The Big Picture: Man of Tomorrow

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

well... if i had to get super nerdy with you there was this big blow out battle with doomsday where they killed each other.
and i'm sure you can find one other example.

And guys I loved the 1990s super man.

I'm glad we got kent in one small bit sized portion.

THANK GOD!

canadamus_prime:

Ken_J:

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

actually Zod is consistently superman's first/only kill in pretty much every medium he shows up in.

Huh? what? I don't remember Superman ever killing Zod. Again don't read the comics so...

MAybe this needs to be spammed till people READ THE GOD DAMN THing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superman_Phantom_Zone_execution.jpg

It's kinda funny when peoples biggest issue is "but my nerd sense tells me they ruined super man."

well sorry it would seem your just not nerdy enough to know what your talking about ^ ~.

I'm with you, Bob. Superman is the Great Dane complex writ large, where his regular duties are protecting fuzzy kittens in a world of cardboard. You didn't spoil how the circumstances forced Superman to kill Zod, so I don't know if Sups was coerced by circumstances or genuinely chose the easy way out in choosing the simple option.

From a writing standpoint this may be an attempt to represent that not even Superman gets to be perfect, but is confined to the foibles of being a real person (within the fictional context). Most of us dip into the the dark side before we realize that there are reasons we don't do that. Sherlock Holmes was outwitted three times in his career as a detective. Not even Jesus gets to be Jesus.

Interestingly, Superman also killed Zod (unnecessarily) in Superman II, but that's an odd story of its own. I still enjoy the over-the-top caricature that was Zod then, that once he punched his way to the White House, he was content to sit there and let human civilization go on so long as everyone called him king and kneeled appropriately. He didn't so much as ask for tea or even a humongous statue to be built in his likeness.[1]

238U

[1] Contrast: Aku, the Shapeshifting Master of Darkness who demanded regular tribute in the form of gargantuan statues.

Why would he lighten up?
He *killed* somebody... That's the perfect thing to get MORE broody after doing. :\

I think the scene itself was really good, or it would've been if it had proper build up. This entire movie seemed to at the same time turn it up a notch, and start from scratch at the same time. Superman fighting a massive alien threat doesn't have as much wow factor as, say, Iron Man and Cap fighting those guys in the Avengers did because it didn't have a stepping stone to notch it up from. It would've worked as a sequel though - first movie establishes Superman as an inherently good person coming to grips with his powers and deciding what to do, but the enemies and problems faced should very much be human only. That way you have the build up to meeting these guys who can fight on even footing with him, forcing his hand to make him kill. Maybe the collateral damage caused when he cuts loose would even scare him and turn public perception against him. That would even lead into a third movie where he tries to get over it (Maybe with the help of BATMAN and the JUSTICE LEAGUE?). But of course that will never be because they messed this one up, and too many reboots leaves bad tastes in mouths.

Magog1:

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

well... if i had to get super nerdy with you there was this big blow out battle with doomsday where they killed each other.
and i'm sure you can find one other example.

And guys I loved the 1990s super man.

I'm glad we got kent in one small bit sized portion.

THANK GOD!

Yes. I read the novelization of that. So ok, I'll grant you that. Although didn't Doomsday eventually come back from that battle?

Magog1:

canadamus_prime:

Ken_J:

actually Zod is consistently superman's first/only kill in pretty much every medium he shows up in.

Huh? what? I don't remember Superman ever killing Zod. Again don't read the comics so...

MAybe this needs to be spammed till people READ THE GOD DAMN THing.

Read what "God damn" thing? The comics? No, I couldn't be asked. Is his character in the comics that inconstant with other mediums?

I liked it but... It was not so much that superman killed that bugged me nearly as much as the number of people he failed to (and failed to try and save). The bodycount just seemed way to high for a superman movie. If I saw him flying overhead I wouldn't be yelling 'yay superman' I'd be yelling 'the stupid war you brought here killed my cousins you $%#&' (still not fair but from the point of view of the guy on the street...)

I mean as superman (in costume at least) I don't think he actively rescued a single civilian he didn't already know. Even the family he saved at the end was only targeted by Zod because Superman seemed to care about them. I liked the movie more then bob did but Superman didn't seem that super in it. I mean he's supposed to represent this grand ideal and that S is supposed to symbolize hope. Hope for what? Seriously can someone tell me what that hope is because I want to know.

Ok, supernerdy point. Early Superman did tend to fling bad guys out of windows and do other things to them that would likely cause, if not death, then certainly life crippling injury. And the whole "no killing" thing was less about being able to bring back characters and more to do with things like the Comics Code.

But anyway, on to "Where can Man of Steel 2 go". The most obvious place is Lex Luthor. The way I'd go with it is that if they want to continue in the gritty Nolan-style then you need to think about how the world would react to the news that there's a godlike Alien in a blue suit wandering about as well as the fact that Smallville has been in large parts wiped off the map as well as a huge chunk of Metropolis being turned into a hole. There's going to be fear, paranoia possibly even propaganda showing Superman killing. And Lex is the perfect character to be the architect of a machiavellian plot to get under Sup's cape.

weirdsoup:

But anyway, on to "Where can Man of Steel 2 go". The most obvious place is Lex Luthor. The way I'd go with it is that if they want to continue in the gritty Nolan-style then you need to think about how the world would react to the news that there's a godlike Alien in a blue suit wandering about as well as the fact that Smallville has been in large parts wiped off the map as well as a huge chunk of Metropolis being turned into a hole. There's going to be fear, paranoia possibly even propaganda showing Superman killing. And Lex is the perfect character to be the architect of a machiavellian plot to get under Sup's cape.

And they have every right to feel that way. Inevitable comparisons to the Avengers in 3....2...1...

In The Avengers, where they too cause a lot of destruction, there ARE points where at least they go "This way, civilians! Get these people to safety over here! Actual interaction with the people they're protecting!" Really, only The Hulk was the one tearing through the city with no abandon. Everyone else was trying to standthem off/lure the enemies to THEM so they could take them out more quickly and efficiently. You can see why some people would praise them for being heroes since they were so clearly shown that they were there to help ensure the safety of lives First and Foremost. Zod would have followed Supers wherever he went, so they could have flown off somewhere where there would be less city destruction (especially after the Doomsday Machine), so why exactly couldn't he have lured him away?

And also, does anyone else even KNOW who Superman is, really? I mean they kinda know that there's an alien among them that Zod wanted, but are they really aware of the Superman persona? He kinda just shows up and starts flying all over the place and is never seen having any kind of interaction with the civilians/just Lois and the military. Unless I missed a part of the CGI orgy where he DID actually acknowledge the citizens of Metropolis and they acknowledged him, they'd be pretty damn justified to assume that Supes is indeed just as bad as Zod and he should have gone away with him instead of fighting on our planet. Where HE TOO is running Zod's face against buildings and shit just as much as anyone. Again, what do they really know about him? When did he reassure the people that he was on their side? Hell, even at the very end when he takes down the drones, they'd be justified in thinking "are you trying to hide something? Hmm? Hmm??"

The people of Metropolis really have NO REASON to trust Superman or believe in him as their new hero. Maybe Papa Kent's flashback diatribe might come into play after all, because they're really going to think that they were better off if Clark was never here in the first place or would have just stayed away (seeing as how that's the only reason Zod was here). This movie is too concerned with being so overly broad and epic in scope & "moar realistic" and ashamed of its own source material that it misses the little things that count the most.

DVS BSTrD:
Actually I think that the movie proves Superman should be killing, or did you not see Zodd murder half the population of Metropolis? I've never thought it was acceptable for mor innocent people to die in the next issue just because the "hero" didn't wan to get his hands dirty. And even if it wasn't against it's moral code, it would still suck to end the only other member of your species.

But once Superman kills once? Then what? Especially in his intro movie. Once he has taken that step. Killed, even to simply protect his world and society, there is nothing that separates him from Zod. That has always been one of the most critical things is the Superman mythos. It was his personal ethics and morality. That farm raised Kansas common sense that thou shalt not kill, thou shall help they neighbors etc, that was a far greater check on Superman's unlimited powers than Kryptonite ever was. He was power exercised with restraint and responsibility. And between the Daddy lecture on "letting a school bus full of kids die" and the final solution to the Zod problem, well guess what. Superman quickly morphs into a world ruling despot. It's Marvel's Hyperion or Mark Waid's Irredeemable. Not so much Superman.

A friend summed up his issues with this movie very succinctly to me. He said it seemed to be two completely separated movies. The origin tale and backstory. and the arrival of the Kryptonians and the battle with Zod. And they never fully meshed. If they had done it as two back to back movies it would have been perfect. Allow the first to set the standards, establish the character and his moral compass and THEN have the second movie where he is faced with that single option. That would have been spectacular. But this all in one as part of his intro? It just felt wrong.

DTWolfwood:

Andrew Siribohdi:
Bob, you say that it was wrong for Superman to kill one person and that it will open the door for Superman killing his other enemies.

But the complaints I've heard online is that he killed WAY more people when he had that DBZ fight with Zod at the end of the movie and by not even trying to save them from falling buildings and debris, it made him seem more heartless than just killing Zod.

The collateral damage he causes in the cartoons and comics will have killed people. Can't imagine that wouldn't be the case.

Why not just write it as he felt so bad about killing Zod that subsequently NEVER do it again? Seems like an easy enough out.

I agree, that seems a reasonable enough way round that issue.

Also, in some of the comics, he was willing to use lethal force against enemies of similar power level, he just doesn't think it's his place to do so against humans and monsters that humans could stop. He did kill a group of dimension-hopping world-ending kryptonian nut-jobs in the comics once, and he has tried to kill Brainiac, Darkseid and Doomsday at times in various animated versions (they're still around afterwards because they are just that tough). According to something on TV tropes, the reason he tries not to kill, but doesn't fuss about his allies killing as much as Batman does is based on the fact that he is tough enough and powerful enough to try to find other ways round the problem, but not everyone is.

Magog1:

canadamus_prime:

Ken_J:

actually Zod is consistently superman's first/only kill in pretty much every medium he shows up in.

Huh? what? I don't remember Superman ever killing Zod. Again don't read the comics so...

MAybe this needs to be spammed till people READ THE GOD DAMN THing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superman_Phantom_Zone_execution.jpg

It's kinda funny when peoples biggest issue is "but my nerd sense tells me they ruined super man."

well sorry it would seem your just not nerdy enough to know what your talking about ^ ~.

I figured somebody would bring up John Byrnes classic hard hitting Superman #22 from 1988. And yes that is basically where they get parts of this story from. Yes Superman does for the first time violate his personal beliefs and kill Zod. A purely evil being bent on complete destruction of our world. But here are the differences. Firstly the build up. Before this story they spent over 2 years across several cominc titles establishing Superman. Establishing his character and morals, and establishing that this was something that he would not simply do. Superman always finds a way to save people. Superman always finds a way to not kill. 4 regular ongoing series. 2 backstory limited series. All mainly to establish those core character elements. And then when they pulled that trigger it was devastating. Which led to the second part. The fallout from what he did. That act destroyed him. He quit being Superman ung up his cape and wandered off alone into space for 2 years not willing to trust himself around anyone else.

This would have been a fantastic story for a second movie in a trilogy. The first movie should have been establishing the hero. The second should have been this ultimate confrontation and choice. and the third should have been the repercussions of that choice and eventual redemption. Trying to mash it all together just feels wrong.

WARNING!!!!! POST FULL OF SPOILERS!!!!! DON'T READ FURTHER WITHOUT SEEING THE MOVIE!!!!!

I saw Man of Steel and REALLY REALLY enjoyed it, I'd call it a masterpiece even!

That said, it hit on something I've always felt about Supes, and am about to take to the bank here. Supes is an idea, not something to necessarily be taken this seriously. There is a ground between serious and laughable, and that ground covers "Ridiculously Stylized" which is where this movie fits in. That said, it does that job spectacularly, and when your hero's most telling attribute is his iconic nature(I mean, what else makes superman interesting? NOTHING! THAT'S WHAT!!!)

I don't agree with Bob's obvious anger at some of the action taken in this Superman movie, because it's all symbolic. No Superman didn't have to fight in a small town where obviously tons of people died when THE STREETS CAUGHT ON FIRE!!!!! But this scene didn't truly represent that to me, because I understood that no people being seen was the artistic telling that these people just didn't die. This gets compounded throughout the movie as the director shows off what is apocalyptic levels of chaos that only Superman can overcome, pushing the Superman Icon in the only place it can move forward.

In fact they REALLY push it, and REALLY show off his creed by having him never attack his classmates despite them attacking him, being alienated but still willing to act as a savior. They pushed the "Space Jesus" them to the max, because that is the heart of this character. He is the incredible humble god who walks like a man.

To that light, Zod's death is easily a one-time thing, and the air of the moment was that superman didn't want to do this thing. Zod didn't just threaten a family of four, he stated that he wouldn't let this fight end without one of them dying, and superman fought and fought for that not to be the case FINALLY killing him when not doing so meant the direct death of others. Something Superman is tired of "seeing", all symbolic.

I can't take Man of Steel as a realistic look at superman no matter how much they try to justify his powers. I look at it as over the top action from the silver age, and that is what I felt I got. I didn't get the "90s comic" vibe that MovieBob got, and I felt the Writing, Production, Direction all understood their source material very well. Yes, they did throw in elements to make a very boring character interesting, giving him humanity(He watched his father die when he could have saved him, because his father insisted on him keeping his secret and he mentions this being a core factor in him randomly saving people from there on out. Furthermore, the element of him getting panic attacks from his powers is not only something I can understand greatly(I get panic attacks, and they basically showed off what super "hyper-vigilance" would look like.) and works in his power set to give him something he had to deal with that was very human. It bridged the gap from unbelievably powerful, to relatable.)

All this said, I do hope that they don't make Superman kill from here on out, and would also bring up Batman in that regard. In "Batman Begins" he kills Ra's Al Ghul and yet Batman in the comics just doesn't kill. He doesn't kill, use guns, or go against the police, these are all things he has developed into his creed because of what he has experienced fighting crime, and it's the distinction that stops him from being a crazy guy who wears a cape, and commits vigilantism. I hope that Superman killing Zod stays with him in future films and makes him wary of ever doing it again, after his reaction to Zod's death it would be easy to use it as the reason he doesn't kill.

faefrost:

Magog1:

canadamus_prime:

Huh? what? I don't remember Superman ever killing Zod. Again don't read the comics so...

MAybe this needs to be spammed till people READ THE GOD DAMN THing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superman_Phantom_Zone_execution.jpg

It's kinda funny when peoples biggest issue is "but my nerd sense tells me they ruined super man."

well sorry it would seem your just not nerdy enough to know what your talking about ^ ~.

I figured somebody would bring up John Byrnes classic hard hitting Superman #22 from 1988. And yes that is basically where they get parts of this story from. Yes Superman does for the first time violate his personal beliefs and kill Zod. A purely evil being bent on complete destruction of our world. But here are the differences. Firstly the build up. Before this story they spent over 2 years across several cominc titles establishing Superman. Establishing his character and morals, and establishing that this was something that he would not simply do. Superman always finds a way to save people. Superman always finds a way to not kill. 4 regular ongoing series. 2 backstory limited series. All mainly to establish those core character elements. And then when they pulled that trigger it was devastating. Which led to the second part. The fallout from what he did. That act destroyed him. He quit being Superman ung up his cape and wandered off alone into space for 2 years not willing to trust himself around anyone else.

This would have been a fantastic story for a second movie in a trilogy. The first movie should have been establishing the hero. The second should have been this ultimate confrontation and choice. and the third should have been the repercussions of that choice and eventual redemption. Trying to mash it all together just feels wrong.

To think, i tried to sercumvent the use of Byrne's run as to why Superman "would" kill Zod :P

The Dubya:

Capitano Segnaposto:

Realitycrash:

I was equally confused. I always found the 'do not kill' rule to be utterly stupid, but it's now so integrated into the character that removing it seems..Bizarre. I mean, heck, is BATMAN the traditional 'good guy' now of the future Justice League?

Meh. I honestly find it boring if Superman is a "Perfect" Man. People fuck up, if he kill someone, who cares. I am honestly sick and tired of seeing every superhero not kill a single person. Then again, I find it just bad writing to keep someone around when they killed hundreds, possibly thousands of people.

Kill the fucker and move on.

Annnnd this is why you got a bunch of Robert Zimmerman's running around pretending that they're The Punisher...

"But but but he looked SUSPICIOUS and and and who knows what he woulda done if I wouldn't have got him! I WANTED TO BE A HERO FOR MAH NEIGHBORHOOD GUISE!"

You do realize most of the Shoot First, Ask Questions Never type anti-heroes are usually depicted as the DOUCHEBAGS of the story, right? As in the people we DON'T want to emulate?

-----------------------
To relate it to the movie, that's why so many people find that scene so phony/undeserved to begin with. Even before the final showdown with Zod, Superman is COMPLETELY careless about laying waste to Smallville, most of which he causes HIMSELF. It'd be one thing if he was just getting thrown into stuff or he was trying to bait the badguys away from civilains or something, but no. Just like the baddies, he too shows ZERO concern for collateral damage or human casualties to where HE'S chucking folks through buildings left and right just like everyone else. But oh no, SUDDENLY he cares about this one Middle Class White Family With Kids and now decides to make this "hard decision"?

A guy that doesn't bat an eye at the decimation of his hometown/homecity who suddenly has some Woobie moment at the climax? THAT is what you call bad writing, my friend.

Just because I don't much care for the hero that is always perfect and never does any wrong or refuses to kill, does not instantly mean I want that hero to start murdering everyone on a single suspicion. Please, just stop posting if you don't know what you are talking about.

Just admit it bob, you don't like the movie. Quit beating around the bush trying to act neutral to everything like you somehow really liked it on a technical level or whatever the hell your reasoning is and just say it....you don't like it. We get it bob, your not a big fan of Nolans style of "dark" and "more realistic" super heroes and just stop acting like you are somewhat interested still in the direction they are going and just say it out loud and get it off your chest.

I personally found a ton of heart in this movie, especially the scenes with the father and when he was saving lives without asking for anything in return. I guess all those scenes mean nothing to you and just magically disappear when the fighting starts or something but I remember the movie having tons of heart.

And yes, you are being "THAT" guy.

I didn't really feel Superman killing Zod meant that now Superman is a-o-kay with killing people as long as it saves people. The scene was pretty intense and Superman had to think of something quickly, and he seemed to deeply regret his decision. This could possibly be some new motivation to never kill anyone else, after having done it.

So... Superman kills. And the movie tries to say that that's okay because the villain put a lot of people's lives at risk...
image

So, who's looking forward to the "Injustice" movie Warner Bros. is apparently trying to make?

You know I liked the movie a lot and the killing thingie? I tought it was a great way to end it ( a shame we won't see more of zod ..) , it kind of reminded me o this...

image

image

When this happened I tought " well I know she is the only one from the so called trinity with enough balls to do this" and actually made me start reading wonder woman vol 3 ( which I loved btw)....

On topic: Well I don't think this will make supes a pscyho to kill every enemy, I think they are profiling it more like a trauma? and this could actually explain the big reason why from now on superman won't kill.

I'm a Huge batman fan , that being said if warner actually pulls a JLA ala avengers and makes a origin movie ( at least of the trinity right?) I'm eagerly waiting for a Wonder Woman movie........ I just wish.... REALLY WISH they choose her right , I mean big woman, fit... kind of muscular..... right? ..... please?

You know, people love to defend the Zod-killing in Man Of Steel with this:

Well, I'd like to counter that defense with this:

I know it's been brought up but the point is valid, Superman has killed someone and he feels guilt thus he WOULDN'T do it again. It won't give him an excuse to kill off any new villain as he knows that leads to a dark place.

goliath6711:
You know, people love to defend the Zod-killing in Man Of Steel with this:

Well, I'd like to counter that defense with this:

Yeah.............. I'm sorry but any point you wanted to make is invalid because you included a small ville video in your post........XD

Good god, that picture of jay Sherman was creepy. I can still see it with my eyes closed!
But back on topic, I understand that Superman doesn't kill all the time, but in Man of Steel, his hand (or arm, more like) was forced by Zod. There was too much death and destruction in Metropolis thanks to Zod, and Supes said no more. And he definitely felt bad about killing, which is the human thing to do, because I saw the movie as Superman's quest to discover humanity, for all its ups and downs. And since I can't be arsed to dig through the other comments here, I'll say this:
Too the guy who posted the quote from Chris Sims' review: I skimmed that thing and all I heard was the siren on the fanboy WHAAAAAAAAAAA-mbulance. I have never before read such bitching and moaning that wasn't a comment in a Comics Alliance article! I do not hold up Sims' every review as the gold standard to compare all other opinions to, since the guy ONLY writes good things about Batman and the Punisher.
Speaking of him, I am going to dare to say something that would probably get me flogged, but here goes: he sucks at his job. Think about it; there are a plethora of villains running around and not dead, so if he were really so great, he'd have blown them all away.

goliath6711:
You know, people love to defend the Zod-killing in Man Of Steel with this:

Well, I'd like to counter that defense with this:

This isn't aimed at you specifically

Well first off Smallville is Shite and second that wasn't what Donner wanted in the first place, in his cut Zod and gang were alive and were taken away but for reasons i don't know it was cut before release.

Trishbot:
So... Superman kills. And the movie tries to say that that's okay because the villain put a lot of people's lives at risk...
image

So, who's looking forward to the "Injustice" movie Warner Bros. is apparently trying to make?

And as for Injustice? I won't go into the whole alternate universe thing but remember what happened in Injustice is the opposite to what happened in Kingdom Come and similarly in the JL cartoon.

Stop getting it twisted, it's not that Superman doesn't kill, it's that he shouldn't, he should always find a better way, it won't be a perfect way, just a better one. I'm not even a Superman fan and even i can get that :S

image

The only difference I can see between Zod and all the people Supermen allows to die throughout that movie is that with Zod it was through action, not inaction, that Superman ended his life. I guess if Superman had stuck Zod on a train, blown up the tracks, then said "I can't kill you, but I don't have to save you" and flown off, it would have been okay. Right BATMAN?

MrMixelPixel:
I didn't really feel Superman killing Zod meant that now Superman is a-o-kay with killing people as long as it saves people. The scene was pretty intense and Superman had to think of something quickly, and he seemed to deeply regret his decision. This could possibly be some new motivation to never kill anyone else, after having done it.

See, that's the problem I had with it. There didn't seem to be any point where he tried to weigh any other options in his head. This scenario didn't require a split-second decision (Zod is straining to turn his head toward the family while Superman is straining to turn it away from them, resulting in Zod's heat-vision beam slowly inching towards them for about 30 seconds, which the family could have run away from on their own when you think about it),and yet Superman doesn't even think about trying to find any other solution. And the thing is it's not that he didn't care about finding another solution, it's the only solution that immediately came to his mind when they entered the train station.

Here's what seems to be the thought process going on in Superman's head at this point: Okay, he's not gonna do this. He did say that I'd have to kill him to stop him, but he's just bluffing. He's not gonna really kill any of these people. Not in a million years. Uh oh, it looks like he's gonna fry that family with his heat-vision. But he's not gonna do it. He's gonna shut it off at the last second just to screw with me. He's not gonna do it. He's not gonna do it. He's not gonna do it. Wow, that beam's getting pretty close. He's not gonna do it. He's not gonna do it. He's not gonna do it. He's not gonna do it. He's not gonna do it. He's not gonna do it. He's not gonna- OH SHIT! HE'S GONNA DO IT! [SNAP]........oh shit.......he really was gonna do it......

Ok there is the one point about the killing of Zod that I'm sure people have mentioned already but here in my two cents // Superman killed him because he knew Zod would never stop, Never // Zod said it himself and Superman would have known that there was no way to talk him down, change his mind or stop him // Nothing on Earth could contain him and Zod was a better fighter than Superman // It was only a matter of time before Zod start to win and do some real damn to earth

Superman had only started to be Superman for a short time during this movie // He had faith, he had conflict within him and you could see that killing Zod was not an easy thing // He didn't have access to anything or anyone to help him with this and for later movies he will learn restraint and how to deal with the big bads

-M

OlasDAlmighty:
image

Who's Making these?! XD

I'm at least sort of agreeing with Bob in that I don't care whether they do some sort of big overarching deal or not, and that my primary concern is more or less the vision with respect to putting out good movies.

Also, Superman pretty much always finds a way, so that whole "no alternative" thing was crap. Is it cheesey and hokey? Well, yeah, but it's a Superman movie. Even in this version he's a dude who flies around in tighta and a cape in mixed primary colours. If you want dark and gritty, wait for Squirrel Girl.

canadamus_prime:
Wait, Superman kills Zod? That's not right. Superman doesn't kill.

That's Green Lantern you're thinking of. Superman's the best at what he does, though what he does isn't very nice.

That's why he runs around with a skull on his chest and enough technology to take down the US government.

raven47172:
I kept laughing when Bob's Boston accent kept slipping in.

SLIP in? That thing barged in on the back of a zombie T-Rex.

Red X:

Who's Making these?! XD

Batman. It's all part of a promotion campaign to enrage Superman fans so they'll come back to him.

You should really let your Boston accent come through more often in your voice-overs. You've said before that you trained yourself out of it because it wasn't a 'correct' broadcast voice - but that's what makes it interesting. It adds character and makes you stand out. Can you imagine Yahtzee's reviews being half as popular as they are if he didn't have that cool English/Australian accent?

Anybody can sound like they're from nowhere. You have the chance to let your roots show. Let them.

Red X:

Who's Making these?! XD

image

I'm a man of simple taste, I like Google images, and Photoshop CS5, and postimage.com. And you know what they have in common? They're cheap. Well except photoshop.

OlasDAlmighty:

Red X:

Who's Making these?! XD

image

I'm a man of simple taste, I like Google images, and Photoshop CS5, and postimage.com. And you know what they have in common? They're cheap. Well except photoshop.

Gasp! i thought i was the only one, here's my slogan for comicbook forums a made i little while back

image

I can see Superman killing Zod as a springboard for future sequels. One of the constant themes for Superman is why not become the supreme ruler/dictator (Justice Lord, Injustice, etc). The death of Zod means that any sequel has shown that Superman could actually become that sort of person but his moral code holds him in check.

I think one way to reinforce the idea would be for superman to kill another villain, not one of the big ones like Lex or Darkseid but a more mundane or human one(plenty of villains in the DC universe no one would miss, Toyman anyone?) and show the consequences of that action. Show Superman terrified of becoming a megalomaniac killer like Zod.

Consequently, you could also make his fight scenes against non-superpower humans much more believable since he would be fighting to capture not kill.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here