Spoilers Superman Spoiler Thread

[Thomas Shey]

It’s interesting that the IG doesn’t actually have that many LSH expies, even though they’re a very famous expy collection; they don’t compare to the Squadron Supreme or similar. There’s Gladiator, Oracle, Fang, Astra, Hobgoblin, Mentor, Smasher, and Titan; the others are less obvious.

As I recall there was a fairly clear Sun Boy expie too, though I'm not sure we ever got a name for him.

 

[jian]

As I recall there was a fairly clear Sun Boy expie too, though I'm not sure we ever got a name for him.

There were a whole bunch (Electron, Starbolt, Impulse etc) who had ambiguous energy powers that could make them expies of various Legionnaires, but it’s usually not a good match - Electron has electric and magnetic powers (making him both Garth and Rokk), Starbolt has heat powers and flight (making him both Sun Boy and Wildfire) and Impulse is basically Cyclops if his powers were derived from being an energy being in a suit (like Wildfire).

 

[Thomas Shey]

There were a whole bunch (Electron, Starbolt, Impulse etc) who had ambiguous energy powers that could make them expies of various Legionnaires, but it’s usually not a good match - Electron has electric and magnetic powers (making him both Garth and Rokk), Starbolt has heat powers and flight (making him both Sun Boy and Wildfire) and Impulse is basically Cyclops if his powers were derived from being an energy being in a suit (like Wildfire).

Probably because those three got focused on late in the day; Starbolt was flying early on, but so where some of the others so I just wrote it off to a device. I do think Impulse was pretty clearly derived from Wildfire (he started out sort-of doing the open his helmet thing to do his most serious energy blasts, though that gets into his whole schtick as to why).

 

[chuckdee]

Probably because those three got focused on late in the day; Starbolt was flying early on, but so where some of the others so I just wrote it off to a device. I do think Impulse was pretty clearly derived from Wildfire (he started out sort-of doing the open his helmet thing to do his most serious energy blasts, though that gets into his whole schtick as to why).

I thought more because they didn't want to have just a copy but a homage so they altered the details but included them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Are they? They call it a proton river not an anti-proton river.

So I saw it yesterday night and they said anti-proton river a couple of times, but they didn't say proton river that I heard.

However those scenes are not exactly quiet, and there's a lost going on sonically, so it's quite likely the "anti" part got lost in the mix in a lot of theatre sound systems (especially in the UK was we tend sadly, to exceptionally poor movie theatre sound mixing in perhaps the majority of non-indie, non-IMAX theatres).

Y'all know how picky I am about this kind of thing so I'm pretty confident my awful brain would have leapt on any inconsistency of usage here. Certainly the first time it's mentioned, by Mr Terrific to Lois, he describes it as an "anti-proton river", and I was struck by this because antimatter is alarming!

Re: the movie in general:

I really liked it, it was better than I expected and stranger too. I really didn't anticipate it being such a Krypto movie! WHAT A GOOD BOY!!! (Also a very naughty boy but we don't tell him that!) I really liked that though! I liked that Superman's main motivation for going to this weird realm was "I need to get the awful dog back!". That's legit. That's relatable. Superman being like, actually good - caring about kids and animals and stuff was genuinely refreshing. Also what a way to defeat Luthor - naughty dog behaviour saves the Earth!

As ever with Gunn, he was able to make almost all the characters work emotionally, even ones who were on screen for a relatively short time. He's very good at handling ensembles and he just keeps showing that over and over.

I thought the weakest point here was Lex Luthor. Not because he wasn't played well (some of the line deliveries were glorious), but I didn't think his rationale was as well-constructed as it could have been, and I didn't think he was as compelling as a villain as he could have been as a result, nor did Superman's speech to him at the end quite land for me because again, I don't think his motivation was exactly believable. It was like Gunn had taken a believable motivation and then just overcomplicated it, in part by having Luthor understand himself too well. But that wasn't much of a weak point!

Really kind of want a Mr Terrific movie or show now! Honestly his fight scene might actually have been better than any of Supes' fight scenes (strong shades of the the arrow scene from GotG2). Also maaaaaan Edi Gathegi looking incredible in that costume - very rare that someone looks hotter in a modern superhero movie costume than "civilian clothes" but wow the cut on that.

Also Jimmy stop being mean to Eve she's so nice and so out-of-your-league! (I appreciate they acknowledged this with Lois' perplexed "How do you do it?" comment)!

As an aside: my (19 year old_ daughter was FURIOUS at the brief depiction of Supergirl. She loves the Melissa Benoist version of the character and was extremely put off by the "party girl" version.

I kind of share your daughter's concerns here. I don't like, hate the idea of "Party Girl Supergirl" as a pure concept, but I feel like Supergirl is a fairly defined character a lot of people like and having her be a "party girl" (rather than a very good girl) suddenly is not entirely unlike having Superman be a jerk (as per the Snyderverse). I guess it's a starting point for a character arc, and a differentiator from Supes earnestness, but I'll be interested to see if Gunn etc. can make that compelling, especially with Milly Alcock in the role (who generally seems drawn to rather sour characters). Given that this bastard managed to make me LIKE PEACEMAKER after making me utterly loathe every fibre of his being in The Suicide Squad, I'm going with probably yes if Gunn himself is writing/directing but still.

So one thing did surprise me - Superman's Kryptonian parents being evil! Is that like, common in DC lore? I was under the impression from all the previous Superman stuff I'd seen and read that they were basically good and wanted him to do good, but this movie seemed fairly insistent that they wanted Superman to be benevolent dynasty-founding God-Emperor of Earth in a very Omni-Man kind of way, and that there was no mistake about that, which would generally make them very bad people. I don't hate it but it did surprise me.

 

[chuckdee]

is not entirely unlike having Superman be a jerk (as per the Snyderverse)

I never have gotten this take. For all of the failings of Superman in Snyder (which I give him more of a pass for as I saw it as part of an arc, and saw it coming to its conclusion in Justice League- thinking that Superman 2 was going to me more of what we expect of Superman having come through the darkness- though I can see that without that, it's giving Snyder the benefit of the doubt), being a jerk wasn't one of them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

being a jerk wasn't one of them.

It absolutely was and from day 1 too.

You saw what he did to that guy's truck. That's not "good guy" Superman behaviour, that was your first* clue that Snyder profoundly did not understand Superman, or perhaps understood him mostly from the covers of good old Superdickery or something.

I'm not even going to get into "necksnap vs. doing literally anything else" (that was, if you are Superman, a very easy situation to resolve), or "intentionally fighting in an un-evacuated city", because the truck says it all.

* = Unless they did his backstory first, I forget, in which case the truly insane take on Pa Kent was the first clue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So one thing did surprise me - Superman's Kryptonian parents being evil! Is that like, common in DC lore? I was under the impression from all the previous Superman stuff I'd seen and read that they were basically good and wanted him to do good, but this movie seemed fairly insistent that they wanted Superman to be benevolent dynasty-founding God-Emperor of Earth in a very Omni-Man kind of way, and that there was no mistake about that, which would generally make them very bad people. I don't hate it but it did surprise me.

No, its unusual but not entirely out of the blue; ever since Byrne wrote and drew Superman, there's been a take on Krypton where its technologically and scientifically advanced but cold and lacking in empathy, and as I recall even his version of Jor-El was only a step above the rest (he thought Krypton had taken a wrong turn) but he was really focused on his son's survival, and didn't care much about Earth.

The best you can say for the movie version of Jor-El and Lara here is that when your whole people are about to die, and you already start with a "we're the best people in the universe" basis, deciding that your son needs to be the founder of the rebirth of your race is, perhaps, an understandable if not exactly benign motive.

But I thought I got why Gunn went there, which was to solidify that whatever Clark's biological origin, he's a man of Earth, and he believes that's where his loyalties lay. For all the traditional depiction of him, there's often been a certain ambiguity there that I think this was attempting to sever that (and show that in any meaningful way, his parents were the Kents, not his biological parents).

Basically, its to reinforce that Clark is a good man, not because of his origin but despite it. In a way, he's more analogous to Invincible than Omni-Man.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Edit: You know, on second thought, I'm not getting into an argument with someone about MoS again.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But I thought I got why Gunn went there, which was to solidify that whatever Clark's biological origin, he's a man of Earth, and he believes that's where his loyalties lay. For all the traditional depiction of him, there's often been a certain ambiguity there that I think this was attempting to severe (and show that in any meaningful way, his parents were the Kents, not his biological parents).

Basically, its to reinforce that Clark is a good man, not because of his origin but despite it. In a way, he's more analogous to Invincible than Omni-Man.

Yeah definitely, that's what he got from doing that, it was very effective (if a little too on the nose at the end - but maybe you can never be too on the nose?), I was just like, shocked, because I'd never seen "Jor-El and Lara were kinda Kryptonian supremacist psychos actually" before, and I genuinely thought I knew Superman lore fairly okay (but my knowledge does kind of end in the late '90s and early '00s which is... a lot time ago). And yes it clearly draws a big black between "Sorta like Omni-Man" and "Sorta like Invincible".

(Really enjoyed seeing Bradley Cooper jumpscare in yet another weird minor role. I don't know what his deal is but I hope he is having a good time! I thought it was Lady Gaga as Lara for a hot second but realized it wasn't - it's Angela Sarafyan)

Also thank you for explaining this, I'd been wondering, and my most DC-fan-est friends were also a little taken aback by this.