people claim to prefer - a murdery Superman who beats the crap out of humans.

Superman III is a live-action cartoon. Not to mention that it's dated and riddled with plot holes.

And Superman IV: The Quest For Peace... well, it's Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. It's only "redeeming" point is that it finally addresses the fact that Superman has the power to do more than rescue kittens from trees and can actually make a lasting difference.

Superman Returns tries to retcon away III and IV and succeeds in making Superman into a mopey stalker.

From what I can tell, when people say that they don't like Man of Steel or Henry Cavill's Superman, what they're really saying is that they prefer silly and stupid Superman movies.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
I think people also have this preconceived notion of Superman based on really hazy memories of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies - which were pretty bad.

And yes, they were bad.

With the exception of some very good scenes, the movie itself is mediocre. For every "You've got me?! Who's got you?!" from Lois, you get idiocy like "How many Rs in massacre?" You've got Superman telling a reporter about his weaknesses. You've got a frankly stupid plot to flip a real estate investment in Nevada? The comic relief is, by and large, dad jokes ("Bad vibrations?"). Then there's the cringey fact that Superman has one POC with any lines in it - a "jive-talking" Black stereotype.

Superman II is pretty bad. The progenitor of Marvel bloodless destruction in scenes like the fight in downtown Metropolis coupled with clumsy writing. Not to mention that not only does Superman straight up murder Zod in the end, he's happy to do so. Go back and watch it. Superman depowers Zod and then happily drops him into a bottomless pit. And then Lois murders Ursa. After doing all this, Superman then goes back to a diner to get revenge on someone. That's the Christopher Reeve Superman that people claim to prefer - a murdery Superman who beats the crap out of humans.

Superman III is a live-action cartoon. Not to mention that it's dated and riddled with plot holes.

And Superman IV: The Quest For Peace... well, it's Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. It's only "redeeming" point is that it finally addresses the fact that Superman has the power to do more than rescue kittens from trees and can actually make a lasting difference.

Superman Returns tries to retcon away III and IV and succeeds in making Superman into a mopey stalker.

From what I can tell, when people say that they don't like Man of Steel or Henry Cavill's Superman, what they're really saying is that they prefer silly and stupid Superman movies.

The Reeve movies are silly, yes, but that fits the style: they are Silver-Bronze age stories, which feel very different from what we have today. I still love them (At least 1 & 2), but I also love all different flavors of Superman.
 
Last edited:

ART!

Hero
I think people also have this preconceived notion of Superman based on really hazy memories of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies - which were pretty bad.

And yes, they were bad.

With the exception of some very good scenes, the movie itself is mediocre. For every "You've got me?! Who's got you?!" from Lois, you get idiocy like "How many Rs in massacre?" You've got Superman telling a reporter about his weaknesses. You've got a frankly stupid plot to flip a real estate investment in Nevada? The comic relief is, by and large, dad jokes ("Bad vibrations?"). Then there's the cringey fact that Superman has one POC with any lines in it - a "jive-talking" Black stereotype.

Superman II is pretty bad. The progenitor of Marvel bloodless destruction in scenes like the fight in downtown Metropolis coupled with clumsy writing. Not to mention that not only does Superman straight up murder Zod in the end, he's happy to do so. Go back and watch it. Superman depowers Zod and then happily drops him into a bottomless pit. And then Lois murders Ursa. After doing all this, Superman then goes back to a diner to get revenge on someone. That's the Christopher Reeve Superman that people claim to prefer - a murdery Superman who beats the crap out of humans.

Superman III is a live-action cartoon. Not to mention that it's dated and riddled with plot holes.

And Superman IV: The Quest For Peace... well, it's Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. It's only "redeeming" point is that it finally addresses the fact that Superman has the power to do more than rescue kittens from trees and can actually make a lasting difference.

Superman Returns tries to retcon away III and IV and succeeds in making Superman into a mopey stalker.

From what I can tell, when people say that they don't like Man of Steel or Henry Cavill's Superman, what they're really saying is that they prefer silly and stupid Superman movies.
It's easy to make things sound silly and stupid by listing the silliest and stupidest details.
 

From what I can tell, when people say that they don't like Man of Steel or Henry Cavill's Superman, what they're really saying is that they prefer silly and stupid Superman movies.

Or, they say that they really like previous takes on Superman. Yes, the Christopher Reeve Superman movies are pretty hokey. But the man also has a lot of charisma, and his portrayal of the character is very likable.

If I had to choose which of the two Supermen to hang out with, it wouldn't be grim dark Snyderverse Superman.
 

Ryujin

Hero
I think people also have this preconceived notion of Superman based on really hazy memories of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies - which were pretty bad.

And yes, they were bad.

With the exception of some very good scenes, the movie itself is mediocre. For every "You've got me?! Who's got you?!" from Lois, you get idiocy like "How many Rs in massacre?" You've got Superman telling a reporter about his weaknesses. You've got a frankly stupid plot to flip a real estate investment in Nevada? The comic relief is, by and large, dad jokes ("Bad vibrations?"). Then there's the cringey fact that Superman has one POC with any lines in it - a "jive-talking" Black stereotype.

Superman II is pretty bad. The progenitor of Marvel bloodless destruction in scenes like the fight in downtown Metropolis coupled with clumsy writing. Not to mention that not only does Superman straight up murder Zod in the end, he's happy to do so. Go back and watch it. Superman depowers Zod and then happily drops him into a bottomless pit. And then Lois murders Ursa. After doing all this, Superman then goes back to a diner to get revenge on someone. That's the Christopher Reeve Superman that people claim to prefer - a murdery Superman who beats the crap out of humans.

Superman III is a live-action cartoon. Not to mention that it's dated and riddled with plot holes.

And Superman IV: The Quest For Peace... well, it's Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. It's only "redeeming" point is that it finally addresses the fact that Superman has the power to do more than rescue kittens from trees and can actually make a lasting difference.

Superman Returns tries to retcon away III and IV and succeeds in making Superman into a mopey stalker.

From what I can tell, when people say that they don't like Man of Steel or Henry Cavill's Superman, what they're really saying is that they prefer silly and stupid Superman movies.
Superman 1 had some hokey and tone deaf parts.

Superman 2 suffered from a helm change, which made OK into bad.

Superman 3? GAK!

The on-screen Superman of my formative years was a different Reeves: George.
 

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
Superman 1 had some hokey and tone deaf parts.

Superman 2 suffered from a helm change, which made OK into bad.

Superman 3? GAK!

The on-screen Superman of my formative years was a different Reeves: George.

If I remember correctly, the Donner cut is a bit better compared to the original.

Personally, while Reeve was part of my introduction to Superman, George Newbern and Tim Daly were my iconic version.
 
Last edited:




embee

Lawyer by day. Rules lawyer by night.
Or, they say that they really like previous takes on Superman. Yes, the Christopher Reeve Superman movies are pretty hokey. But the man also has a lot of charisma, and his portrayal of the character is very likable.

If I had to choose which of the two Supermen to hang out with, it wouldn't be grim dark Snyderverse Superman.
giphy.gif


You mean Hard-Drinkin' Kal?
 








Doctor Futurity

Adventurer
You literally just made my point for me. You have a personal resonance with the depicted locations, and 75% of the time they’re NYC. Thank you. It was getting tiresome being berated for saying exactly that. :)
As a slight contrast, I have always assumed that both Gotham and Metropolis are just two different versions of New York, or maybe one is Boston and the other is New York (which is which is up for discussion), but this chiefly because I live in the southwest and have never visited New York, so the real New York is about as "real" for me in the comic fiction as Metropolis and Gotham.
 

Doctor Futurity

Adventurer
My own take: I personally was very in to Marvel in the early eighties then jumped ship largely to DC in the mid to late eighties, and embraced the Image comics movement of the early nineties before getting out of comics until around 2012 when I jumped back in feet first and have been avidly collecting a mixture of DC, some Marvel and indies ever since. Most of the chararcters I like are the more "grounded" ones, the humans with skills over powers (Batman, Green Arrow, Nightwing) which ironically is a majority of DC's offering these days (they have plenty of iconic demigods, but the most popular DC comics seem to remain the Batman and his associates types). Marvel's got fewer "normal" characters but their superheroes tend to be balanced with flaws and troubles....they would work well in a GURPS Supers campaign because they are all pretty balanced on average, and as a result I tend to pursue Wolverine, Moon Knight (when he's got a book) and Daredevil. I used to love X-Men but the X-Men of today are barely recognizable from the X-Men of my youth as Claremont wrote them.

The biggest distinction I personally see between Marvel and DC, though, is the extent to which a character's identity is tied to the story or legacy of that character. Many Marvel characters change, sometimes dramatically, over time. As I mentioned, X-Men is hard to follow today if you're used to X-Men from twenty years ago; the current storylines and feel of the book is so off kilter from the X-Men I grew up with that I just find it oddly alienating. But Batman, in contrast, remains very much the same character for better or worse; changes they occasionally make to the character (and they are experimenting with such changes right now in Future State as an example) are rarely permanent as it is the iconic nature of Batman that is the draw....the consistency of the character's mythos, if you will. Change it too much and it no longer feels like Batman. X-Men, in contrast, are insanely mutable to the point where even though I don't recognize the X-Men of today as being even close to the majority of characters from when I followed them in the 80's and 90's, they are still stories of mutants.

A big component of why DC characters change infrequently and remain iconic with their mythology is because DC frequently reboots. Since Crisis on Infinite Earths it is common (and even canon in their own storyline it was recently revealed) that the DC universe periodically resets the clock for its characters to continue. Marvel however has long maintained that its own continuity is always crammed into the last ten years or so of "real time" and occasionally revisits older themes and attempts to clarify anachronistic elements.....this means that the characters of Marvel's books today are technically the same exact characters as Marvel 30 or even 50 years ago, just with "updates" to fix anomalies based on when the original stories appeared. In DC....Batman of 50 years ago is literally an alternate prior universe, one of the many alternate universes in the DC continuity, and the current Batman is not the same guy. Ironically that means DC tells a lot more "alt history" what-if stories that are technically considered canon "somewhere" in the DC multiverse.

TL:DR - to me, the more relatable "skilled crimefighters" are the most interesting on both sides of the DC/Marvel spectrum, and the key differences between the two are actually in how they handle continuity. But I'm a comic junkie and YMMV.
 

Doctor Futurity

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.
This is why I also intensely disliked that movie (plus the overly long, panic-inducing fight scenes).
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top