1/6 Hot Toys BvS: Dawn of Justice - Superman

[synysterfox]

I just watched MoS again, man I really like that movie. Even my parents loved it since they went to see BvS last night, they came back all hyped and I showed 'em the last Suicide Squad trailer, since it has the Superman reference helps to boost the interest lol.
I decided to pull the trigger with BVS Supes after this experience never owned the MoS once and looks like this one seems failry improved, right?

 

[Remy]

So, is the implication that Superman killed the terrorist? If so, then what moral high ground does he have on Batman for the rest of the film? Also, what happened to Goyer and Snyder's moronic explanation that Superman killing Zod is what was supposed to bring about his no killing rule?

Well, if he didn't die at that scene, he's eating his meals through a straw. Lol.
He's not simply a killer though. What this mean is that he'll always try to stop people without resorting to killing. That he's not gonna go and just use heat vision to kill or stop criminals. He could easily do this.
But this superman is still a good guy, but if he's left no choice, or you threaten a loved one, he will.
The difference is batman is pretty much becoming a judge, jury, executioner.

Haven't you had a discussion before about murderers in the news, and how can people kill other people. But many people's response is the only way you'll do such a thing is to protect your family. If you're family was ever harmed.
Well, superman is no different.

That's the difference between him and batman, this batman kills,,and brands criminals which normally means a death sentence when they get to prison.
this superman is still a good guy...just don't threaten his loved ones.

 

[dario2739]

So, is the implication that Superman killed the terrorist? If so, then what moral high ground does he have on Batman for the rest of the film? Also, what happened to Goyer and Snyder's moronic explanation that Superman killing Zod is what was supposed to bring about his no killing rule?

What's moronic about it? Genuinely? Personally, when I first saw the movie it was a shock - a moment in a Superhero movie that made me go "Wow... I wasn't expecting that!" ...I've only said that one more time during a super hero movie... it was in Batman v Superman!
Superman killing Zod was anything but moronic! What would you have had him do? Superman, a guy who had been in the superhero game for, what - 24hrs? Against a seasoned warrior... Clark's only advantage was he'd had a long time to come to terms with his powers... if not Zod would have killed him already. So, the singularity leading to the Phantom Zone is closed, and you have a villain hell-bent on total world destruction - I mean that guy will not stop until the Earth is rubble... he was left with no choice.
Let's not forget that Christopher Reeve's Superman killed Zod too, but I guess it's ok if you do it in a comedic way, with a smile and a wink!

Originally Posted by Chuck72586 View Post
This is such utter crap and I'm sick of seeing it. Even Snyder himself has the nerve to just dismiss fans who don't like his Superman as people who can't get over Reeve, when it's just the furthest thing from the truth.

It's not Snyder's fault to be honet - it's people having preconcieved ideas of who Superman is... ideas that a pretty much modelled on the Donner/Reeve Superman... that Superman hasn't existed in comics since the 1960's to be honest. It really is that a lot of movie fans don't really understand, or know Superman. There is a whole generation of movie goers now who will only consider Robert Downey Jnrs. version of Iron Man as the absolute – even though in comics he's nothing like that at all!

Originally Posted by Remy View Post
Snyder approach. Snyder mentions he tries to take the real world approach.
I got impression he modeled that terrorist after Nigerian boka haram. The terrorist whose been beheading his victims and kidnapped all those young girls.
Picture you as superman, you have all these powers, boka is pointing a gun at the person you the love most.
Let me make this scenario more relatable, boka haram is pointing a gun at your wife, or sister, your mother, etc.
Are you gonna wrap steel beems around him or would you smash him againt the wall?
his action doesn't seem to be bad anymore is it?

The good thing about that whole scene - and what it was meant to do, is show that Superman's actions have consequences in the political powder-keg of today's world. If Superman was real, and living in the USA, can you imagine Russia's reaction for example? This scene shows that by turning up in an African country and saving Lois, his actions had terrible consequence... people were killed in retribution. Iron Man turns up and kills dozens of soldiers, and blows up a tank/missile silos the flies away no-harm-done. Both are entertaining, neither is the wrong approach to movie making... but one is safe and one is risk-taking, I just know which I prefer.
Also, worth noting that the people who don't like this film say that Superman killed him by flying him into the wall... well there is absolutely no proof to back this up - the scene is so fast you can not possibly tell if Superman punches through the wall before he hits it or not – on repeat viewings I have paid special attention to this scene, and it simply happens too fast. People are quick to think the worst, but I see it as Superman breaks through the wall and the guy is still alive.

 

[SilverStar17]

Well, if he didn't die at that scene, he's eating his meals through a straw. Lol.
He's not simply a killer though. What this mean is that he'll always try to stop people without resorting to killing. That he's not gonna go and just use heat vision to kill or stop criminals. He could easily do this.
But this superman is still a good guy, but if he's left no choice, or you threaten a loved one, he will.
The difference is batman is pretty much becoming a judge, jury, executioner.

Haven't you had a discussion before about murderers in the news, and how can people kill other people. But many people's response is the only way you'll do such a thing is to protect your family. If you're family was ever harmed.
Well, superman is no different.

That's the difference between him and batman, this batman kills,,and brands criminals which normally means a death sentence when they get to prison.
this superman is still a good guy...just don't threaten his loved ones.

It's like essentially asking: If someone were to break into your house, took one of your family members and held them at gunpoint and you shot the person and killed them in self defense to protect you and your loved ones, would you consider yourself to be a cold blooded killer with malice in your heart, and would you take umbrage to anyone else who labeled you as such?

 

[Chuck72586]

Well, if he didn't die at that scene, he's eating his meals through a straw. Lol.
He's not simply a killer though. What this mean is that he'll always try to stop people without resorting to killing. That he's not gonna go and just use heat vision to kill or stop criminals. He could easily do this.
But this superman is still a good guy, but if he's left no choice, or you threaten a loved one, he will.
The difference is batman is pretty much becoming a judge, jury, executioner.

Haven't you had a discussion before about murderers in the news, and how can people kill other people. But many people's response is the only way you'll do such a thing is to protect your family. If you're family was ever harmed.
Well, superman is no different.

That's the difference between him and batman, this batman kills,,and brands criminals which normally means a death sentence when they get to prison.
this superman is still a good guy...just don't threaten his loved ones.

But Superman is different. He doesn't have to kill. Certainly not a human being. 99.999999999 % of the time Superman easily stop a human without resorting to killing them.

 

[SilverStar17]

But Superman is different. He doesn't have to kill. Certainly not a human being. 99.999999999 % of the time Superman easily stop a human without resorting to killing them.

But again, as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, that's your personal idea of how Superman should be portrayed and what you personally feel the "right" way is.

And that's either based on what you came up with in your own mind on how you want to see him portrayed, or based on a previous rendition and portrayal.

Which isn't a bad thing at all, because we're all entitled to be partial to what our favorite interpretations of something are. But it doesn't make another iteration inherently "wrong" simply because it's a portrayal that you or I don't agree with.

Just as much as some people despise Snyder's take, I've seen and talked to many people who say they now like Superman based on this portrayal of him, and that they felt previous versions were too "meh" for them.

 

[Chuck72586]

What's moronic about it? Genuinely? Personally, when I first saw the movie it was a shock - a moment in a Superhero movie that made me go "Wow... I wasn't expecting that!" ...I've only said that one more time during a super hero movie... it was in Batman v Superman!
Superman killing Zod was anything but moronic! What would you have had him do? Superman, a guy who had been in the superhero game for, what - 24hrs? Against a seasoned warrior... Clark's only advantage was he'd had a long time to come to terms with his powers... if not Zod would have killed him already. So, the singularity leading to the Phantom Zone is closed, and you have a villain hell-bent on total world destruction - I mean that guy will not stop until the Earth is rubble... he was left with no choice.
Let's not forget that Christopher Reeve's Superman killed Zod too, but I guess it's ok if you do it in a comedic way, with a smile and a wink!

I didn't say I had an issue with Superman killing Zod. In fact, I don't have an issue with Superman killing Zod. My issue was Snyder's explanation that Superman killing Zod would be the impetus for Superman''s no kill rule. Basically saying that Superman had to kill to realize he didn't like it, which is moronic.

 

[Chuck72586]

But again, as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, that's your personal idea of how Superman should be portrayed and what you personally feel the "right" way is.

And that's either based on what you came up with in your own mind on how you want to see him portrayed, or based on a previous rendition and portrayal.

It's a lot of other's personal idea of what Superman should be about as well, though. It's not like the no kill code is something that was magically made up after MOS came out. That's a thing many people associate with Superman, and also Batman.

 

[SilverStar17]

It's a lot of other's personal idea of what Superman should be about as well, though. It's not like the no kill code is something that was magically made up after MOS came out. That's a thing many people associate with Superman, and also Batman.

True, not saying it's only yours. But that preconceived notion of what he's "supposed" to be like stems from somewhere; likely a certain portrayal of him. Which as I mentioned is fine, but it doesn't necessarily make any other portrayal of him inherently "wrong" merely based on what YOU (you in a general sense) think he "should" be like.

When SR came out in 2006, many people criticized it because it was too much like Reeve and didn't have enough action. Now with this new interpretation, it's being criticized because it's not enough like Reeve and too much over the top action to the point where they feel the only point of it is to be a CGI fest.

 

[Remy]

It's like essentially asking: If someone were to break into your house, took one of your family members and held them at gunpoint and you shot the person and killed them in self defense to protect you and your loved ones, would you consider yourself to be a cold blooded killer with malice in your heart, and would you take umbrage to anyone else who labeled you as such?

Exactly.

 

[Chuck72586]

The no kill policy doesn't just come from some a singular interpretation of the character. It's many interpretations over many years of the character's existence where it's been a thing, and the times where he has killed, it's always been treated as a big deal and something that doesn't happen very often. It's why such a big deal has been made about the whole thing.

 

[SilverStar17]

The no kill policy doesn't just come from some a singular interpretation of the character. It's many interpretations over many years of the character's existence where it's been a thing, and the times where he has killed, it's always been treated as a big deal and something that doesn't happen very often. It's why such a big deal has been made about the whole thing.

It's still one's personal views though on what they feel the "right" way is to them. I had no issues with Reeve's Superman killing Zod in Superman II.

For the generation that is growing up with MoS, they will probably compare any future rendition of Superman to this current portrayal and this one will probably be considered the "right" way for them.

 

[dario2739]

True, not saying it's only yours. But that preconceived notion of what he's "supposed" to be like stems from somewhere; likely a certain portrayal of him. Which as I mentioned is fine, but it doesn't necessarily make any other portrayal of him inherently "wrong" merely based on what YOU (you in a general sense) think he "should" be like.

When SR came out in 2006, many people criticized it because it was too much like Reeve and didn't have enough action. Now with this new interpretation, it's being criticized because it's not enough like Reeve and too much over the top action to the point where they feel the only point of it is to be a CGI fest.

An example of this is James Bond... I'm a big Bond fan, seen all the films, read all the books – I love Connery's interpretation, absolutely hate Roger Moore as Bond... but loads of people consider him the best Bond... to me he's completely not the character, but you get my point.

 

[Remy]

When SR came out in 2006, many people criticized it because it was too much like Reeve and didn't have enough action. Now with this new interpretation, it's being criticized because it's not enough like Reeve and too much over the top action to the point where they feel the only point of it is to be a CGI fest.

Excellent point. Singer took the safe route...no pun intended. Lol
He modeled his superman almost exactly like reeve, and the movie cost 270 million to make, and this is 2006, which bombed and made 391 million worldwide.

So there were lots of articles why it bombed, and explained that it's just hard to make a superman movie. Cause again, it's hard to put him in any danger, since he's pretty much a god, it's hard to relate to him.
Unlike spiderman whose always broke and can't pay rent, ironman whose an aloholic, batman who is human.

so Snyder did a different take on superman. He basically pushed superman to choices he normally doesn't have to make
So when he does, it's shocking cause we're not used to seeing this version of the characters.
But the core of the character is still there.

 

[SilverStar17]

An example of this is James Bond... I'm a big Bond fan, seen all the films, read all the books – I love Connery's interpretation, absolutely hate Roger Moore as Bond... but loads of people consider him the best Bond... to me he's completely not the character, but you get my point.

My personal favorite is Brosnan. To me, the guy is a living embodiment of what I feel James Bond should look and act like. Does that mean I reject any other interpretation of him? Not at all. Does that mean they're "wrong"? By no means. I can enjoy the other renditions just as much for what they are.

Excellent point. Singer took the safe route...no pun intended. Lol
He modeled his superman almost exactly like reeve, and the movie cost 270 million to make, and this is 2006, which bombed and made 391 million worldwide.

So there were lots of articles why it bombed, and explained that it's just hard to make a superman movie. Cause again, it's hard to put him in any danger, since he's pretty much a god, it's hard to relate to him.
Unlike spiderman whose always broke and can't pay rent, ironman whose an aloholic, batman who is human.

so Snyder did a different take on superman. He basically pushed superman to choices he normally doesn't have to make
So when he does, it's shocking cause we're not used to seeing this version of the characters.
But the core of the character is still there.

Exactly. My sentiments as well. As I mentioned in a previous post, just as much as a lot of people despise this rendition, I've seen and talked to numerous people who say they NOW like Superman and think the character is exciting because they can relate to him being that he has a definitive arc. Any previous take they felt was just "meh". A little too boring.

Like you, I feel the core of the character is still demonstrably there. In fact, in my opinion, I think they're really trying to drive it home more now in this current rendition than any other previous one based on what I see. Just my opinion. His character is essentially at the forefront of BvS and is what makes the movie go.

In the MCU, they're essentially doing the same thing with Cap. He's probably the Marvel character that is least relatable to people because he's TOO good and doesn't possess any of the same everyday relatable "flaws" like the characters you mentioned. When someone is too good, we tend to question their motives, as if there has to be some sort of catch to it because nobody is just that intrinsically good. BvS dealt with this also. Like that article said, people tend to lose faith that such a hope or a true goodness actually exists anymore.

However, they are taking Cap and integrating him into our modern world and presenting him with today's issues. The same issues that we face. He even expressed himself in TWS he was getting confused on what "right" and "wrong" actually is now. But with this portrayal of him, the core of the character is very much there.

 

[Starscream Soundwave]

I don't particularly dislike any Bonds. Craig is probably my least favourite though. No one has matched Connery, though I do really like Brosnan too. Well, I did until Mamma Mia...

 

[Chuck72586]

I know I can definitely relate more to Snyder's Superman. I mean, if I had his powers and my dad was about to get sucked into a tornado I know I'd just stand there like an idiot and do nothing, too. Superman is definitely more relatable to me now!

 

[SilverStar17]

I know I can definitely relate more to Snyder's Superman. I mean, if I had his powers and my dad was about to get sucked into a tornado I know I'd just stand there like an idiot and do nothing, too. Superman is definitely more relatable to me now!

I concur that scene was a little sloppily done, but I personally understand and agree with the intent of it. The entire theme of MoS, and this Superman in general, is sacrifice. So I can understand where they were trying to go with that.

I like to think that Jonathan's sacrifice in that scene also helped give Clark the strength and courage to make the sacrifice in BvS.

 

[dario2739]

I know I can definitely relate more to Snyder's Superman. I mean, if I had his powers and my dad was about to get sucked into a tornado I know I'd just stand there like an idiot and do nothing, too. Superman is definitely more relatable to me now!

I agree that the death of Jonathon was badly done in MoS – I get what Snyer/Goyer were trying to do, but I still prefer the heart attack, as it kinda shows Clark that even with all his powers he can't save everyone.

But, it's the one scene in the whole movie for me, and that one scene should not spoil the rest of the movie.

Need to add to, that Costner was an outstanding casting choice too, absolutely loved him in the role.

 

[Ppk487]

My personal favorite is Brosnan. To me, the guy is a living embodiment of what I feel James Bond should look and act like. Does that mean I reject any other interpretation of him? Not at all. Does that mean they're "wrong"? By no means. I can enjoy the other renditions just as much for what they are.



Exactly. My sentiments as well. As I mentioned in a previous post, just as much as a lot of people despise this rendition, I've seen and talked to numerous people who say they NOW like Superman and think the character is exciting because they can relate to him being that he has a definitive arc. Any previous take they felt was just "meh". A little too boring.

Like you, I feel the core of the character is still demonstrably there. In fact, in my opinion, I think they're really trying to drive it home more now in this current rendition than any other previous one based on what I see. Just my opinion. His character is essentially at the forefront of BvS and is what makes the movie go.

In the MCU, they're essentially doing the same thing with Cap. He's probably the Marvel character that is least relatable to people because he's TOO good and doesn't possess any of the same everyday relatable "flaws" like the characters you mentioned. When someone is too good, we tend to question their motives, as if there has to be some sort of catch to it because nobody is just that intrinsically good. BvS dealt with this also. Like that article said, people tend to lose faith that such a hope or a true goodness actually exists anymore.

However, they are taking Cap and integrating him into our modern world and presenting him with today's issues. The same issues that we face. He even expressed himself in TWS he was getting confused on what "right" and "wrong" actually is now. But with this portrayal of him, the core of the character is very much there.

You and I seem to agree on a lot of things. I too am a big Brosnan fan.