rubiksnoob wrote:I just want them to stop making superman movies.
We disagree about almost everything, but in this instance, we're on the same page.
Seriously, enough with the instant retreads, and superman movies just suck, like all of them. You can't really make an omnipotent being anything but boring.
The one from SDCC that actually showed more Superman, and super powered fighting, was a lot more impressive. I don't think this teaser is going to generate the reaction they want. Most so far has been 'meh'.
The SDCC trailer -- by all accounts -- was much more action-oriented and Zack Snyder has promised a lot of action in the movie. So the spiritual trailer might be an odd choice in some respects. I happen to like it, as it suggests a more thoughtful approach to the material.
Dude, its superman. How thoughtful can it be? He's got not angst. He had good parents. He's functionally invulnerable. If he makes a mistake he can just go back in time and fix it.
Unless he's fighting like Baal, how bad can it get for him? When you can literally kick everyone's ass before breakfast, including Unicron and the Death Star, whats the issue?
It not the litteral failur eof Superman that matters, it is the possible spiritual and moral failure that can make him interesting.
He is suppose to be a shiny beacon that others can aspire too. If he fails to be the noblest, best, and most perfect, then everyone is destined to fail. That is how you give him some depths, especially if he knows this and takes the weight upon his shoulders willingly.
Frazzled wrote:Dude, its superman. How thoughtful can it be?
I'm guessing the last Superman comic you read was Action Comics #1 when it was released.
I also didn't realize that Superman Returns was so beloved that the idea of starting a new series is an affront to the delicate sensibilities of dakka's OT contributors. I, personally, look forward to the new films that aren't trying to remake Christopher Reeve but stake a new take on the material, as well as launch a DC Film Universe like the Animated Universe did, or as Marvel has with their characters.
Of course, I saw the SDCC footage and as I stated earlier, and gorgon reiterated, it was much more visceral. I like these teasers, but I don't think they capture attention like the market dept. is hoping.
Frazzled wrote:Unless he's fighting like Baal, how bad can it get for him? When you can literally kick everyone's ass before breakfast, including Unicron and the Death Star, whats the issue?
Frazzled wrote:Unless he's fighting like Baal, how bad can it get for him? When you can literally kick everyone's ass before breakfast, including Unicron and the Death Star, whats the issue?
He's just playing with them because he's bored. Lobo appears. He goes back in time, finds Lobo as a baby and beats his ass. The his momma's. Then his grand mamma's then...
Frazzled wrote:Dude, its superman. How thoughtful can it be? He's got not angst. He had good parents. He's functionally invulnerable. If he makes a mistake he can just go back in time and fix it.
Unless he's fighting like Baal, how bad can it get for him? When you can literally kick everyone's ass before breakfast, including Unicron and the Death Star, whats the issue?
Well, it can be as thoughtful as you want to make it. I think having basically every other member of his species wiped out, with most of the other ones being megalomaniacal bastiches would be someplace to start. Methinks the Christ analogies and the question of whether YOU would want to take all that on is another issue that could be thoughtfully explored (and this has long rumored to be at the core of this movie).
Power level is a non-issue. His power level has fluctuated greatly over the years in either direction. But then I know you know that and are just being willfully ignorant.
Frazzled wrote:Dude, its superman. How thoughtful can it be? He's got not angst. He had good parents. He's functionally invulnerable. If he makes a mistake he can just go back in time and fix it.
Unless he's fighting like Baal, how bad can it get for him? When you can literally kick everyone's ass before breakfast, including Unicron and the Death Star, whats the issue?
Well, it can be as thoughtful as you want to make it. I think having basically every other member of his species wiped out, with most of the other ones being megalomaniacal bastiches would be someplace to start. Methinks the Christ analogies and the question of whether YOU would want to take all that on is another issue that could be thoughtfully explored (and this has long rumored to be at the core of this movie).
Power level is a non-issue. His power level has fluctuated greatly over the years in either direction. But then I know you know that and are just being willfully ignorant.
His specieis didn't get wiped out. He was raised as an American Hurr!
Son, we have somethig to tell. Ok Dad what? You were adopted. OK. You're an alien OK You have super powers. you can't be killed, can go back in time, can fly in space, and may be ageless. Awesome!
Yea, not getting the issue. Oh the moral burden! (Eases his conscious by going back in time and throwing Adolph Hitler into the sun, and forcing Stalin and Admiral Tojo into a cage match.) Ah, I feel better now. Forget that Lois Lane chick, times to dates me some super models.
Super man pick up lines. I'm invulnerable to bullets but your face stopped my heart. Would you like some gold? How about 15 tons of it? What are you doing tomorrow? Care to fly to Alpha Centauri? yea, being a superhero's a real burden, but I can take it. I'm Superman. Have I saved your life today?
rubiksnoob wrote:I just want them to stop making superman movies.
We disagree about almost everything, but in this instance, we're on the same page.
Seriously, enough with the instant retreads, and superman movies just suck, like all of them. You can't really make an omnipotent being anything but boring.
Oh, come now, we can't be that different! I have a dachshund for christ's sake!
Will they be in it or will it just be the Kryptonite thing again?
God I fething HOPE NOT! CHRIST that got old years ago. Hes fething Superman, the dude is practically a God, and your throwing mortal men at him with emeralds?!?! feth me........
So there's a few fun bits in there that I'd like to share.
1) At 1:00, when you see "young Clark" playing wearing the cape...he takes up that iconic Superman 'hands on hips, cape blowing in the breeze' imagery we're all familiar with.
2) At 1:11 watch very closely. Right as he breaks the sound barrier...he extends his arms, and again comes into an iconic pose.
You know the one. Arms forward, cape billowing as he flies forward.
Except he isn't. As someone pointed out above his power levels fluctuate from time to time, with some writing him as as god, and others writing him as powerful to be sure, but not obscenely so. In the current Action Comics of New 52 he hasn't even flown yet (up to where I have read anyway) and makes large jumps as he did originally. While generally immune to small arms fire, he can still be harmed by other forces, such as when he stopped a bullet train and got stuck between it and a building and was knocked unconscious. He is shown having bruises from missiles and such as well. Against normal bank robbers there is no question and is a bit of a joke, but there are things besides kryptonite that can harm him.
Oh, and the villain is Zod. Since this is going to be a 'Batman Begins' for Superman, I think they are going to show why he choose* to be a hero, I imagine they went with Zod to show what a person with Superman's powers, that is intent on naughtiness, can do and why it is important for someone to stand up to them, or for him to not be like them. Or some crap like that.
*I think someone pointed out earlier that Superman, unlike Batman or Spiderman, both whom were affected by traumatic events, makes a conscious choice to be a hero and, more importantly, a symbol for good. He also wasn't infused with power by an accident like the Flash. Green Lantern didn't so much choose to be Green Lantern so much as the ring chose him. Wonder Woman was created to be a hero** from clay.
1. His character arc is different from other heroes; as said, he's not a tormented guy, but someone with power who chooses to be a hero and a symbol.
2. Time travel and all the really zany excessive powers haven't classically been crap he can do; just during particular periods of (mostly) bad writing.
3. There are some villains who can take him on head to head; like Zod.
4. Even if he's indestructible and the strongest guy in the world, that doesn't mean he can solve all problems. You can still give a hero like that mysteries and bad situations that his powers can't automatically solve.
Fraz, you seem fixated on the 'going back in time' thing. Well that's a power Superman was suddenly given in order to give a crappy ending to anotherwise pretty good movie, and other than that hasn't been a consistent power of his.
So in another movie franchise they can just not give Superman that power, and then your big problem goes away. Luck you. You can stop posting about Superman now.
In other news, Superman is a hard one to write, but by no means impossible. More than anything, though, I'm just really bored with the idea of what is bound to be yet another origin movie. We all know the Superman origin, we don't need the first 30 minutes of the movie chewed up telling it all over again.
sebster wrote:In other news, Superman is a hard one to write, but by no means impossible. More than anything, though, I'm just really bored with the idea of what is bound to be yet another origin movie. We all know the Superman origin, we don't need the first 30 minutes of the movie chewed up telling it all over again.
I think, like BB, it isn't going to focus on the parts we know about so much as the 'lost years'. The impression I get from the SDCC footage is that the movie will start with him sometime after graduating High School and is bumming around doing odd jobs and the like. He does something extraordinary and he goes back home to see if they know what is going on. This is where Pa Kent (Kevin Costner) tells him that he is an alien and then he goes about learning about his heritage from the last cell phone message his biological father (Russel Crow) left. Most of the film will be pre-reveal of alien heritage, and the time after where he tries to understand it. I don't think a lot of time will be spent on Krypton. Then he fights Zod. Of course I could be wrong and it may be an hour of retread.
I don't know much about Super Man having not see anything with him outside the DCAU. However I enjoyed that enough that I don't think it's fair to dismiss the character out of hand. The trailer looks neat, I'd probably go see the movie if the my comic book nerd friends are gonna go.
I don't know why people automatically assume that it is impossible to make a good Superman movie. It may not be possible to make one that will please everyone, let alone the masses, but he opens all sorts of interesting moral quandaries that "weaker" heroes/heroines don't deal with. If he is written as being all powerful or close to it, there is a major issue of him setting an example for others to follow while avoiding corruption and baser instincts. If it's written as him simply always taking the moral high road it will be boring, but if he flirts with rage, vengeance, megalomania, etc and then resists the temptations then the story should be interesting.
Think about it honestly, if you woke up suddenly with Superman's powers wouldn't the temptation to morally questionable things for a good cause (or even just outright wrong things) be there?
sebster wrote:Fraz, you seem fixated on the 'going back in time' thing. Well that's a power Superman was suddenly given in order to give a crappy ending to anotherwise pretty good movie, and other than that hasn't been a consistent power of his.
So in another movie franchise they can just not give Superman that power, and then your big problem goes away. Luck you. You can stop posting about Superman now.
In other news, Superman is a hard one to write, but by no means impossible. More than anything, though, I'm just really bored with the idea of what is bound to be yet another origin movie. We all know the Superman origin, we don't need the first 30 minutes of the movie chewed up telling it all over again.
Still not impressed. To many people know about that, and its movie canon now. Besides. He can literally punch out everyone on the planet.
I await Krypton and Lex Luthor for the #356 time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:I don't know why people automatically assume that it is impossible to make a good Superman movie. It may not be possible to make one that will please everyone, let alone the masses, but he opens all sorts of interesting moral quandaries that "weaker" heroes/heroines don't deal with. If he is written as being all powerful or close to it, there is a major issue of him setting an example for others to follow while avoiding corruption and baser instincts. If it's written as him simply always taking the moral high road it will be boring, but if he flirts with rage, vengeance, megalomania, etc and then resists the temptations then the story should be interesting.
Think about it honestly, if you woke up suddenly with Superman's powers wouldn't the temptation to morally questionable things for a good cause (or even just outright wrong things) be there?
Probably because the first two are arguably the only decent ones, and thats just because they were some of the first of decent comic films. Once you have RIchard Pryor in a Superman movie, its strictly no bueno.
Now we could fix that by having him fight the zombie plague, a true War of Worlds Alien race, the sleestak or something completely utterly different. But Zod's been done before. The whole "oh wow I discover my powers" schtick has been done before (in movie and TV show).
Except he isn't. As someone pointed out above his power levels fluctuate from time to time, with some writing him as as god, and others writing him as powerful to be sure, but not obscenely so. In the current Action Comics of New 52 he hasn't even flown yet (up to where I have read anyway) and makes large jumps as he did originally. While generally immune to small arms fire, he can still be harmed by other forces, such as when he stopped a bullet train and got stuck between it and a building and was knocked unconscious. He is shown having bruises from missiles and such as well. Against normal bank robbers there is no question and is a bit of a joke, but there are things besides kryptonite that can harm him.
Oh, and the villain is Zod. Since this is going to be a 'Batman Begins' for Superman, I think they are going to show why he choose* to be a hero, I imagine they went with Zod to show what a person with Superman's powers, that is intent on naughtiness, can do and why it is important for someone to stand up to them, or for him to not be like them. Or some crap like that.
*I think someone pointed out earlier that Superman, unlike Batman or Spiderman, both whom were affected by traumatic events, makes a conscious choice to be a hero and, more importantly, a symbol for good. He also wasn't infused with power by an accident like the Flash. Green Lantern didn't so much choose to be Green Lantern so much as the ring chose him. Wonder Woman was created to be a hero** from clay.
**I know they recently retconned it.
Except he isnt......save for the parts you said where he is immune to small arms fire, can jump over buildings like I hop over the cat, "gets bruises from missiles" and was merely knocked out when a bullet train smashed him into a building............................Ill let you think on this for a moment..................................go ahead keep pondering what youve just argued against..........................getting it yet? Ya, thats very much God like.
Amaya wrote:I don't know why people automatically assume that it is impossible to make a good Superman movie. It may not be possible to make one that will please everyone, let alone the masses, but he opens all sorts of interesting moral quandaries that "weaker" heroes/heroines don't deal with. If he is written as being all powerful or close to it, there is a major issue of him setting an example for others to follow while avoiding corruption and baser instincts. If it's written as him simply always taking the moral high road it will be boring, but if he flirts with rage, vengeance, megalomania, etc and then resists the temptations then the story should be interesting.
Think about it honestly, if you woke up suddenly with Superman's powers wouldn't the temptation to morally questionable things for a good cause (or even just outright wrong things) be there?
Right on, and with nolan having his fingers in this film I'm hoping this is what we get.
I hear he is going to relaunch his bid for the White House soon!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Now make it interesting. Make Superman a "survival of the fittest" guy and its finally different.
Better. Make Superman a bad guy. Who can save you now?
That's why Supes vs. General Zod is interesting. They have the same powers, so what seperates them is the fact that Supes has chosen the path of light, while Zod has not.
Superman will win. FIrst there will be a fight and Zod wins but Superman survives. he will have a crisis of faith but overcome it and then kick Zod's keister.
Frazzled wrote:
Better. Make Superman a bad guy. Who can save you now?
Batman. Not just counting that he's known to keep Kryptonite around, but didn't he once beat up Superman without Kryptonite using a suit of power armor that tapped into the entire power grid of Gotham or something?
Frazzled wrote:
Better. Make Superman a bad guy. Who can save you now?
Batman. Not just counting that he's known to keep Kryptonite around, but didn't he once beat up Superman without Kryptonite using a suit of power armor that tapped into the entire power grid of Gotham or something?
He had Green Arrow shoot an arrow at Superman filled with synthetic kryptonite dust right before, or maybe slightly after, the fight started.
Frazzled wrote:Superman will win. FIrst there will be a fight and Zod wins but Superman survives. he will have a crisis of faith but overcome it and then kick Zod's keister.
Its like its been done before.
Because the villains win so often movies? If the best you've got at this point is complaining that the antagonist in a film overcomes adversity it would seem you've run out of criticism of any merit, not there was much to begin with.
Will they be in it or will it just be the Kryptonite thing again?
Worse. General Zod and friends.
That's not worse that's better. Superman II was one of the first films ever saw at the cinema. It was, and still is, a great film. Six year olds are never wrong about the quality of films.
Ahtman wrote:He had Green Arrow shoot an arrow at Superman filled with synthetic kryptonite dust right before, or maybe slightly after, the fight started.
I thought is was a kryptonite ring, or is that a comic book in joke that I didn't get?
Frazzled wrote:Superman will win. FIrst there will be a fight and Zod wins but Superman survives. he will have a crisis of faith but overcome it and then kick Zod's keister.
Its like its been done before.
Because the villains win so often movies? If the best you've got at this point is complaining that the antagonist in a film overcomes adversity it would seem you've run out of criticism of any merit, not there was much to begin with.
Its meritorious as there's no effort involved. Its a foregone conclusion. Batman could theoretically lose. Magneto did win. Unless you create something different this guy can't lose.
As a non comic book guy it looks boring. But I've said my piece and will leave you to discussing it further.
Frazzled wrote:Its meritorious as there's no effort involved.
And again we return to you showing that you have no idea what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with being a comic book guy or not, as I am, at best, passively a comic book person, but with having a bit of knowledge on the subject, or at the very least, recognizing where one doesn't know something and will listen to people who do. When people keep trying to explain that he isn't a god that wins by merely a thought, and you recognize you don't know the subject but they do, you might want to, oh I don't know, learn something.
Frazzled wrote:Its meritorious as there's no effort involved.
And again we return to you showing that you have no idea what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with being a comic book guy or not, as I am, at best, passively a comic book person, but with having a bit of knowledge on the subject, or at the very least, recognizing where one doesn't know something and will listen to people who do. When people keep trying to explain that he isn't a god that wins by merely a thought, and you recognize you don't know the subject but they do, you might want to, oh I don't know, learn something.
Can't be shot. Can't be killed by a laser. Can't be bombed. Would have wiped the floor with the avengers, the X men, Loki and his alien buddies, combined. Thats pretty epically invulnerable. The only one close is Ang Lee's Hulk.
If we're talking movie Superman vs. Zeus I'd go with Superman.
*Red Skull. Superman extermines Hydra.
*Loki. Just chunks him into space.
*Luthor. Punches through his skull (now that would be epic, lets start the movie with that).
*Zod. isn't he like old? What you can't beat an old guy from your own planet? What are you Super Nerd?
gorgon wrote:Frazz, did you just intentionally ignore what Ahtman said, or are you off your meds?
One can do both.
I was leaving until the insults. I'm just not seeing how this is anything but boring. THE TEASER WAS ing BORING. It looks the same as all the other ones, just slightly better effects.
The problem is the movies have made him invulnerable whether or not 5,000 comics fluctuate over time. The movies have made him a massive eat Darth Vader for breakfast badass. If you downpower him now people will be ticked off. if you go with same "gets older gets stronger" storyline its been done to death. The teaser looks like, instead of being a reporter he wanders around a little bit. Ok. Kind of like a young Batman, Wolverine, Magneto...
have Zod find him as a kid and beat his ass and hurl onto another planet where he has to fight Cthulu and Nazi Hitler. Make it a comedy.
No more invulnerable than any other comic book hero that has been around for decades. You complain he can't be killed, but then, neither can Spiderman, John McClain, Batman, James Bond, Black Dynamite, ect ect.
Frazzled wrote:Luthor. Punches through his skull (now that would be epic, lets start the movie with that).
If he would do such a thing he would save himself a lot of trouble, but he doesn't when he easily could, which is one of the things that makes him the character he is. He isn't loved because he has super powers, but because of how he uses them and how he approaches the world. The fact you think he should win a fight by punching a hole in someone's head just shows how little you know about the character. Recognizing a deficit in information isn't an insult, it is an observation. Your consistent and purposeful unwillingness to learn anything more about a subject when others try to help you is what is insulting.
Frazzled wrote:Zod. isn't he like old? What you can't beat an old guy from your own planet? What are you Super Nerd?
See, you even admit that you don't really know who a character is, but if we tried to tell you about him you would get cranky and ignore it, so I don't see the point.
I am really enjoying Frazz owning this thread as hard as Superman would own anything moviegoers would accept as a villain.
A related quote sequence from Community-
Abed: "Are you Superman?"
Troy: "No."
Abed: "Would you tell me if you were?"
Troy: "I'd tell everyone. I never understood why he cared who knew."
But you aren't offering up opinions, just bad information. At no point have I said you have to like Superman, as that would be an opinion. The problem is that your facts are wrong, and you are using incorrect information to inform you. It is like saying 2+2=6, and when someone tries to explain that it is 2+2=4 your response is to say that you just have a differing opinion.
Frazzled wrote:Can't be shot. Can't be killed by a laser. Can't be bombed. Would have wiped the floor with the avengers, the X men, Loki and his alien buddies, combined.
If you look at either the marvel or DC wiki you'll see how stupidly powerful most superheroes are in the comics.
Marvel Wiki wrote:While Thor has usually been shown to rely solely on his fighting ability, super strength, and well nigh invulnerability, he has so many other options available to him if a fight starts going badly. He has complete mastery over the weather, he can open chasms in the earth, he can even drain the soul out of his opponent’s body.
Marvel Wiki wrote:He has been clocked flying at three times the speed of light
Marvel Wiki wrote:Resurrection: While channeling his power through Mjolnir, Thor was able to resurrect a man he had wrongly killed
Apart from Batman and Captain American practically all of the superheroes can survive 'multiple nuclear blasts' on 2% shield strength, or something stupid like that. They just don't put any of the massively overpowered crap in the films though, thank god...
Gitzbitah wrote:I am really enjoying Frazz owning this thread as hard as Superman would own anything moviegoers would accept as a villain.
A related quote sequence from Community-
Abed: "Are you Superman?"
Troy: "No."
Abed: "Would you tell me if you were?"
Troy: "I'd tell everyone. I never understood why he cared who knew."
The secret identity serves a few purposes.
Firstly it lets him -- to an extent -- lead an ordinary life, if only for short times, and lets him connect with ordinary people in a way that Superman can't. Think how star struck people get when they meet celebrities.
Plus it also goes a long wat towards protecting his family and friends from attack from his (many) enemies who wouldn't hesittae to strike at him in this way. Hell, think how often Lois gets into trouble as it is.
Best way to think about it is that Clark kent is really who he really is, with Superman being something of an act he puts on so he can do what he does -- conversely it's generally agreed that Batman is who Bruce really is now -- after all those years of training etc etc -- with Bruce waybe being an act or disguise he puts on.
It's worth bearing in mind that with the exception of some of the err.... wackier.... stories in the past most people don't know that Superman even has a secret identity, he doesn't generally mention it as, well.. you wouldn't would you.
For the record : In TDKR Batman does indeed whup Supes ass... but to do this takes a lot of planning, some synthetic kryptonite, Supers is already weakened having been caught in a nuclear explosion not long before, he puts a massive electrical charge from the city mains through him and unleashes ultra soics etc to disorientate and slow him.
Superman has/had a fairly extreme vulerability to magic as well.
But you aren't offering up opinions, just bad information. At no point have I said you have to like Superman, as that would be an opinion. The problem is that your facts are wrong, and you are using incorrect information to inform you. It is like saying 2+2=6, and when someone tries to explain that it is 2+2=4 your response is to say that you just have a differing opinion.
What facts are wrong?
I reference the last movie. He survived being machine gunned in the freaking eyeball. He flew in space without assist and without life support. He lifted an island. Thats pretty invulnerable.
In the first movie. he flew so fast he travelled back in time. In another movie he survived a missile attack with the only effect of ticking him off.
In this teaser alone he breaks the sound barrier and can apparently reach speeds to achieve at least low orbit. Without anything else, thats pretty freaking invulnerable. That means lack of oxygen is ok. extreme friction G forces are not a problem. He can withstand forces that would jellify our bones instantaneously. in the realm of movie superheroes he just beat everyone besides Iron Man and maybe Thor without breaking a sweat.
But my facts are off...
Wikipedia:
Superman films In Superman: The Movie, Superman's speed was shown as fast enough to reverse the timestream. In Superman II, he possessed the ability to hypnotize Lois Lane with a kiss. Because the three Kryptonian villains of the movie had the ability to shoot beams from their hands, Superman presumably would have the same power. In Superman III, he was able to create a diamond from coal using super strength and raising his heat temperature with a glowing yellow flash from his hand. In Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, he demonstrates the ability to repair damaged structures with a telekinetic beam from his eyes, and to levitate several falling people; he also shows a greater extension of his superhuman strength to draw the moon out of orbit and then return it back to normal. In Superman Returns, Superman is shown to possess enough invulnerability to stare unblinkingly as a gun is fired point blank at his eye and receive no damage at all. Kryptonite does rob him of his strength and make him vulnerable, but due to flying above the clouds and into the rays of the sun, he gained enough amplified strength to lift Lex Luthor's kryptonite-based sub-continent beyond the Earth's atmosphere and into space, despite the kryptonite shard in his body and the kryptonite pillars coming from the continent, though this severely weakens him and he falls back down to Earth in a coma.
Frazzled wrote:
*Red Skull. Superman extermines Hydra.
*Loki. Just chunks him into space.
*Luthor. Punches through his skull (now that would be epic, lets start the movie with that).
*Zod. isn't he like old? What you can't beat an old guy from your own planet? What are you Super Nerd?
Oh Frazz. Are you just warming up for the Jihadi websites?
Of course, Superman COULD do all of those things. What makes Superman interesting is that he does NOT do those things. That would demean what he stands for.
I think what really bugs you Frazz is that he is not a Neitszchien "superman" who does what ever he wants to do. He holds himself to a higher standard, because nobody else can force him to be held to a higher standard.
Anothe rway you can make a Superman movie dramatic is not to endanger Superman (other than morally or spiritiually) but to but others that he cares about in danger. You can see this in most of the former Superman movies. However, I do agree that successfully writing and challenging a omnipotnetn chracter can be a huge challenge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:I want a Doctor Strange movie, directed by Tim Burton.
I second this, although I'm not usre it has to be directed by Tim Burton. I would choose the Wachowski Brothers.
I've already addressed the inconsistencies in your information several times, and since I doubt you read them the first time I don't see why I should do it again.
He's an 80 year old character that has been in comics, books, movies, and TV shows pretty consistently for that 80 years and you pick two limited examples and act as if they encompass some great understanding of the character.
Of course, Superman COULD do all of those things. What makes Superman interesting is that he does NOT do those things. That would demean what he stands for.
Actually it just makes him stupid. There's no morality check to not taking out the bad guy. It just means the bad guy is going to again hurt more people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I've already addressed the inconsistencies in your information several times, and since I doubt you read them the first time I don't see why I should do it again.
He's an 80 year old character that has been in comics, books, movies, and TV shows pretty consistently for that 80 years and you pick two limited examples and act as if they encompass some great understanding of the character.
No, just the movies that millions of people have seen, not the comics that only comic book readers have seen.
Frazzled wrote:No, just the movies that millions of people have seen, not the comics that only comic book readers have seen.
Then perhaps you shouldn't make generalized statements about the character and refer specifically to and only about the film incarnation, which is not the only one, and, while I love Christopher Reeve, was simply overpowered and also confusing at the same time. Much of the stuff in those films exists only in those films. If that was all there was to determine Superman I would agree with you, but it isn't close to the only source of information so judging a completely separate work based only on that is incredibly myopic. When people keep telling you that there is more, and give you examples of how those movies aren't all there is to the character but you just turn your nose up and say you want to pretend there is nothing else that is frustrating. Not because you don't like the character, but because you obstinately choose to remain ignorant of the larger picture of the possibilities. People aren't trying to combat you, they are trying to share with you something they like and you just keep gaking on them for no real good reason other than you think because you saw a few movies you know enough, which is both sad and ridiculous.
Also, millions of people have read the comics, or they wouldn't have lasted 80 years.
The comics are irrelevant. The movies are out. One movie was recently done. Again in the one clip he's already boogeying at least mach 5 and taking unbelievable forces.
Of course, Superman COULD do all of those things. What makes Superman interesting is that he does NOT do those things. That would demean what he stands for.
Actually it just makes him stupid. There's no morality check to not taking out the bad guy. It just means the bad guy is going to again hurt more people.
Will they be in it or will it just be the Kryptonite thing again?
Worse. General Zod and friends.
That's not worse that's better. Superman II was one of the first films ever saw at the cinema. It was, and still is, a great film. Six year olds are never wrong about the quality of films.
Garbage Pail Kids. I loved it as a 6 y/o. Its beyond a steaming pile of gak. Trust me, your wrong
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:I want a Doctor Strange movie, directed by Tim Burton.
That would suck. And mostly because of Burton. The guy had some cool ideas and all 15ish years or so back, but now its the same goddamn thing. I bet if he directed a Superman movie, the entire audience would die from boredom
I really don't get the "Superman is too OP" argument. Granted he probably wouldn't be to phased by some of the villains of some other heroes but that hardly means there isn't any entity that can go toe to toe with him. Even just within the context of the cartoons I've seen supes get his ass handed to him on more than one occasion. Granted he makes a comeback but that's expected for any super hero story, regardless of who they are.
Beyond that, if my understanding is correct anyone with magic can stand up to him as his general invulnerability doesn't work on it. People were making the avenger's comparison, if the sort of Magic Loki was using counts as "Magic" in the superman context he certainly could pose a non-trivial challenge to superman. It's not clear if it would or not since they also say magic/super-tech are kind of one and the same.
Hulk literally played with him like a rag doll. Super man pops Loki from behind at the speed of sound and splatters his guts over a square mile. Bring forth the next bad guy!
Now here's the real question: who wins: Superman or William Shatner Captain Kirk?
unstoppable force meets mojo king personification of plot armor
Only if one is particularly lacking in imagination or intellect I suppose. It takes a particularly craven line of reasoning to come to the conclusion that a film that is completely separate from any previous movies can only be only be the same as the previous films. Thankfully the people working on it are aware that there is a whole mountain of stories and ideas beyond the Richard Donner films and their sequels, or psuedo-sequels in the case of Singer's Superman Returns.
Frazzled wrote:The movies are out.
So are the comics, cartoons, books, action figures, ect ect
Frazzled wrote:One movie was recently done.
Not that recently, but it was also a continuation of Superman II, and not all that well received. This isn't a continuation of those films and isn't beholden to being the same films as them. The 1960's Adam West Batman is very different than the Nolan Batman which is different than the Burton Batman. Unlike Batman, there has really only been one Superman interpretation in theaters for the last 30 odd years, and it's about time we got a new one. Your problem in not knowing there are other interpretations of the character, despite all the evidence contrary to the fact, isn't a problem with Superman, it is a problem with your inability to recognize there is more to it than just your limited understanding. It is like saying that because you can't see outside your door that that must mean there is nothing outside your door: just because you only know the film version of Superman doesn't mean there is only the film version of Superman.
Frazzled wrote:Again in the one clip he's already boogeying at least mach 5 and taking unbelievable forces.
It's almost like he is a fictional character that can do amazing things. Iron Man can build armor that is implausible, Hulk can turn green and toss around tanks like we swat flies, Thor can do pretty much everything Superman can do and control weather.
And yes, Loki could mess Superman up becuase he uses magic, and Superman is just as susceptible to magic as anyone else.
I think someone nailed it earlier when they observed that the problem Frazzled really has with Superman is that he just can't understand why someone that pwerful would not just use all that power kill all his enemies (ignoring that he has enemies that are more powerful). The idea that someone could have all that and not be corrupt isn't something he can grasp.
Only if one is particularly lacking in imagination or intellect I suppose. It takes a particularly craven line of reasoning to come to the conclusion that a film that is completely separate from any previous movies can only be only be the same as the previous films. Thankfully the people working on it are aware that there is a whole mountain of stories and ideas beyond the Richard Donner films and their sequels, or psuedo-sequels in the case of Singer's Superman Returns.
Reported. Nice attack. To the point though, we're talking about the movie. While you can draw sources from the comics, the movies already have him at a 9 on the Superhero Richter scale. You can't get around that. Sorry but there already have been what five movies?
Again, the teaser looks like cardboard. You seem to be personally offended about that like you have a vested interest in it. Who knows, it could be good. But that teaser doesn't cut it.
Frazzled wrote:To the point though, we're talking about the movie.
No, we are talking about a new movie. One that is drawing from the comic books and not the Richard Donner universe.
Frazzled wrote:You seem to be personally offended about that like you have a vested interest in it.
The way you wallow in your ignorance of the subject, practically flaunting it, like a pig rutting around in the mud is indeed personally offensive. I tend to find anything that seems to celebrate remaining uniformed as a virtue over being informed offensive.
Frazzled wrote:like you have a vested interest in it
People do have a vested interest in this character. I know I do. Superman stands for truth, justice, and the American way. It might be hard to understand but calling him boring and stupid and meaningless is a lot like what you might perceive in flag burning.
Manchu wrote:Frazzled, you really need to stop speaking authoritatively concerning subjects about which you very clearly know absolutely nothing about.
Why because I haven't ready every Superman comic since #1? So what. I've seen the movies. This will be a movie. The teaser looks boring. It looks like the same superman thats been done over and over and over.
Get over yourselves about some claim to authority. Its a movie. There have been many movies. They've all pretty much sucked. This one doesn't look different, just angstier. There's no villain sufficiently capable of dealing with him, that itself doesn't look like a nerd's dream. Zod's been done, and even then he looked like some escapee from a bad disco.
Maybe it will be good. Thats fine, but don't get your panties in a wad because someone is not enamored. Jeez, serious nerd rage.
On the other hand, coming from the director, I guess we could put Leonidas against him... Spartans, what is your profession? uuh ray
I'm superman. I get all the girls and can throw the moon at you.
Spartans! Prepare for glory!
Y'know, there was plenty of opportunity in this thread for a good conversation about the challenges presented by powerful characters, but it kinda got buried under the bravado and dismissive, conversation-killing statements.
Frazzled wrote:Why because I haven't ready every Superman comic since #1? So what. I've seen the movies.
No, because you seem to think the character is just about power. The character is about being responsible, wise, just, and compassionate with power. He's not just a dude who punches other dudes.
Frazzled wrote:It looks like the same superman thats been done over and over and over.
Really? I can't think of anything about this movie that looks like Richard Donner's movie, for example. You know, except for a red cape and blue suit.
I like the fact that the teaser is not just "Superman smash!".
We all know he'll smash something or use his heat vision, etc. But seeing (and hearing for that matter!) the idea of him "growing into his destiny" is a fantastic teaser.
As some said, it took them until the very end to realize "Oh it's Superman!".
Manchu wrote:EDIT: I'm just assuming that you don't like flag burning.
I could care less, unless you start a brushfire, in which case I'd like to skin you alive on tv as a warning to others. And no I am not joking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Again, the teaser looks like cardboard.
Fine, you don't like the teaser. That means nothing about the character of Superman.
You're right. Maybe thats the difference here. I'm not impugning the charater of Superman. I'm saying its hard to make a good superman movie and the teaser didn't impress me.
Manchu wrote:EDIT: I'm just assuming that you don't like flag burning.
I could care less, unless you start a brushfire, in which case I'd like to skin you alive on tv as a warning to others. And no I am not joking.
Well, that's exactly why I clarified that I was assuming.
Frazzled wrote:I'm not impugning the charater of Superman. I'm saying its hard to make a good superman movie and the teaser didn't impress me.
To be honest, these trailers aren't hitting it out of the park with me, either. And the reason that worries me is because I think Supes is such an important character and we need to be saved by Superman now more than ever.
To the whole "Supes could kill Loki" thing...Loki is a god. Superman is an alien. Loki has lived for thousands of years, Superman ages (possibly slower than regular people, but still ages). I think Supes would get his righteous butt thumped. Superman has vast stores of energy and power, but Hulk is only limited by his rage (which can go higher than Supes power). I see Superman getting thumped by Thor, Loki, Hulk, and the Wasp after Bruce Wayne gives her lovely emerald earrings before he violates her batcave.
I've spent a long time disliking/hating the Superman character. I did like the first two Superman movies, but the very premise where a bald man with a rock consistently beats him is ridiculous. I gained respect for him when I saw him flip out on Darkseid in the Justice League video game, then watched him in the Justice League cartoon, and now I buy every DC movie that has him in it. He gets questioned for being a boyscout, crooks an eyebrow and says "whatever gave you that idea." He has morals, but he can go rabid, and has, and will do so again. It's a question of what sets him off. Also, he can be a badass when he wants to be. Check him out in Superman Vs. The Elite. The ending is the personality that makes me now like Superman.
Frazzled wrote: I'm saying its hard to make a good superman movie and the teaser didn't impress me.
If that was actually what you had said, you would have saved everyone a lot of grief and frustration, including yourself.
I thought I did.
Thats the issue for me. Superman is like Batman in some ways,a dn the terminator in others. He's not corruptable. He can't be reasoned with. He'll just keep coming.
But finding an opponent for him that is believable at this power level is difficult without appearing corny. The joker as Charles Manson was (mostly) believable because there are people like that in the world. And again, this teaser wasn't doing it for me.
Superman is often devastated by moral attacks. Lex Luthor is forever playing devil's advocate with him, making him question his values and thereby debilitating him. Just because you can't shoot him to death doesn't mean he doesn't have weaknesses.
Manchu wrote:Superman is often devastated by moral attacks. Lex Luthor is forever playing devil's advocate with him, making him question his values and thereby debilitating him. Just because you can't shoot him to death doesn't mean he doesn't have weaknesses.
Manchu wrote:Superman is often devastated by moral attacks. Lex Luthor is forever playing devil's advocate with him, making him question his values and thereby debilitating him. Just because you can't shoot him to death doesn't mean he doesn't have weaknesses.
OT but why isn't Luthor like, in jail?
Because he's rich, well connected and smart enough about covering up his goings on that there isn't any way you get charges to stick, and it's not like superman saying "I'm totally telling you, that guy is eviiiiil" is going to hold up in court".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Why because I haven't ready every Superman comic since #1? So what. I've seen the movies. This will be a movie. The teaser looks boring. It looks like the same superman thats been done over and over and over.
Because you don't have to have done that. Hell spending 10 minutes on his TVTropes entry ought to be enough to get some information if you're really so set on discussing the topic.
If you don't even want to put that much effort in just google "Superman gets beaten" or something.
KingCracker wrote:Garbage Pail Kids. I loved it as a 6 y/o. Its beyond a steaming pile of gak. Trust me, your wrong
Must I really put sarcasm smileys on something so obvious as six year olds are never wrong? In all seriousness though I wouldn't mind if he faced off against Zod. At least it's an opponent in his league. Dudes with anti superman magic crystals is boring.
rubiksnoob wrote:I want a Doctor Strange movie, directed by Tim Burton.
That would suck. And mostly because of Burton. The guy had some cool ideas and all 15ish years or so back, but now its the same goddamn thing. I bet if he directed a Superman movie, the entire audience would die from boredom
So true, it's been too long since Burton made a good film.
KingCracker wrote:Garbage Pail Kids. I loved it as a 6 y/o. Its beyond a steaming pile of gak. Trust me, your wrong
Must I really put sarcasm smileys on something so obvious as six year olds are never wrong? In all seriousness though I wouldn't mind if he faced off against Zod. At least it's an opponent in his league. Dudes with anti superman magic crystals is boring.
rubiksnoob wrote:I want a Doctor Strange movie, directed by Tim Burton.
That would suck. And mostly because of Burton. The guy had some cool ideas and all 15ish years or so back, but now its the same goddamn thing. I bet if he directed a Superman movie, the entire audience would die from boredom
So true, it's been too long since Burton made a good film.
Well maybe you should then, because I thought you were being serious
And are you agreeing with my stance on Burton? OR was that a flub up? I R Confused
Ahtman wrote:I think, like BB, it isn't going to focus on the parts we know about so much as the 'lost years'. The impression I get from the SDCC footage is that the movie will start with him sometime after graduating High School and is bumming around doing odd jobs and the like. He does something extraordinary and he goes back home to see if they know what is going on. This is where Pa Kent (Kevin Costner) tells him that he is an alien and then he goes about learning about his heritage from the last cell phone message his biological father (Russel Crow) left. Most of the film will be pre-reveal of alien heritage, and the time after where he tries to understand it. I don't think a lot of time will be spent on Krypton. Then he fights Zod. Of course I could be wrong and it may be an hour of retread.
That's still an origin story though.
To be honest I think that's a big reason that The Dark Knight is loved - it's a superhero story that isn't about 'how this superhero came to be'. It showed Batman him dealing with a threat, in which he started as Batman and ended as Batman. Lots of stuff changed but we weren't going through the same old 'character learns about abilities, character explores motivations, character develops a moral code' and so on.
Actually the same can be said for Spiderman II.
Now admittedly, both of those movies are sequels to origin stories, which had already done the ground work. But the point is that all these characters are known, not just to comic book readers but to everyone, if not by the cartoons we saw years ago, or by general cultural osmosis, then by the movie franchises we've already seen, that they're now rebooting.
I'd just like for one of these movies to say 'here's Superman, or whoever, you all know his deal, watch him battle evil and overcome personal moral challenges'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Still not impressed. To many people know about that, and its movie canon now. Besides. He can literally punch out everyone on the planet.
Movie canon? The what now? Reboot dude. Reboot. You know what this means. It means that some power that he was given in some other property doesn't have to be given to him in this one.
Accept this. Move on.
You know, I was reading the other day about how you can tell if someone is bothered by a problem, or if they actually quite like being in a world with that 'problem'. The trick is that when they are provided with information that shows their 'problem' doesn't actually exist, do they act relieved, and happily move on from the problem. Or do they reject that evidence and double down on the problem.
I think it's pretty clear fraz likes being in a world where Superman sucks because he canonically has time travel and therefore can't be in good stories. I don't know why he likes that place, but it's clear he likes it so much that it doesn't matter to him that it isn't a real problem. Whatever.
I have some conceptual problems with Superman as a whole. I think he's too powerful to be truly compelling; but these concerns were raised and responded to already extensively. I'm just throwing my vote on that.
Beyond that, I'm sort of against a Superman reboot for the same reason I wasn't too keen on the idea of yet another Spiderman movie. There are so very many untapped properties; why keep going to the same well? When are we going to get our 4th-wall-breaking Deadpool movie? Or Deathlok? Ant Man? Wonder Woman? Sandman? I'd love to see a Season of Mists movie.
I think the best Superman movie ever was The Iron Giant.
rubiksnoob wrote:I just want them to stop making superman movies.
We disagree about almost everything, but in this instance, we're on the same page.
Seriously, enough with the instant retreads, and superman movies just suck, like all of them. You can't really make an omnipotent being anything but boring.
Well, there's the age old question: Will he defeat the bad guys by punching, or lifting?
KingCracker wrote:So true, it's been too long since Burton made a good film.
And are you agreeing with my stance on Burton? OR was that a flub up? I R Confused
With regards to Burton and Superman i think we had a lucky escape.
With that in mind I'm more than happy with the little hints we've seen so far.
Aye I noted in the comic thread, I saw them last week. Tbh I'm not normally a fan of superman, but I love they way these teasers are put together.
If Zod is done well, we might have a Superman film worth watching.
Although I still think it strange, that Superman, much like Batman was in previous years, is sorta trapped by the memory of the camp film versions of decades past.
sebster wrote: I think it's pretty clear fraz likes being in a world where Superman sucks because he canonically has time travel and therefore can't be in good stories. I don't know why he likes that place, but it's clear he likes it so much that it doesn't matter to him that it isn't a real problem. Whatever.
Besides enjoying throwing personal attacks under the guise of commentary, I think you grossly overestimate the caring I have about the subject in any way. You may have some sort of personal involvement. I'm just commenting on a movie trailer.
sebster wrote:
I think it's pretty clear fraz likes being in a world where Superman sucks because he canonically has time travel and therefore can't be in good stories. I don't know why he likes that place, but it's clear he likes it so much that it doesn't matter to him that it isn't a real problem. Whatever.
Besides enjoying throwing personal attacks under the guise of commentary, I think you grossly overestimate the caring I have about the subject in any way. You may have some sort of personal involvement. I'm just commenting on a movie trailer.
Except you aren't, you're commenting on superman from a film of years passed.
KingCracker wrote:Garbage Pail Kids. I loved it as a 6 y/o. Its beyond a steaming pile of gak. Trust me, your wrong
Must I really put sarcasm smileys on something so obvious as six year olds are never wrong? In all seriousness though I wouldn't mind if he faced off against Zod. At least it's an opponent in his league. Dudes with anti superman magic crystals is boring.
rubiksnoob wrote:I want a Doctor Strange movie, directed by Tim Burton.
That would suck. And mostly because of Burton. The guy had some cool ideas and all 15ish years or so back, but now its the same goddamn thing. I bet if he directed a Superman movie, the entire audience would die from boredom
So true, it's been too long since Burton made a good film.
Funny you say that. Tim Burton WAS going to make a Superman movie in the mid-'90s, starring...Nicholas Cage. My old stomping grounds of Pittsburgh was going to be Metropolis. For those who know the city, the PPG building was going to be LexCorp headquarters. Apparently $10 or 20 million in pre-production work was done for the film, but the studio pulled the plug.
Which was probably a good thing given the rumors about it. Burton and his writers took that infamous Kevin Smith script and then made much, much lamer by all accounts. Imagine the awesomeness that would have resulted when Lex Luthor and Brainiac merged to form LEXIAC! There was a pic that went around a few years back that supposedly showed Cage in his Superman costume...true or not, it looks ridiculous. Google it and you'll see.
Ironically, 15 years later Pittsburgh ended up being Gotham City for The Dark Knight Rises (or at least part of it).
Personally, I think the Superman films have been more or less cursed ever since Donner had his dispute and walked out on Superman II. Here's hoping this one can get it right.
Edit: Darn it. Didn't see reds8n's post when I replied.
Frazzled wrote:An entire library of films at this point.
Which you're broadly applying as the starting point for potential audiences going into these films, saying it's been those or having "Read every super man comic since #1". Clearly this isn't true for everyone, it certainly isn't true for me. I've read maybe 3 comics books total in my life, and I've seen none of the superman movies.
Additionally you've been making claims about how the movie will inevitably bad (presumably due to lack of tension) because super man can beat everything forever with ease. Which I just don't think is generally the case. Maybe it was true in the old movies, maybe it wasn't I dunno never seen 'em. My exposure to the superman character has been from totally different sources.
I just seems rather silly that you assume:
A) Everyone (or even most people who would go to this movie) are coming from the same exposure to the character you are.
B) That this movie will treat the character in the same way as those movies.
I liked the teaser. It lacked most of Zach Snyder's usual movie ticks, and that made me hopeful that perhaps he has moved on from being a Hack director.
Then, I realized he was just copying Lar Von Whatshisname and the Tree of Life style shots becuase such shots are popular now, and my fear returned.
Easy E wrote:Then, I realized he was just copying Lar Von Whatshisname and the Tree of Life style shots becuase such shots are popular now, and my fear returned.
I'm guessing you are thinking of Lars Von Trier (Dancer in the Dark, Melancholia, Antichrist) , but it was Terrence Malick (Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven, The New World) that directed/edited/wrote Tree of Life.
Frazzled wrote:Besides enjoying throwing personal attacks under the guise of commentary, I think you grossly overestimate the caring I have about the subject in any way. You may have some sort of personal involvement. I'm just commenting on a movie trailer.
There was no guise of commentary, but there also wasn't a personal attack. I was directly criticising you for the way you've behaved in this thread, and trying to figure out why. You mentioned a problem, and when it was explained to you that the problem isn't actually a problem at all, you kept pretending it was. There has to be a reason for someone to decide to continue to pretend something is a problem, when it's been shown to them that it isn't.
And no, I really don't have anything at stake with Superman. I liked the original two movies, but they're hardly favourites of mine. The last Superman movie was incredibly dull, and made me wonder if a good Superman story is worth telling.
My only horse in this race is with you, and only because you made a dodgy argument, and then stuck to it even when it was obvious you were just plain wrong.
Frazzled wrote:Its meritorious as there's no effort involved.
And again we return to you showing that you have no idea what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with being a comic book guy or not, as I am, at best, passively a comic book person, but with having a bit of knowledge on the subject, or at the very least, recognizing where one doesn't know something and will listen to people who do. When people keep trying to explain that he isn't a god that wins by merely a thought, and you recognize you don't know the subject but they do, you might want to, oh I don't know, learn something.
Can't be shot. Can't be killed by a laser. Can't be bombed. Would have wiped the floor with the avengers, the X men, Loki and his alien buddies, combined. Thats pretty epically invulnerable. The only one close is Ang Lee's Hulk.
If we're talking movie Superman vs. Zeus I'd go with Superman.
*Red Skull. Superman extermines Hydra.
*Loki. Just chunks him into space.
*Luthor. Punches through his skull (now that would be epic, lets start the movie with that).
*Zod. isn't he like old? What you can't beat an old guy from your own planet? What are you Super Nerd?
Superman is far from unbeatable. Apart from kryptonite and being beaten up by superbeings, he is vulnerable to magic and psionics, so I dont think he would get far against all the xmen. Professor X would give him a psychic lobotomy, Rogue would just drain his powers dry until he is dead. As mentioned before there are a lot of cool villains that counter supermans strengths and invulnerability; Doomsday, Metallo etc. People constantly saying it will be boring because he cant be killed either don't know the background well. His greatest downfall is not being able to save others despite his powers, a point overlooked a lot.
I get what Fraz is saying. In Darkseids first appearance on the cartoon show justice league halfway through the episode Superman suddenly gets a power upgrade and tells darkseid that he(superman) had always been holding back, always pulling his punches until now, because he knows Darksied can take it.
He'd already fought multiple earth destroying/conquering forces with the rest of the justice league.
Scrabb wrote:In Darkseids first appearance on the cartoon show justice league halfway through the episode Superman suddenly gets a power upgrade and tells darkseid that he(superman) had always been holding back, always pulling his punches until now, because he knows Darksied can take it.
That little speech was from the last episode from Justice League Unlimited, which aired in 2006, ten years after Superman: The Animated Series first aired. It was not the first appearance of Darkseid in the DC Animated Universe by a long shot. It is a fairly famous scene, so it is easy to remember. He doesn't get a power upgrade, he just doesn't hold anything back like he normally does, and yet...
Spoiler:
...he still loses because Darkseid is a more powerful character. He is ultimately defeated by not being defeated, and by a human, as Lex Luthor gives him the Anti-life Equation and the two are merged with the Source Wall.
Ahtman wrote:That little speech was from the last episode from Justice League Unlimited, which aired in 2006, ten years after Superman: The Animated Series first aired. It was not the first appearance of Darkseid in the DC Animated Universe by a long shot. It is a fairly famous scene, so it is easy to remember. He doesn't get a power upgrade, he just doesn't hold anything back like he normally does...
Thanks for clearing that up. I should have said the first episode I saw Darkseid in. I kind of watched them randomly. But isn't that worse? the last episode of the show we learn that one of our heroes was pulling his punches on everyone he's ever fought. That's fairly powerful.
That's not to say I haven't enjoyed Superman. I just like him best when I'm not watching bullets bounce off of him. The Superman/Batman comics are good too. I like the way he and batman work off each other.
Ahtman wrote:That little speech was from the last episode from Justice League Unlimited, which aired in 2006, ten years after Superman: The Animated Series first aired. It was not the first appearance of Darkseid in the DC Animated Universe by a long shot. It is a fairly famous scene, so it is easy to remember. He doesn't get a power upgrade, he just doesn't hold anything back like he normally does...
Thanks for clearing that up. I should have said the first episode I saw Darkseid in. I kind of watched them randomly. But isn't that worse? the last episode of the show we learn that one of our heroes was pulling his punches on everyone he's ever fought. That's fairly powerful.
It isn't that he was holding back, it is why he was holding back. If he were to go full out all the time people would get injured far more often, buildings destroyed to a much greater extent, and he would probably kill several enemies, something he won't do*.
Really though, it is also a bit of an odd statement considering over the series (Superman to JL to JLU) he fought on other planets and in conditions where he could cut lose, and indeed was required to to have a chance of overcoming his adversaries. I think in the end they went with the line of dialogue because it sounded cool at the time.
*Generally. He has actually has lost control emotionally once or twice and done some things he wasn't proud of.
It is, obviously, very much a WIP -- I guess one could count this as Routh's 2nd film perhaps ? -- but it does seem to contain some spoilers about characters and the like.
ing BORING. It looks the same as all the other ones, just slightly better effects.
