Spoilers Superman Spoiler Thread

[Thomas Shey]

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".

Understand where I'm coming from when I say this: I don't think they were psychos. I think they were Kryptionan supremecists as you say, but within that context, their plan was relatively rational. Note they seemed to think they were going to make Earth a paradise by having Kal-El take it over (and didn't seem to have the hidden "let's suck it dry and move on" motivation you find behind the Viltrumites plans). That doesn't make them good people by any stretch, but its the sort of thing that is relatively rational if you come from that position, where its sort of a Hail Mary to save part of your race.

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.

I'll outright say "Well, damn, this was a dark version of Jor-El and Lara" when it dropped, but like I said, its a not completely out-of-the-blue extension of what has gone on on-and-off about Krypton for a while. One can argue whether Byrne's take there was the best way to go, but he casts a long shadow and that's as it is (the crystal-tech business all modern Superman visual media uses goes right back to him, for example).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have to say I'll be interested in seeing what sort of back history they have for Kara when the Supergirl movie drops. Since Clark didn't know about his parents actual plans, I'd have to assume Kara didn't either (though I suppose she could have and thought there was no reason to point out exactly how unpleasant Krypton was to him, but if that seemed likely I think the tone of that end scene would have been different than "Your party girl cousin is here to pick up her poorly trained dog.")

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have to say I'll be interested in seeing what sort of back history they have for Kara when the Supergirl movie drops. Since Clark didn't know about his parents actual plans, I'd have to assume Kara didn't either (though I suppose she could have and thought there was no reason to point out exactly how unpleasant Krypton was to him, but if that seemed likely I think the tone of that end scene would have been different than "Your party girl cousin is here to pick up her poorly trained dog.")

Yeah I'll suspect she'll have an origin that ends up with her being even more clueless re: Krypton than Superman, albeit perhaps for different reasons.

I remain a little concerned re: Milly Alcock casting but Gunn continues to have my faith because every other time I've been like "Er, really?" re: one of his castings it actually turned out good, so I will definitely be open-minded on this.

 

[Morrus]

Supergirl is straight out of Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow. This interpretation of Supergirl isn't a Gunn thing, it's a comic-book thing. A lot of people consider it the definitive version of the character. It's a revenge story, kind of True Grit in space.

And there have been other takes on her too. The 'do-gooder' version is just one take.

Unlike Supes, she saw Krypton destroyed when she was a teenager. She was sent to Earth to protect the baby Kal El, but due to time dilation shenanigans got there 30 years too late and found him all grown up and not needing her. She's damaged and pissed off. Woman of Tomorrow starts with her getting drunk on a planet with a red sun on her 21st birthday, and joins forces with a young girl to hunt down the man who killed her father. With Krypto.

So for me, I'm looking forward to this. I don't need her to be identical to Superman--that's a really bland idea to me. But YYMV.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Also what a way to defeat Luthor - naughty dog behaviour saves the Earth!

This comment reminds me: When Lex Luthor returns in a later movie, I want him to have acquired a super-smart, hairless cat that's trained to counter Krypto's every move. Anything less and I will be disappointed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't need her to be identical to Superman--that's a really bland idea to me. But YYMV.

I think you may be misunderstanding the issue as one of mere "stodgy old fans" just not wanting change/modernity/coolness (you didn't say those words, to be clear, I just feel like that's the strong implication of "need her to be identical to Superman" - particularly the word "need" instead of "want" or "like").

The issue, I would suggest, isn't that people "need" her to be identical to Superman. It's that they want her to be a "good person" like Superman is (and like many superheroes are not). A lot of women and girls grew up with a version of Supergirl who was good and smart and strong, and in none of those cases, was she a "drunken bad-girl". So we have a situation where people who like "original flavour" Superman absolutely get that (rather than Snyder's "White Monster" - the drink - flavour Superman). But women and girls are generally not well-served by comics or superhero stuff (I would suggest, very strongly, even most female superheroes are aimed at men) and they had a good-girl character they liked, and now she's a drunk and seemingly silly/frivolous (though presumably it will be revealed that she has stuff Going On as per the comic you mentioned).

So maybe that makes a bit more sense to you? The first objection mentioned was from a 19-y/o girl who grew up with the Benoist Supergirl (who is very much a "good" Supergirl), and I don't think "Well this very-written comic had a different take!" really overrides that or even really understands why she might have felt like that. I note this particularly because one of the very few superheros my wife even tolerates is "good" Supergirl (and "good" Superman - and for reasons that are quite complicated, Deadpool, but let's not get into that!).

Like, to me, your argument is actually quite persuasive. That (very recent, 2021-2022) comic and looks and sounds cool as hell, right? But I didn't grow up loving any kind of version of Supergirl. I don't think even saw the the original 1984 Supergirl movie until I was in my 20s. And I'm male. So I get why some people might be like "Nah that sounds like it sucks" without them being stodgy fans who want her to be "identical to Superman"

Sorry if this is annoying, but I just feel like there's a bit more to this particular issue than needing mere "female Superman". Again though I do really want to read the comic series you suggested, because it does sound cool. And I am confident you are correct in your assessment of where Gunn is coming from here. I hope he pulls it off in a way that doesn't like, piss off existing female Supergirl fans the way Snyder Superman pissed off a lot of Superman fans of all stripes (but not all, to be sure - some liked it!).

 

[chuckdee]

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.

The truck was in reaction to the guys actions in the bar, and at that point, he hadn't even taken up the mantle and was conflicted.

And considering that Zod had decades if not more experience than Kal, the fact that Kal wasn't able to get him into any other location, even though he tried more than once, made sense. There was a comic series that I love - Griffin. It was similarly about superpowered beings, and they had a fight in a city, where one was trained to do as much damage as he could in order to demoralize and the other was more military minded. In the analysis, the general that trained them could see how the fight went by the amount of damage that had been done, i.e. how much trouble the more military minded one had with the other and who won, just based on the amount of damage. Zod used the city to his advantage as a battleground, and I think it would have been very unrealistic if an untrained Superman was able to outsmart him in that.

 

[Stalker0]

And considering that Zod had decades if not more experience than Kal, the fact that Kal wasn't able to get him into any other location, even though he tried more than once, made sense.

That is my problem though, Kal never does try to get Zod away from the city. If there was a genuine attempt and Zod sees right through, fair play to the villain alright give me my epic throwdown.

But Kal makes basically no effort, they just start throwing hands....killing hundreds if not thousands of people.


EDIT: Actually just to doublecheck myself I went back and watched the clip with Kal vs Zod. And yeah the second the two start going at it, its actually Kal that goes straight for him and knocks him square into a building while onlookers are watching. Zero attempt to knock him in the air and away from civilians.

Scene 2, Zod throws a tanker truck at him. Kal sidesteps it, letting it explode destroying another building.

Scene 3, Kal is flying above a building, Zod actually starting running up the building towards him. Perfect chance for Kal to try and grab him and pull him up away from people. Nope, flies down and punches him, shockwave destroys another building.

THAT is the problem with Man of Steel. I love the visceral fights of Man of Steel, they make Superman look epic and extremely badass. But there is no heart, this is not the superman that tries to save people, that is the beacon of hope. He's just a really tough thug. And that is what the new movie nailed so much better.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

he truck was in reaction to the guys actions in the bar, and at that point, he hadn't even taken up the mantle and was conflicted.

You say that like that doesn't confirm everything I'm saying!

It was a complete dick move with no real excuse (oh someone was rude at a rough bar for rough people OH NO!!! Time to destroy their livelihood in a way that potentially causes massive problems for myself!), and also made a massive mockery of his own father's death and message (which was admittedly itself bizarre but still, it's just most inconsistency, when he goes on about that message later). It also shows that Snyder's take is that, instead of Superman just being fundamentally a good person because he was raised to be that, he had to take some kind of conscious decision to be a good person, which is wiiiiiiiiiild.

And considering that Zod had decades if not more experience than Kal, the fact that Kal wasn't able to get him into any other location, even though he tried more than once, made sense.

If that was the plot, sure. But it's just your headcanon and it's directly contradicted by the actual movie, as @Stalker0 points out in detail. Further your headcanon here is so elaborate and multilayered that I think you also saw this as a massive problem. Why else develop such a heavily-explained theory to deal with it? Superman doesn't even try to move things away from the city. He might have a line where he handwrings about it, I forget, but he certainly doesn't act like he's trying to move things away.

Again, it's obvious that Snyder profoundly didn't understand Superman, from both how he had him behave, and from the insane message he put through Pa Kent, which is like, the most bizarre spin possible, and kind of directly opposed to the whole idea that Superman got good values from the Kents.

EDIT - What is interesting about Man of Steel is that it's basically from a very different "era" of superhero films, despite being from 2013, and thus after Avengers 1 etc., it's spiritually from that 1980s/1990s school of superhero films where instead of feeling particularly beholden to the existing canon and characters and personalities and so on, film-makers and writers were like "Oh I'm way smarter than these dumb comic-book writers and their nerdy fans, time to put a giant spider/pack of gamma poodles in this!" or in this case "What do you mean Superman is good because his parents raised him to do good? Nah his parents' message should be 'just let people die so you can hide', that's a much smarter message! We wouldn't want to imply his parents had morals stronger than self-protection, self-protection is the highest virtue, that's what Buddha and Bob Marley told me after I did shrooms and PCP last week!".

 

[jian]

You say that like that doesn't confirm everything I'm saying!

It was a complete dick move with no real excuse (oh someone was rude at a rough bar for rough people OH NO!!! Time to destroy their livelihood in a way that potentially causes massive problems for myself!), and also made a massive mockery of his own father's death and message (which was admittedly itself bizarre but still, it's just most inconsistency, when he goes on about that message later). It also shows that Snyder's take is that, instead of Superman just being fundamentally a good person because he was raised to be that, he had to take some kind of conscious decision to be a good person, which is wiiiiiiiiiild.


If that was the plot, sure. But it's just your headcanon and it's directly contradicted by the actual movie, as @Stalker0 points out in detail. Further your headcanon here is so elaborate and multilayered that I think you also saw this as a massive problem. Why else develop such a heavily-explained theory to deal with it? Superman doesn't even try to move things away from the city. He might have a line where he handwrings about it, I forget, but he certainly doesn't act like he's trying to move things away.

Again, it's obvious that Snyder profoundly didn't understand Superman, from both how he had him behave, and from the insane message he put through Pa Kent, which is like, the most bizarre spin possible, and kind of directly opposed to the whole idea that Superman got good values from the Kents.

EDIT - What is interesting about Man of Steel is that it's basically from a very different "era" of superhero films, despite being from 2013, and thus after Avengers 1 etc., it's spiritually from that 1980s/1990s school of superhero films where instead of feeling particularly beholden to the existing canon and characters and personalities and so on, film-makers and writers were like "Oh I'm way smarter than these dumb comic-book writers and their nerdy fans, time to put a giant spider/pack of gamma poodles in this!" or in this case "What do you mean Superman is good because his parents raised him to do good? Nah his parents' message should be 'just let people die so you can hide', that's a much smarter message! We wouldn't want to imply his parents had morals stronger than self-protection, self-protection is the highest virtue, that's what Buddha and Bob Marley told me after I did shrooms and PCP last week!".

Man of Steel had a lot of good points - especially Henry Cavill - but it really was short on the heroism that’s central to Superman, and so I’d have to agree with all that.

It did feel like Age of Ultron, which came out a few years later, was a take that to MoS in some ways, not least in the “see, heroes save people” stuff in Sokovia.