Did you watch the trailer? It seems they are addressing that in the new movie. Besides, it's been argued to death.
Argued? Seriously? I've seen it mentioned.... but what's there to argue about? Who's defending the other side of this?
It looks to me like this movie will be another super fight that destroys Gotham, Metropolis, or both. That was the one thing I didn't like about MoS. They had a good story, then blew it up at the end.
They're trying to keep things "real worldish" by the looks of things, presumably to differentiate from Marvel, so is you've got Supes vs Shit Load of Other Kryptonians, newsflash, he's not got time to save bystanders and the world. Let's be honest, shy of Magic Plot Point, a MoS with Supes saving civilians would've ended with the World Engine finishing it's job and the final scene being Zod stamping on a de-powered Supes head delivering a speech along the lines of: "You're weak Kal. Weak. Like your father, you focus on the battle and not the war. Weak. How many did you save from our attacks? A hundred? Two hundred? And for what? To choke in an alien atmosphere, to still die, along with the billions you should have focussed on. You failed Krypton by being our enemy, you failed Earth. Know this as I spill your skull over the foundations of a New Krypton. Know this as you die." Stompitty, stompitty, stomp. Sploosh. Even with the final battle with Zod, he's facing a superior foe, a born warrior. Had he been battling a more earthly foe, then the criticism is warranted. A ship load of people equal to his abilities and trained killers to boot? Come on.
I'm more curious than excited by the trailer. They're taking a good approach to Supes by having people question someone of such power, having people split. The statue with false god sprayed on it was a nice touch, especially if they go down a route of a humble Supes being held aloft as a deity and a saviour and him getting blamed for people viewing him as so even though he opposes such a view. Opens up lots of prospects. Supes has always been about hope, so seeing people try to twist it to their own ends would be a nice parallel to real world events too. Much as I like the Donnerverse, only the bad guys question Supes role, a more nuanced approach is a better one imo.
Yeah, but see, the whole story is made up. Everything you just described as inescapable is in fact a choice. Including the decisions to put him up against Kryptonians, giving them the Doomsday engine, giving them this plan and these intentions and this strategical advantage. They decided to tell a story in which Superman can't save a city full of innocent civilians. Now, classic Supes is the guy who gets precisely the speech you just wrote, and then turns around and saves the day anyway. I completely get that such a story might lack interest today -- there's another reason why Marvel bests DC, and why Batman has fifty times as many books as Superman. But the story they told ended up being neither a good classical Superman story, nor was his defeat taken seriously enough to be valid as its own major variation on a Superman story.
Yeah, sorry. Should've put him up against Archie, not a threat that would show him making hard choices and battling through almost impossible odds. Man of Plastecene would've been awesome Superman is the most overpowered individual, and DC has a habit of not making him have too many gritty choices, which is good in some ways as we get parallels like the Plutonian (who went potty with the choices he had to make) or Apollo from the Authority (although since merging with the regular DCverse, may have gone wussier.) MoS has lots of flaws, but making Supes into a more modern and relateable version isn't one of them. He still represented hope, and even when trying to 'find' himself was a hero. There have been lots of versions of Supes, we can live with another one.
That's definitely true. I can only speak for my own viewing experience. And while I enjoy dark gritty heroes, this one, for me, failed. It did so both because Supes isn't the best basis for that kind of storytelling, and more importantly, because reversing Supes in this way would have to be a much more major plot and character point for my taste if that was what they were going for. This way, it doesn't look as if they're asking, "What if ... Supes can't save a city?"; rather, it looks like they're saying, "Hey, you shouldn't expect Supes to save every city -- that would be unrealistic." Using realism as a scapegoat in a Superman movie is like having Miss Marple solve a murder with her X-ray vision. It could be cool -- if that reversal is what you're going for, knowingly, exploring what else must change in its wake.
Actually, I think they are addressing what happened in the last movie with the destruction of Metropolis as THE plot point for the sequel. That's why all of this is happening. And if that is the case, I think they will have addressed the subject at a higher level than any previous treatment - they are devoting an entire movie about the consequences of those actions, and Superman is the target of the other heroes initially because of it. It is more than a throw away line on 'great power yada yada' - it examines the consequences of that power, and could really inform the moral choices of the character after that. After all, this is a young version of Supes we are looking at, in a more real world depiction. I find that more interesting than the near morally invincible, near omnisicent demigod. He can either reject his humanity or embrace it.
^^ If that's what they're doing, then that would be awesome. I don't think they will, though; I'm guessing they're just going to play it as a continuity point to flesh out the mistrust towards the demigod, rather than take the problem behind that mistrust -- thousands if not millions got killed for him -- seriously.
I'm not sure I follow the thought process there. As I recall: 1) Aliens show up saying turn over Kal-El or you will suffer 2) He gives himself up 3) He finds out they are planning on destroying humanity anyway 4) He saves the population of the planet, with a little help from Star and the US Militiary 5) Thwarted would be genocidal maniac attacks him 6) He defends himself 7) He breaches his own moral code to stoped madmen from killing innocents. I agree the collateral damage needed to be addressed in the movie in a better way, but the worst can be said he was negligent in not leaving the area. Clearly Zod was willing to kill any human because he did not consider them worthy.
Yes, but how did the aliens in (1) arrive at Earth of all planets in the first place? Besides, just how much Supes himself deals with the collateral damage, emotionally, might be the most important test for his character's morality.
Well, he was clearly upset over Killing Zod even though Zod was willing to kill him and everyone else. I imagine he felt pretty bad about all the innocent people who died as well. He was saving people from a young age, I think it's pretty clear he felt compassion for humanity. I clearly felt more human than alien which is what makes him such a great character. He obviously saved the family by killing Zod. Presumably it's the only reason he killed Zod rather than just beating him until he could find a way to contain him in the phantom zone or something.
I ike Demi's take and hope that's what they are doing. But the bit that bothers me is the age differential, both as people and as public "heroes" between Batman and Superman. I've never seen or heard of a storyline in which Bats was past the peak of his career and Sues was the rookie.
What I can't figure out, is why Batman's eyes glow. And we're supposed to think he's the human in this encounter?
So apparently if you were at the IMAX screening of the new trailer, you got to see this at the end too:
