Messages

I see. So basically when Finch says that Superman "shouldn't act unilaterally" with his "state-level interventions" and never even mentions the faked desert massacre, it was all because she believed he was guilty of the faked desert massacre?

Cool story, bro.

What about the talk at the beginning, when that woman told them about him killing those people? Wasn't that the initiation of the issue? Isn't people being afraid of him due to that? Why would Perry describe the situation as the end of a love affair in regards to that guy's graffiti if people didn't generally like Superman before?

Wouldn't what Batman did have similar justification? Batman stopped those human traffickers. By the same measure of Batman violating their civil liberties, doesn't Superman violate international law by getting involved in the situation?

Here's another if. Superman was lambasted for going toe to toe with Zod. But what if he didn't? I'm sure it would've been 'this alien had all this power, equal to Zod, and he sat back and did nothing to stop him. What a disgrace.'

I think that doesn't change that there would be those who blame him. Superman did fight Zod in a situation he didn't have control of. And I think his search led Zod to earth.

That has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

I was responding to you saying why he's being criticized with why I think that's not the case. By saying that I think he's not criticized for his saves, but for things people blame him for and even events he's been framed for.

I agree with that. Superman is largely slammed over WHAT IFS.

What if he loses control?
What if he become a fascist ruler?
What if he represents the end of human progress?
What if, what if.

These comic universe panic merchants and see what he actually does, and appreciate that. Superman does remain in control and saves lives. He's on our side. Time and time again he demonstrates this. But the power of that what if freaks people out.

Batman largely gets slammed for WHAT IS.

Is it a what if? Or is it something he's already engaged in? He didn't have control in that fight in metropolis. His search for his roots led Zod to earth. I don't put Clark at fault for the destruction. He was working in defense. But his powers are dangerous. He's essentially a walking uncontrollable nuclear weapon. Not to mention him being framed for the frying of those people in another country. It's not just a what if?

Is there a reason people should trust him? Him helping doesn't mean he always will. He's not infallible. Automatically trusting him to me isn't much different than automatically trusting someone pointing a bazooka at me.

Batman is criticized because he violates people's civil rights on a nightly basis.

Superman is criticized because he saves people in otherwise hopeless situations.

One of those criticisms is well merited. The other, less so.

I wouldn't agree that that means that Clark thinks he's automatically owed any trust. Superman isn't ostracized. Apparently there are people who support him. Even in the movie, he's being mostly criticized because he's thought to have flown in fried people on international soil. That and the guy grafitii-ing the statue is what's developed. The movie even presents it through Perry as the end of a love affair. I take that to mean that he was liked mostly before that. Even the grafitii comes from someone because they seem to blame Clark for his situation. Even Batman's issue I think is steeped in revenge for the destruction in metropolis. Along with displaced rage about other things potentially. And that he justifies it as a precautionary tactic.

So that must mean that they're total opposites, right?

It doesn't have to be for some to think it's better or worse.

Colors, don't waste your time. Nothing you say will knock any sense to him.

Why do you put someone down over them disagreeing with you about a movie?

[tells]

A couple of things:

They talk about changing the Marvel formula, but if anything, Civil War cemented it even further; specifically that goddamn overrated airport scene. The biggest thing people were raving about this movie wasn't the themes or even the actual conflict between the characters. The most talked about part was the rather pointless infighting at the airport because of the quips. I did enjoy watching that scene the first time, but it gets old after repeated viewings. I have no doubt the positive reaction to that scene gave Disney the confidence to inject more dumbed down comedy for the majority of Phase 3, which got progressively worse in Homecoming, GOTG2 and Infinity War. What annoys me is for all the talk about the accountability and Sokovia Accords, it's soon forgotten for the remainder of Phase 3. You could say the plot point ended as soon as Tony Stark saw its negative impact when he saw pro-Cap Avengers contingent imprisoned at the Raft, but I find that to be an anticlimax.

I don't buy the praise over Civil War's supposed "emotional" arcs, apart from Black Panther. The movie didn't have the same emotional weight as it did with The First Avenger or The Winter Soldier. Compare that to Steve Rogers sacrificing himself to crash Red Skull's ship into the arctic as he says farewell to Peggy Carter. Or Steve visiting an elderly Peggy suffering from Alzhemier's. Or his standoff with Bucky to help him snap out of his brainwashing. Can you honestly tell me anything in Civil War has a scene as powerful as those moments? I thought Cap's letter in the end was a cop out and undermined the violent fight between him and Stark near the end.

Cap wasn't fighting Tony out of hatred. Why wouldn't he try to patch up their relationship? Tony would never operate under complete control of the government. He thinks they should be held accountable out of guilt.

While I can agree that fight was fairly light in comparison to the tone of the movie, I think based on the situation it wouldn't have been appropriate for it to be harsher and was in character generally. They're not fighting out of hatred. Tony, in his mind, is doing this for the good of the team, to keep them together. Cap is fighting to be able to stop what he think Zemo's plan is. I agree TWS is better than CW. But I don't think TFA has more emotional weight than CW.

And I can agree, there were too many not as good jokes in GOTG2, I don't think the comedy was much different than GOTG1 and I think can be argued it can get darker than 1 too. I don't see how the comedy in IW was anymore dumbed down than GOTG1 and think that the comedy was acceptably in character mostly.

Anyway, another complaint some people had about BvS was the fight between Batman and Superman would never have happened if Superman tried harder in telling Batman that Lex was setting up both of them to kill each other. Yet in Civil War, Cap tells Iron Man and company about Zemo framing Bucky and setting everybody up against each other at the start of the airport fight, yet nobody listens.

As you say, one movie gets derided for having heroes unwilling to cooperate, yet the other gets praised for doing the same thing.

That's not the same thing.

That, and Superman perceiving Batman as a serious threat early on in their careers is a precedent in the comics. When both characters met each other for the first time in John Byrne's Man of Steel mini-series, Superman went to Gotham City with the intention to capture Batman and turn him over to the police, because Batman was working outside the law. It was until he was coerced by Batman and learned about Magpie being a bigger threat at large that they had to work together. But nonetheless, Superman was wary of Batman because he didn't approve vigilantism and outlaws. In the end though, he permits Batman to continue roaming through the streets because he realises Gotham City needs him, but Superman promises to keep a close eye on him to make sure his actions don't go too far.

In BvS, Batman appeared to have Gotham City's law enforcement by his side, as Clark Kent saw in that cartoon sketch at the police station while trying to investigate the Santos case with uncooperative cops in the Ultimate Edition. If the police, as an institution, never supported Batman's violent methods, there's no doubt in my mind Superman would've tried to apprehend Batman, instead of giving him that tense warning at the end of the Batmobile chase scene.

I think a different idea applies because that Superman isn't this one. I think this Superman has as little right to do this as Batman does. And if the loony vigilante is the threat he thinks he should take his time to go after, why him and not anything else?

I got into a similar discussion about this with someone who defended it by saying something about how Clark doesn't like that he's criticized while Batman isn't and that's why he goes after Batman. I think that's not a strong defense for a couple reasons.

You say this after Superman was accused of the desert massacre and a big percentage of the public believed it, which is partly why Superman had that crisis of confidence in the movie.

I sometimes wonder if we even watched the same movie.

That's not about how he deals with his feelings in killing Zod.

Not the exact same! Must be total opposites!

I don't agree.

"They need to see the fraud you are. With their eyes. The blood on your hands."

Not very long after that line was delivered, Superman took a spike to the chest... which wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't killed Zod back in MOS.

So hmm.

That's not about how he deals with it.

Of course. They're not precisely the same so that must mean they're complete opposites, right?

I don't think Clark inspired them. Except for the bully.

It's going to be hard to not sound insulting here, but I'll try to do my best.

You've said a lot of intellectually dishonest things ever since you've started participating on this forum. Your particular criticisms of MOS for not exploring the consequences over Superman killing Zod, while refusing to acknowledge those consequences were explored in BvS, as well as the nonsense you wrote about Superman didn't inspire people throughout the films, is definitely one of your most ridiculous comments. It also shows a staggering lack of self-awareness because you continue to deny the lack of consequences of Nolan's Batman killing in each film. Never mind the fact you continue to deny he ever killed anyone despite what is seen and heard on screen, as well as always moving the goalposts to desperately deny any sort of inconsistency. Not only does it make you a hypocrite, it ruins any point of trying to have a conversation with you, because you lack reasoning and have a distorted perspective when it comes to movies in general. It's just projection.

I'm sorry that sounds harsh Dagenspear. Believe it or not, I don't want to insult you. If I didn't know any better, I would've thought you were trolling. But instead, I'm rather concerned about your state of mind. The stuff you say for the vast majority of the time makes me worried about your mental health.

I don't deny that Nolan's Batman killed. He did. BvS doesn't deal with Clark's reaction to killing Zod. That's what I mean when I talk about consequences. I maintain that the idea of Superman inspiring people isn't something that movie develops. I agree the movie says he did. But I don't think the movie develops it. My statements about him not inspiring people in this thread, as far as I've seen, post here:

I saw this nice collage that somebody on Twitter compiled to illustrate examples how Superman touched people's lives, and connect them to a line spoken by Batman in the latest Justice League trailer.



Source: https://twitter.com/TheoB0rg/status/892457373260017664

One can state the execution hasn't always been the best, but it's foolish to say Snyder's Superman hasn't made a positive influence to the world in the DCEU.

That's the thing here: He didn't make people see the best of themselves at all. People just did it. Nothing Superman does would effect people this way. Superman doesn't turn Batman around. Batman sees Superman as a person based on something they have in common. Superman's actions aren't different here than they are in MOS. There's no reason for it to change anything. The only thing that holds water to me is the bully to friend thing. Society wouldn't treat Superman as if his loss was the equivalent of the loss of many lives. Ally wasn't earned. That soldier was one in connection to trying to save the world irregardless of Superman. There's no reality to many of these statements. Society doesn't change like that. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I assume this is what you're talking about. But I was talking about these situations and that I think it doesn't apply.

And the weirder thing, is that I'm seeing people who I've personally seen get nitpicky with things in the DCEU, but are totally onboard for this. One second, they're complaining cause Superman's costume isn't the right shade of blue, or that he doesn't smile enough, but give them a Joker movie that has no Batman, and that looks nothing like The Joker, and they're all onboard. I don't get it?

Once again, this just reminds me that people can't think for themselves. This video sums up this attitude perfectly.

If the DCEU had the Joker sporting a Glasgow smile scar and telling people different stories over how he got it, and spoke in pretentious dialogue about the hopelessness of human nature, that would've been mocked for being too edgy and dark, and people would've complained about how unfunny, miserable and nonsensical the Joker was. But because it's Nolan, it gets a pass - because the critics liked it. Seriously, if the NPC meme goes beyond the mockery of SJWs in terms of making of fun of those who engage in groupthink, then I'd say that's exactly what these pop culture followers. A bunch of trite, empty-headed NPCs.

I predict that despite some people's grievances of how this movie looks (myself included), this movie will get critically acclaimed. That will amuse me because the same people who incorrectly say "Joker has no backstory" and used that to criticise Nicholson's Joker for years, will to have to revise their criteria when they praise Phoenix in the role.

I think some people have certain expectations about certain things. The Joker in BTAS had a backstory, but I don't see people don't complain about that.

Lex Luthor in Smallville I think had very little in common in backstory with his comic version, but I've seen a lot of the perception that that Lex is the best live action adaption.

I don't see many complaints about Joker having an origin in B89 recently.

Not to mention, and this is my opinion, villains, like Joker, has leeway in backstory, where superhero characters origins more or less are the building blocks of the character.

But people can dislike non-comic accurate versions and think something is good.

I think it's not about darkness, but about whether someone thinks it's good or bad and the type of darkness for some. Joker only talks about people being bad and doesn't really try to really be, what I think, is pretentious.

And the weirder thing, is that I'm seeing people who I've personally seen get nitpicky with things in the DCEU, but are totally onboard for this. One second, they're complaining cause Superman's costume isn't the right shade of blue, or that he doesn't smile enough, but give them a Joker movie that has no Batman, and that looks nothing like The Joker, and they're all onboard. I don't get it?

As far as Phoenix's Joker goes, I think there's not much question what people are generally in fandom expecting from it: Not comic accurate.

I think that wasn't the case with other things, where the expectation was something more actively comic accurate. Even then complaining about how something looks or if a character smiles enough I think doesn't matter really to someone if they like the whole product.