The Man of Steel movie was exactly like this comic.
>>78929696
Well it was more like it did some things far better than that comic and some things worse than that comic.
>>78929696
1.) EO's Clark was a unlikable emo dick that NEVER ever seemed to give a shit about helping others, only what he could best use his powers for.
> MOS fixed that by making Clark clearly yearn to help people but help back by his indecisiveness out of fear that he may cause more harm then good and change the world in a bad way.
2.) EOv1 had a poor silly looking villain
> MOS fixed this by giving us possibly the most sympathetic fleshed out versions of Zod in any medium with great armor designs.
3.) EO felt a bit too down to earth and grounded.
> MOS fixed this by making its world very realistic but gave us a grand scoping story.
4.) Both EO and MOS had the right tone and world building.
>>78930004
>1.) EO's Clark was a unlikable emo dick that NEVER ever seemed to give a shit about helping others
That's the big one, in fact the only person he was really trying to help early in EO was his mom.... by trying to apply to different jobs under his name and showing off a super-ability or two.
At least MoS had him trying to go out there and help people discreetly.
Well it should have been. It's one of the stories they based it off of.
Supposedly, it also takes elements from the original Superman movie and its sequel, as well as Smallville, The Man of Steel, Birthright, Last Son, Secret Origin, All-Star, and Secret Identity.
If I'm being honest, I've only read a few of those, so I can't really speak to the veracity of that claim, but I saw plenty of things in Man of Steel that I had seen elsewhere before, so it wouldn't surprise me.
>>78929696
As lond as the batman movie is not like EO im ok. Mos was a good movie op you are just faggy
>>78930178
I hope it is because I want to see the general public cry
>>78929696
The tone was the same but as a story, MoS was the better of the two.
>>78930178
Batman Earth One is best Batman
>>78930004
>MOS had the right tone and world building.
>>78930178
Well, Geoff Johns wrote Batman: Earth One and is writing the new Solo Batman movie...
>>78930366
Absolute when the entire point of THIS film is to to do a flawed non mary sue take on Superman in a realistic setting and focusing on the sci-fi aspects of the character rather than the generic super heroics.
>>78930178
They probably can't adapt Batman EO completely because currently it takes place in Batman's early years, and Affleckman is supposed to be an older, experienced Batman.
>>78930565
So in other words, they made a movie for people who were never really fans of Superman to begin with.
>>78930750
If being a fan means advocating for a flawless Superman, then maybe it's a good thing that they weren't fans
>>78930750
No, Superman does not have to be inherently perfect and can inherently save the day perfectly 100% of the time, that is not in ANY way a requirement of the character.
I am a good size fan of Superman, I liked his TAS almost more then Batman's TAS, I like his origins, his powers, his idealism, his side reporter identity, his allies, his villains, I like or love all of that, I just dislike his general tone that everything has to be bright and silly around him. it seems redundant. I don't see the point of a bright beacon of hope in a bright hopeful world.
Contextually his savior-ness and idealism is of more use and inspiration in a dark flawed world that needs saving.
>>78931182
>doing good = flawless
I would rather have a "flawless" superman than a whiny superman who has no qualms about killing.
Remember kids : If everyone is an edgy antihero, then no one is an edgy antihero.
>>78931454
He clearly has a qualm about it sense he begs Zod to relent.
And I would rather have a hero willing to kill genocidal maniacs that have promised to kill the entire human race by hand than one who would let other people die just to keep blood off his hands.
Being willing to kill when necessary IS NOT EDGY. Its Thor Edgy for killing the Void or Surtur?
Is Cap Edgy for killing Nazis in wartime?
>>78931699
>Being willing to kill when necessary IS NOT EDGY
No, but having a character who has always had a "no kill" rule kill somebody is edgy.
>>78929696
No shit, Goyer was a huge fan of it. The book even has a quote from him on the back of the book.
>>78931889
It is edgy to have an ideal dragged through the mud because some faggot can't see the point in aspiring to be something better.
>>78931699
>>78931889
Well, now it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
Superman's position on killing has varied greatly over the years. Sometimes he won't do it at all, sometimes he'll do it only when necessary and when all other options have been exhausted.
Man of Steel clearly took option B. And I like that. It helps differentiate him from Batman, who has a reason, justified or not, to be a no-kill zealot at all times.
>>78932159
Stop ruining the children's edgy god fantasy.
>>78931889
>>78932062
But this ISN'T classic Superman, Superman himself inherently does not have to have a no kill policy.
He IS better and inspiring, he saved 7 Billion lives twice, that is a greater accomplishment then anything any person living on the face of the earth has ever done, killing one mass murdered to do so the 2nd time doesn't lessen the act, dragging out the fight further to try and keep blood off your hands putting more lives at risk WOULD.
>>78932159
ANY OTHER WAY, doesn't fucking exist in the real world, especially when the threat can kill every human being on the face of the earth by hand and there is no known way to depower or contain him at this time.
>>78932278
right, well then, guess I'll leave them to it.
>>78932278
There is nothing edgy or godly about, the fact that he had realistic options instead of mary sue solve anything powers throws the god fantasy out the window.
>>78932392
Again, do you not see how IDIOTIC that sounds. The real world doesn't have men of steel who can burn through anything and jump tall buildings.
>>78929696
Eh.
With Earth One you never really felt like Clark wanted to be Superman.
I mean, he outright says he doesn't enjoy flying. What the fuck is that shit?
At least Zod had a cool hat.
Making an edgy movie and snapping someone's neck is such a bad way to kickstart MoS franchise and DCU in general. Superman has a gorrilion critically appreciated origin stories and they go with earth one.
>>78932474
Yes, but Superman works better contextually in a realistic troubled world.
> There is no point in a bright beacon of hope in a bright hopeful world.
If the world doesn't feel real, then the story and conflict bears little tension or weight.
>>78932278
It was done well in the Byrne Ordway area.
>>78932546
Not a single thing in the entire film was edgy.
>>78932575
The world around him can feel real. Real people don't just kill. There are pacifists. Rational people who disable rather than kill. Every day people don't commit a homicide before eats.
>>78932672
Yup, he killed Zod in the comics. This decision drove him insane, though. There were consequences for this action unlike in MoS.
>>78932712
pic related was pretty edgy desu senpai
>>78932736
They do if they have a person in a head lock who can and is willing to kill the entire human race out of spite.
It would not be possible to really disable Zod in the scenario presented, Blind him? Possibly but his body could still fly, thrash around destroying everything he comes into contact with, Break Arms or legs, unlikely but ok, he still can levitate and Eye blast.
If your in this kinda situation and you don't kill when needed and a chance was presented, your not a pacifist your a accomplice by way of inaction.
>>78933060
>who can and is willing to kill the entire human race out of spite.
That's not realistic at all.
>>78929696
Earth One is basically just "What if we turned Superman into Spider-man".
When the point is that Superman doesn't NEED tragedy to define him like so many other heroes. But idiots think that somberness and tragedy automatically equate to depth.
>>78933114
No but how he stopped him was.
Its meant to be sci-fi in a realistic world with worldly options and consequences, how the fuck can you not get this?
>>78932278
He just got finished killing someone in the panel you posted. You probably didn't know that, however, and most likely have no idea from which story that panel is actually from.
>>78933212
Because you show up in every one of these threads with that exact same copypasta line from the last one and you never seem to understand that the issue is you're trying to have it both ways.
You can't apply fantasy logic to the threat and then suddenly demand it for the solution. It has to be one or the other.
>>78933264
Yeah, he "killed" Mr. Mxyzpltk in what is effectively a DC "What if" story. There were consequences to the killing in that story also.
>>78933335
what's so fantasy about someone wanting to kill all of humanity?
>>78933335
It's not fantasy logic, its Sci-Fi logic, I want it to be epic realistic Sci-Fi but I want it to be believable, I don't want leaps into campy absurdity so kids and the nostalgic can have a happy ending.
Its about CONSEQUENCES, how would these powers and beings interact and effect the real world, that is what I want to see.
Read JMS's Supereme Power, that would give you a Idea of how you put the unrealistic in a realistic world bound by logic and consequence.
There was ZERO consequences in Superman 1-2, none, nothing had any weight, the struggle felt pointless, both movies were fun, sure, but not moving or immersive.
>>78933430
>DC "What If" story
I don't why that anon posted it as evidence of Superman's supposed kill code in the first place. I guess to post that quote "prove" that Superman never kills. Though, that of course, doesn't work, since he killed in the example he posted to prove this, in many other "What Ifs" and Elseworlds, and did so in the canonical universe, as well.
>>78933447
The desire isn't. The ability is.
The whole point of Superman (the character) and for that matter the superman (the nietzschean concept) is that his abilities and potential afford him options that common people don't have. To then have the superman NOT have options but have to take the easiest most obvious out is a waste of that potential.
It's funny in its irony but Zod is actually more of a superman than Superman is.
>>78933520
You say that shit every thread. Sci-Fi doesn't mandate the brutal calculus of war, I have no idea why you think that genre automatically necessitates it. And the fact that you can't go a thread without talking about how SERIOUS this movie is is a joke in of itself.
If you want to apply LOGIC then by the simple transitive property, Clark should have options that he wasn't allowed because the narrative wanted to steer him in a specific direction. (To which there weren't even any consequences yet because the movie's denouement is a mess. If there's any, we'll get them in BvS. Maybe.)
Not to mention, the fact that you're comparing Man of Steel to DECONSTRUCTIONS of the character is itself pretty telling. Superman doesn't need more deconstructions, he needs a REconstruction.
>>78933713
>To then have the superman NOT have options but have to take the easiest most obvious out is a waste of that potential
>superman's purpose is to be a walking plot device
No. Superman wasn't even all that strong when he was first conceived, and even modern Superman isn't nearly as all powerful as you seemingly think he is.
>>78933520
>CONSEQUENCES
>>78933713
>To then have the superman NOT have options but have to take the easiest most obvious out is a waste of that potential.
And then people would bitch about deus ex machina or plot armor like fucking batman.
It was pretty realistic avoiding a never ending fight with Zod. At this point he doesnt know what to do and thats fine, so we can have him grow as a super hero from Man of Steel 1 to Justice League 3.
>>78933574
It's simple. He kills Mxyzptlk, feels guilty for his actions, and he depowers himself because he feels he's no longer a worthy hero.
In Man of Steel, He kills Zod graphically, and then gets down to being Clark Kent seemingly without any remorse at all.
See the difference kiddo?
>>78933815
That's irrelevant to my point because he's awlays been stronger and more powerful than a base human. Yeah power creep kicked in, but he was always afforded options that other characters in his narratives weren't.
Like, he can pick up the bad guy's car and slam it into a rock. That is an option for him. Does that make him a plot device?
>>78933864
Here's the thing. I don't even necessarily mind the fact that he killed Zod. It's not what I would've done (which is to say that were I to have him kill Zod I'd have framed it differently, not that I would've not had him kill Zod.) but I can respect the decision.
What I can't respect is the argument that what we got, as presented, was somehow deep or meaningful or well characterized or written. It was hamfisted as hell' a blatantly engineered scenario that the scene, if not the entire movie, is built around, and that's just not a good way to tell a story. It's JUST as contrived as any "Superman never kills ever" fanfiction solutions to the scene, if not moreso, and the justification for it that the director gave was at the very least hypocritical.
>>78932065
Fucking this x1000.
>>78930004
>1.) EO's Clark was a unlikable emo dick that NEVER ever seemed to give a shit about helping others, only what he could best use his powers for.
like 2 of the jobs he applied for somehow affected helping people in the non-super sense. One was a pharmaceutical i think. Also remember he's a MAN, so he gave into the "i want to be a sports star" dream.
Ultimately he was inspired by Jimmy and Lois in V1 to help people through their heroism, it's a big turning point in the book.
>2.) EOv1 had a poor silly looking villain
Super-Nega David Bowie had a silly look and origin but honestly I treat him and zod the same
>most sympathetic fleshed out versions of Zod
ehhhhhhh, the whole "I was bred to be a soldier, therefor the only solution is war" shtick kinda killed any simpathy I had for him, or even the writing.
>>78930318
Batman in Volume 1 is weak, the breakout star in that book is Bullock. Volume 2 is a much better book by leaps and bounds.
E1 Superman is more "Man" than Super and it's a pretty core thing about the book, as it juggles Clark's struggles and presents CK with human challenges he can't just punch
>Congrats on getting every other job you ever wanted, but you can't throw stats at journalism to get good results.
>Your articles either have great content but no soul, or great soul but no content people want to read about
>dropping spaghetti when his soon-to-be GF is around.
E1 also has JMS writing on his own with hopefully only one editor, which is loads better than Goyer writing his for-the-masses nonsense which gets reviewed and chewed out by executives who want MAXIMUM PROFIT from the property.
>>78933150
What tragedy? I didn't see tragedy. I saw a young man inspired by others to become a hero.
>>78933520
okay, you cited Supreme Power. Got you. You think THAT is realism. Understood. You are an idiot. no more need to talk to you.
>>78933713
>And the fact that you can't go a thread without talking about how SERIOUS this movie is is a joke in of itself.
How so, that was the entire point of the film, that was everything I wanted from a Superman reboot to take him as a serious concept.
> Not to mention, the fact that you're comparing Man of Steel to DECONSTRUCTIONS of the character is itself pretty telling
Mos had the best of both worlds, he had the realism of the deconstruction but the likability of the real thing in part.
> Superman doesn't need more deconstructions, he needs a REconstruction.
He has never had a deconstruction or realistic realization on film until MOS.
>>78933818
I absolutely agree, the time skip was too sudden and had no transition, but the destruction, sacrifices and killing of Zod are consequences we don't get in other Superhero films.
>>78934727
Zod had noble intents just horrific means of accomplishing it.
EO's villain was just evil.
>>78935167
Explain how its not? The world felt like the real thing.
mos is an origin story. i think part of that is its the origin of him never killing again. because it devastated him to kill zod.
What ever happened to Supergirl and Krypto? Throughout the whole arc her and Krypto haven't shown up once is there some kind of embargo on them or something?
>>Zod
>>sympathetic
he wanted to wipe out the entire population of earth to rebuild his planet where things were already a fucking mess instead of just himself and his like 5 friends learning to assimilate to earth and humanity, my guy.....
>>78937585
>i think part of that is its the origin of him never killing again.
Snyder said as much but it was kind of bullshit since he likened it to him putting on the glasses and getting a job as a reporter; aspects which he had no problem skipping over.
>>78937670
Zod was sympathetic because quite frankly, he's the best acted performance in the movie and best characterized in the script. Everyone else has about as much depth as a cardboard cutout.
>>78936421
Okay, my mistake was using the word deconstruction when you clearly don't know what it menas. Deconstructions is NOT an injection of realism or whatever you think it was, and Man of Steel wasn't realistic. And before you do that same tired song and dance about "people's reactions to aliens", I'll remind you for the 100th time that we saw fuck all of them and they were put off for BvS.
>>78937820
>aspects which he had no problem skipping over.
buying glasses is a pretty boring uneventful thing to do desu
>>78937820
>I'll remind you for the 100th time that we saw fuck all of them and they were put off for BvS.
We saw the military, which had no laser guns or flying cars, we saw that Clark doesn't blindly follow and trust them for "American way" reasons which is realistic, we saw Pa Kent fearing the world's reaction, that is realistic.
The entire feel, tone and look of the film was realistic. Even Krypton felt like a fully realized environment.
