DrCrowTStarwarsreborn

I have tired to keep politics out of my threads but it keeps getting brought up and it is clear that there isn’t a place here for anyone who isn’t 100% in favor of gay marriage and that most people here would gladly murder me, when I haven’t wished that on anyone else. So I am done for good. I gave you another shot thinking that maybe since I was off my meds I had been in the wrong, but it’s clear no one is allowed to have any view that doesn’t walk lockstep with government policy and what is popular in Hollywood, so i will wish you well and leave.

I am sure every thread I have ever posted will be full of people posting insults and calling for my violent death, well if that is what it takes to make you feel better about yourselves and like you are standing up for something, so be it.

Have fun.

I have noticed more and more that myself and anyone else who doesn’t speak up in favor of gay marriage are called things like “pieces of shit” and people actively avoid us and even call for our deaths.

So the question is since not being is favor of gay marriage isn’t an option, why is the view point even allowed to exist? Should the government take control of all forms of free speech so this destructive point of view can never be voiced again? Should people who don’t at least once a day say something in favor of gay marriage get life in prison without parole? Should people be require to engage in at least one gay relationship in their lives to make sure they have not been brainwashed into not being gay? Shouldn’t the law actively work to stamp out an opinion that isn’t in favor of gay marriage and should everyone be required by law to report anyone who says anything negative about gay marriage to the police?

I ask because it is clear that the not being in favor of gay marriage is not allowed anywhere so if it is so destructive then shouldn’t the rules against anti-gay views be given the force of law?

Signed

WorthlesspieceofshitwhoholdsaviewthatalotofpeoplehelduntilitbecameunpopularwithHollywood Waitingforthe Deathsquads

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

There is no film related to the batman character titled “Batmans”. There is no film related to the batman character titled “Batman3”. Simple.

Now I think you might actually be an impscum sock, as opposed to just having sex with him.

So I guess what you are doing is masturbation?

Wow, and people call me a piece of shit for not approving of gay marriage(Don’t worry your dream world where everyone who doesn’t approve of gay marriage is stoned to death in a football field is getting closer every day), but you are using gay sex as an insult. How can anyone take credit for being in favor of gay marriage and then use gay as an insult? Either there is a double standard here, or you are just pretending to be in favor of it because it is the in thing right now, either way I don’t think you have the right to attack anyone.

Dek Rollins said:

My only problem with the X-Files mini-series is the awkward and constant referencing that it’s been 15 years since the show stopped. This is also kind of weird because “I want to believe” didn’t have a lot of this, and it came several years after the show ended too.

EDIT: Thanks for making this thread, I think we need to have at least one off topic conversation that doesn’t have an impscum/Frink argument going on in it.

Yeah I don’t much like that either, then again I guess since that movie was so poorly recieved by fans that they are just ignoring it while not out and out say that it didn’t happen, kind of like how Superman Returns pretended Superman 3 and 4 didn’t happen, without directly saying so. I also guess that have to address the time passing since they are using flashbacks so much, but I wish they wouldn’t do it as much. I have avoided all behind the scenes info but I do understand that Carter has said that he will do more episodes if Fox wants them, so he is leaving the door open for Maulder and Scully’s son to be found at some point in the future, and I guess he wants to make it clear that the kid will be a teenager when he shows up.

I thought last night’s episode was the first below par episode they had so far, my favorite was the comedy episode, as wacky and as little sense as it made it got a laugh from everyone in my house.

Now it is time for the shameless plug. I am not making any money off of this and I am using it just to have a fun way to teach myself how to use my camera and different pieces of video editing software, as I get money I am upgrading and I am working on getting better in front of the camera.

Any way for whatever it is worth here are my thoughts on last night’s episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwYbSUcl0no

My reviews for the other episodes in the series can be found on my channel in the same play list.

Well enjoy.

Man I wish my rash didn’t break out every winter keeping me up all night. I would go to sleep now but we are expecting company, I hate days like today. 😃

Since every thread seems to get hijack by a flame war between everyone and TV’ Frink I thought I would start a thread for all of us evil trolls to post our nonsense where TV’s Frink doesn’t have to fight about against us and out pure evil, because people can easily avoid our posts here.

So post about whatever you want here and it will be fine. If you don’t want to read complete nonsense that hijacks threads and makes jokes you may not find funny just avoid this thread, is that easy enough?

So what do you all think about this X-Files Mini-series? With the exception of last night’s episode which felt like two episodes rolled into one that didn’t jell, I am really liking it. The problems it has are just problems the X-Files has as a whole so I can’t say it bothers me. Later on I will post a link to my more in depth reviews that I have on Youtube.

So say whatever you want here, it’s okay. let the fun and nonsense begin!

TV’s Frink said:

Lol you really are a piece of work. Maybe a couple of newer people are fooled but I’m not. If you want a compliment, you really are an excellent troll in sheep’s clothing. You and I both know the truth but you’re playing the victim for fun, and some people here are buying it. Well done!

Wow, maybe we should have police death squads with flame throwers who execute anyone who dares to make a joke that you don’t find funny. That seems to be your dream world.

Tell you what, you post your email address and we will all start running every post on the forum past you and wait for you to give it the okay before posting anything on this forum, until them since you have not told us what these rules you expect everyone to live by are, then we have no way of knowing them or living by them.

TV’s Frink said:

DrCrowTStarwarsreborn said:

imperialscum said:

ray_afraid said:

Batman ****
Batmans ***
Batman3 ***

Why do you ignore Batman: Resurrection and Batman vs. Superman?

Just so you know I got it and it made me laugh.

Prove it.

I don’t record everything I do in my life and then post it on Youtube, but it did make me laugh out loud.

The burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser and not the accused in our system, so I would say it is up to you to prove that no one laughed.

Also what you are doing right now could be considered bullying and on a message board bullying and Trolling are pretty much the same thing, so if anyone is a troll who needs to be banned it’s you.

Making a joke that you didn’t laugh at isn’t picking a fight or pushing anyone around, and it sure as the sky is blue does not equal trolling.

You need to learn to grow up and get over yourself.

TV’s Frink said:

Yes, but who is worse? At least TN1 contributes something other than trolling.

Maybe I am just nuts but I don’t see how making a joke about the confusing names of the Alien movies in the off topic section is trolling, and on this forum I have seen far, far worse.

imperialscum said:

ray_afraid said:

Batman ****
Batmans ***
Batman3 ***

Why do you ignore Batman: Resurrection and Batman vs. Superman?

Just so you know I got it and it made me laugh. I don’t see how anyone who had heard of the Alien franchise couldn’t at least get that this was a joke and what it was about.

Dek Rollins said:

Yeah, I’m also kind of sick of the NFL officials getting all up about “poor sportsmanship” and “taunting”. It’s just stupid. But, the game did make me happy, for a couple of reasons.

1. Peyton Manning got his Superbowl win.
2. In the 4th quarter, the Panthers runner made a lateral pass while running, and that’s the stuff that the sport is missing nowadays that it used to have in abundance. Taking chances. Changing plays on the fly to make things work. Actually playing well. That’s why I don’t like watching football now, none of the players do anything special, except for a few big players like Cam Newton on the Panthers for instance.

Number 1 is the reason I wanted to see the game and that call was stupid, but I didn’t feel up to listening to my dad go on about it for the rest of the game, he was in fact still yelling about it when he went to bed after his team had won, it seems to me that after your team completely trounces the other team you can stop going on about a bad call against them.

That play sounds amazing and I agree, if there were more plays like that in the NFL I would watch more games and wouldn’t care what my dad was ranting about.

I have to admit I had every intention of watching the full game but during the first quarter nothing much seemed to be happening and then my dad started yelling about how unfair a penalty for taunting was and I could tell he was going to be going on about that all night so I just went back to my room and played The Sims 2, I don’t know a thing that happened outside of the first quarter.

I am sick of winter. I am sick of having colds that keep causing me to run fevers, I am sick of being snowed in, and I am sick of my nose running all day and not being able to sleep and being tired all the time.

I HATE WINTER!!!

You know what was a bad idea to begin with? The animated Death of Superman movie. I like the DaniVerse but trying to cram that whole plot arc into 75 minutes robbed the story or all impact and all point.

suspiciouscoffee said:

While I disagree with you, I must commend you for writing well-thought out arguments about why you like MoS. I have never heard any argument for that film that actually made me think, as everyone I know that likes it just says “the effects are better” and “theres more action” and stuff like that. I still don’t like the movie but at least now I feel like I understand why anyone would.

I need to find my old “big book of first appearances” and reread Action Comics #1 now.

Well thank you, I can’t remember what he does in Action Comics number one but the WW2 comics I have read feature a darker Superman then most people are used to. If I had to guess I would say that the writers decided to pattern their Superman after WW2 era Supes because we are in a state of war to a degree and it doesn’t seem to be going away, so they most likely thought that would help him fit in with the times, also with a lot of people complaining that Superman returns didn’t have any kind of big fight scene in it they most likely thought doing a Superman war story would work.

Thanks for the engaging debate, everyone I have talked to who hate this movie has always just said “He kills Zod, it sucks!” and has not been will to look at why that happened, so this was a nice change, thanks.

TV’s Frink said:

Films replaced by video games? LOL no.

For certain types of stories I think video games do a better job of helping people understand what it is like in a situation.

There are also certain types of stories where films do a better job then video games, then there are others where books do the best job. It all depends on what type of story you are trying to tell and what type of point you are trying to make as a story teller. I think that for action or survival type stories video games do a better job of getting the point across of what it is really like to be in those situations because a video game can put the player right down in the trenches in a way movies will never be able to, that is all.

You don’t agree, that is fine. It just happens to be the way I think right now.

Bingowings said:

The situation is created by the writer wanting a film where buildings fall down with no regard to the people inside and where the ‘hero’ snaps the neck of the ‘villain’.

It’s not the sort of film that works with that character.

Supergirl the television series currently has superpowered people landing in the middle of town every other week and always the title character tries to get people out of the way or draw the villain to an isolated spot.

If that’s not possible in the story that’s because the writer doesn’t want it to be possible in the story which is down to the writer not understanding how the character works.
If smashing buildings full of people is the only way to stop the villain how is this person a hero?
He is just another force of nature like the Cloverfield monster, which could make for a good film but not a good Superman film.

In the case of Man of Steel it makes for a rather bewildering mess of a final reel.

So the writers should always write the exact same story over and over again and every villain should do the exact same thing for the exact same reason, well that is boring. If that is the way things are going to be done why even bother making more films, why don’t you just rewatch the perfect Superman the movie and Superman 2 and leave the new films alone? That is easy enough. If every film is just going to be the same tired thing and the writers shouldn’t bee allowed to even try any thing new where the stakes are higher in a realistic fashion then I have to wonder why any time or money should be spent making new films, since ever single one of them is going to be exactly the same.

Sorry that is just how I see it, if you don’t take chances on new types of stories there really is no point in telling any more stories. They told the type of story most people seem to want perfectly the first time they tried it with Superman the movie, so why try to top that? Why not just rerelease that film in theaters and maybe give it the SE treatment to clean up some of the more dated special effect, that would be cheaper and the film would be better.

I don’t see this going anywhere productive, so i am done, sorry. In my view if you are not going to take chances then there really is no point in making more movies. I also don’t see why the Justice League would be needed in a world where every villain just politely waits their turn in an open field for Superman to take them down and where Superman can save everyone on his own. Remember one of the jobs the screen writers were given by the studio that pays them was to create a universe where a Justice League movie could take place and the Justice League would be needed because no one hero could save everyone. Superman was only ever able to save everyone in the last series of movies because he could time travel, in this series he doesn’t have that power so he is stuck dealing with the fallout Reeve’s Superman would have had to deal with if he didn’t have that power. Now I admit this is a matter of personal taste and I know I am one of the dumbest and most worthless pieces of garbage on the planet, but this setup appeals to me and I think they can get some good stories out of it and I don’t find it out of character at all.

Now if you think the Reeve’s version of Superman should be the only version anyone is allowed to make films about, then more power to you, write warner brothers and let them know, stay home and watch the old movies instead of watching the new one, write your congressperson and ask that a law be passed outlining what Superman is and is not able to do in a story and how he must always act. That is all fine and productive and maybe it will get passed and then there will be only one version of Superman.

I enjoyed Man of Steel and I am interested to see where the story goes because I saw it as a throwback to the Superman of the 40s and that is my favorite version of the character. I really don’t think there is anything more to say. Neither of us will ever see the logic of the other’s argument so I don’t see any point in continuing. I listed how I rank the films and game my reasons.

Take care.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Idk what you’re talking about when I said you should die

I got you mixed up with someone else, sorry.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Idk what you’re talking about when I said you should die, but that family could have gotten out of the situation another way like:
•Running away before Zod started the laser eye blast like everyone else did.
•Crawling under the beam
•Taking about 2 steps forward and going around the thing they’re crammed against.

OR since Superman has the strength to snap his neck, he also has to at least have the strength to:

•Lift Zod’s head a bit so that the beam is at a different angle and the family can just walk under it
•Push Zod’s head down a bit so that the family could jump over the beam

Well first of all did you see the size of that beam and trying to pass under a moving laser beam and hoping it doesn’t move an inch isn’t much of a plan, these are normal people, not solid snake. Also people panic all the time in disasters and it sounds like you are saying as a matter of principal that if the military comes across civilians in a war zone who panic and do something stupid they shouldn’t act to save their lives because they had it coming. Sorry I don’t buy into that. This is why I think video games are much better story telling tool for helping people understand what it really is like to be in life threatening situations. In a movie the viewer can just sit back and look at the whole area in detail and they are not under any threat, so the way real people react in these situations looks stupid to them because they have all the time in the world to take in details and think about things. Now in a video game if all of the sudden there are explosions and the player is in a place they don’t know like the back of their hand, they will have trouble deciding which way to run and will be likely lose a life due to screwing up. Video games just naturally do a better job of telling this type of story in a way people understand. That is one reason why I hope in the future films will more or less go the way of the dodo and be replaced by video games, video games are just better at explaining world details and showing people what it really feels like to be in a situation like this and why not everyone makes 100% perfect choices in split seconds in a crisis, no film has ever or will ever be able to do that so I think they should stop trying and just leave at least this type of story telling to video games in the future.

Second even if you could force his head to move that much without it snapping his neck or crippling him(and as someone who’s father has been an ambulance captain and worked with the disabled all his life and who has quite a bit of research in my time on this exact issue I can tell you that chances are if he put enough force into trying to move a head that was actively fighting him to move it, the result would most likely be the same snapped neck we saw), then what? The fight isn’t over and they just got knocked back into the middle of the city, all that destruction people complain about came about because Superman was getting his but kicked, what happens when Zod tosses Superman into something in that crowded room? Then even if he could stop Zod, he can’t watch him 24/7 and they lost any way to get him to the Phantom Zone, Superman had to destroy his own ship to stop Zod earlier and no prison on earth can hold him, so where does superman put him where he can be 100% sure that Zod will not be able to get out? let’s say Superma could watch Zod 24/7, how can he be sure Zod will not get the upper hand at some point, remember there is no Kryptonite in the film series at this point, so how does Superman make sure Zod doesn’t get the chance to kill anyone else? I think the only solution that would have worked would have been for Superman to kill himself and Zod by flying them both into the Sun(then again in some stories that would only make them stronger so who knows if that would have worked)and then Superman would be a one off character who’s brief life and death would have inspired the rest of the characters who would make up DC’s movie justice league. I think that would have worked from a story telling stand point, the question is would most of you have been okay with Superman killing Zod if he killed himself along with Zod, or would this movie still be a stinker and Superman still be a bad person?

Well that’s the best solution I can come up with, Superman takes out Zod in a way that also kills him, because anything else left the risk that Zod would get the upper hand a moment latter. Sorry but that’s the best idea I have, would people have been okay with that, if Zod’s death was an act of suicide by Superman?

DuracellEnergizer said:

DrCrowTStarwarsreborn said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

Dek Rollins said:

Tim Burton’s “Batman” is way better than The Dark Knight.

Yeh…nah…

How can you be okay with The Dark Knight? Tons of people died in that movie and batman didn’t save them all, that makes Batman the real villain and he murdered Harvey Dent for the no good reason of saving the life of a child, that makes him an awful person, not a hero and yet the movie ends praising him.

Um, I think you’re responding to LuckyGungan. I’m not at all a fan of TDK.

Okay, sorry. Noted.

suspiciouscoffee said:

For the record, I am honestly not Anti-Zod Killing. There were probably 5 or 6 different alternatives in that situation but the idea they were going for is a good one, if execution isn’t great.

But… did you just compare MoS to “older comics”? How old are we talking here? You seem to have a strange definition of old. Radio dramas I cannot compare because I have not listened to those but when I think of Golden, Silver, Bronze, or even modern comic Superman, I don’t think of anything close to what MoS gave.

No, I wouldn’t be mad at a cop for breaking my window, I’d be mad if the cop blew up the neighborhood to catch one guy.

I would like to know what those options were when Zod was seconds from killing two kids and he had proved he was as strong as Superman and he was a better fighter and that was the first time Superman had the upper hand in the fight.

Oh and you only have to look at the ending of Superman 2. In that movie Superman throws a petty bully across a truck stop and into a pinball machine is such a manor that if it didn’t out right kill the man it would leave him crippled for life, then he just turns around and smiles about it.

At least the Superman in man of Steel is really upset by what just happened, the Superman in Superman 2 just grins about what he did.

Then there is Zod’s fate at the end of that same movie, after Zod has lost his powers and is no threat to anyone first Superman breaks his hands in a manor where the sound of the bones being crush can be heard all the way across the room and Zod is clearly in extreme pain, then he tosses Zod and his followers who are no direct threat to anyone and could be taken to jail, into a pit made of solid crystal that we can’t see the bottom of to either die when they hit the ground or slowly freeze to death. Remember how weak Clark was after having his powers removed, that is how weak Zod and his followers are so there is no way they lived, and that scene of them being taken away is a deleted scene and deleted scenes can’t be counted or we may as well count ideas from other drafts of the screenplay as well, so based on what we see on screen Superman kills a Zod who is no threat to anyone and he is grinning ear to ear while he does it, and yet he lets Lex live, when he fired off two nukes in the last movie.

In the comics and radio shows of the 40s Superman was always beating up petty thugs and wife beaters and the like who were no threat to him in order to in his words “Give them a taste of their own medicine”, then he would beat people up to get information out of them, and threaten to do things like toss them ten miles out into the ocean and leave them to drown, or drop them from the top of a skyscraper, and these were mostly people who didn’t pose any kind of threat to him. Then there is the one case in the radio show where after a gangster has used Krytonite on him and he gets his powers back he fulfills he promise of getting revenge by killing all the gangsters in the hideout who now pose no threat to him. Superman could reach the levels of Jack from 24 if someone made him mad.

Now even if Superman stuck to the moral code that has been laid out by some in the old movies(and he didn’t)that code was an invention of the 1970s almost 40 years ago, so if it is okay for a film maker to pattern Superman after a 40 year old version of the character like in say Superman Returns, is it really wrong for another film maker to go back 70 years and pattern their big screen version of Superman after the version in the 1940s?

Please understand I am not saying anyone has to like it, everyone has their favorite versions of long running fictional characters. I am just saying that the version in Man of Steel is legitimate, it’s just it’s a version that hasn’t been seen in a while and I can’t see that anything he did was any more morally wrong then anything done by any other big screen version of Superman and remember Superman the movie is one of my top ten films of all time, so I have nothing against the Reeve version of Superman. I just don’t have anything against the other versions as well.

To be honest I have to say I think the radio version, where spies and gangsters, and hate groups are huge problems Superman has to deal with and they sometimes get him mad, is the most interesting and my favorite version of the Superman universe. Then again that is just me and I am not known for being too smart so your taste may vary. I would say if you can get a hold of them give the old radio shows a chance, once you get passed some of the more childish early episodes and the show comes into it’s own it does some very brave and adult takes on problems like corrupt city officials and hate groups, and it makes for some exciting stories and they do proper crossovers with batman and robin that make sense and work. It really is a good show and well worth the listen and a lot of the elements that make up modern Superman were invented on the show.

Oh well I guess we will all have to agree to disagree. I think taking the long view Superman didn’t do anything wrong in Man of steel and it wasn’t out of character.

I think one of the points of Man of Steel that we will not see for a while is that it was trying to prove to the average person that the old stand up bit about Superman not needing a Justice League is wrong and that there can be threats that will be too much for him and he needs help with, i think that is the way these films are going but that is just speculation, so i think we will just have to disagree on this point.

Neglify said:

DrCrowTStarwarsreborn said:

Batman murdered Harvey Dent for the no good reason of saving the life of a child, that makes him an awful person

So you’re saying that saving the life of a child makes someone awful? Well, your parents are awful for not aborting you, purely by your logic.

You missed the point completely. I was apply the “logic” by which Superman is deemed an awful person in universally panned Man of Steel to Batman’s actions in the universally praised The Dark Knight. I don’t think that is unfair since two out of the three writers of The Dark Knight wrote Man of Steel so it’s not insane to think the same logic is supposed to apply to both films that deal with some of the same issues.

Thank you for making my point for me, either it is okay to kill a murder to save a child’s life or it isn’t. If I should be put to death for not approving of Batman killing Harvey dent, then since two children were under directly threat in Man of Steel then anyone who complains about Superman killing Zod should be put to death and then brought back to life so they can be put to death again, that is just simple logic.

DuracellEnergizer said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

Dek Rollins said:

Tim Burton’s “Batman” is way better than The Dark Knight.

Yeh…nah…

How can you be okay with The Dark Knight? Tons of people died in that movie and batman didn’t save them all, that makes Batman the real villain and he murdered Harvey Dent for the no good reason of saving the life of a child, that makes him an awful person, not a hero and yet the movie ends praising him.

If Batman had just left Gotham then the Joker and Two Face wouldn’t have killed anyone. In fact the Joker says it himself, he is only doing what he does because Batman inspired him to do it, so how is Batman the hero? All he had to do was hand himself over to the Joker and not let Harvey take the fall for him and a lot fewer people would have died. Rachal said it hereself, “He’s not heroic at all.”

In Burton’s Batman Jack had been a psycho who had murdered people in cold blood for decades before Batman showed up, so out of the two movies it’s this one where Batman doesn’t directly cause the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of people.

Bingowings said:

In Superman II Superman realises that the Phantom Zone trio will continue to use his compassion for Humans against him so he draws them away from the City.

In Man of Steel Pseudoman just smashes through whole buildings full of people while trying win against Zod and then gets very upset about snapping Zod’s neck trying to protect 3 people.
Man of Steel throws anything good it has going for it out of the window in the final reel.
It just becomes a Kaleidoscope of CGI destruction with all the emotional investment of a screensaver.

Did you miss that Zod was doing things for completely different reasons in this movie then in Superman 2, I have to ask if you have even seen this movie since release.

In Superman 2 Zod wanted to beat Superman in a fight, so Superman running away would draw Zod away.

In Man of Steel Zod wanted to and I am quoting his own word here “Make Superman watch every human die”, so tell me does that sound like someone who would stop killing if Superman went away, Superman gave himself up to Zod earlier in the movie, did Zod give up his plans when he did that.

Under your logic every World War 2 veteran still alive should be tried for crimes against humanity because clearly every mass murderer in history will stop killing if no one is fighting him, so if the allied troops had just not fought Hitler he would have never killed a single person and the allies are to blame for all those deaths, not Hitler and the Nazis.

This “logic” only makes sense if you assume Zod had no Super powers and Superman could have just snapped his fingers and made Zod vanish in a puff of smoke.

I think Warners either needs to retire the Superman character because he is so dated you can’t tell any kind of story with any kind of conflict with him any more or they need to make a rule that every Superman story in every medium from now on has to end with time travel undoing all the events of that story because that is the only way to end a Superman story. That is the only way people will ever accept any Superman story where anything happen ever again. After all everyone is fine with Superman the movie despite the fact that the only reason people didn’t die in that one because Superman couldn’t stop two nukes at once is because he was able to time travel and undo the events of the last twenty minutes of the film, so that really seems like the only solution to the problem all the writers are trapped in at this point.

suspiciouscoffee said:

The thing with MoS was that, if they hadn’t explicitly stated “this guy’s name is Superman,” there would be no way to know that it was Superman. He wasn’t the likeable boy scout hero I love, he was just some generic ‘superhero’ (if you can call him that) that also has a God complex. First he’s acting like he’s mankind’s only hope, then he’s blowing stuff up just because he can (the satellite at the end).

I just finished watching the movie and everything he banged into, including that thing he was tossed into by Zod. I don’t understand how he was supposed to stop Zod without some stuff getting smashed, even in Superman 2 stuff got destroyed. I guess the rule of thumb is every Superman movie has to end with time travel undoing the events of that movie, or you can’t have a single action scene in the movie.

I don’t understand this standard at all, show me one version of Superman where his fighting a super villain has not resulted in stuff getting smashed.

Also to apply a real life example, if a cop ends up breaking your window in a fight with serial killer who wants to murder you and your whole family, does that then make the cop a bad guy and should he be sent to prison for life with the killer because if he had just refused to engage the killer then your window would be okay? Did you all see a cut of the movie that didn’t have Zod in it and Superman just start smashing things for no reason? is there a cut out there where Zod was some sort of saint handing out candy to homeless children and Superman just picked a fight with him for no reason? I swear there must be because I seem to be the only person on the planet who saw a version of this movie where Zod killed people and he said the words “If you love these humans so much you can watch them die.”, I think i am also the only person who saw the cut where Superman handed himself over to Zod and was going to let Zod kill him until he found out that Zod was going to kill everyone on earth any way. I don’t know how much more heroic you can get then letting someone kill you for reasons you don’t understand or know anything about to keep other people safe. He gave himself up to the army when he didn’t have to, those don’t sound like the actions of someone with a god complex to me. If anything it was Jor-el, Zod, to a lesser extend Pa Kent who had the god complexes and to some extent Superman had to reject the path they chose or it caused him pain. if anything I think this movie was about Superman finding a middle ground and because of that this featured the most humble of all the Supermen on the big screen. He didn’t stand in judgement of anyone and he sent the mass murders to the Phantom zone and he only killed Zod after he was left with no other choice and that cry he gave out after he did it clearly shows that he didn’t enjoy it and that he felt the deaths of every person he couldn’t save because he was out numbered and out gunned. This movie didn’t do anything any of the other superman movies didn’t do, it just showed what it cost on a personal level and didn’t have a cop out time travel ending.

If you want to know why I am okay with this movie I would say read some of the early Superman comics or listen to the radio show where there were conflicts that didn’t take place in a perfect world and there were no perfect or completely clean solutions to any problem.

Did you miss the part where Zod said his goal was to kill every human on the planet and it didn’t matter what Superman did? How was he supposed to stop someone as strong as him from doing that without a fight of some kind, Zod wasn’t just going to politely run off like he did in Superman 2. to me it’s no different then casting the blame for civilians killed when retaking cities from the Nazis on WW2 veterans, there was no way to avoid people dying if you were doing to stop everyone from dying. I also think a lot of people were killed in Superman 2 by Zod, they just don’t show it on screen. I don’t see how Zod could have taken over the world without killing anyone and the only reason Superman was able to save people in that fight was that the Villains were more interested in him then they were in killing humans, that wasn’t Zod or any of his people’s goal in Man of Steel. “For every human you save we will kill a million more.” "if you love these Humans so much then you can watch them die.’ Those are not the words of people who are going to stop their killing spree because Superman just went away, those are the words of people who were going to kill everyone on the planet and would just keep killing if Superman wasn’t fighting them.

In Superman returns and Superman 2 Superman had sex with Louis and then wiped her mind with his drug kiss and then left her to raise his super powered baby by herself and then doesn’t even get involved in raising the kid after the kid kills a man, so there is at least one death on Superman’s hands right there, not to mention that the first part of what he did was date rape. i mean yeah Louis was sad but did she at any point give him permission to wipe her memory? the only reason she didn’t tell Superman about the kid that I can’t believe with all his powers he couldn’t have known was his, was that she didn’t know because he had wiped her memory after they had sex and I have never heard that called anything other then date rape in real life.

I am sorry if you think i am being too harsh but I just have not been able to understand the logical reason for all the hate for Man of Steel when Superman 2 is the most popular film in the franchise and I sure can’t understand how fighting a mad man to protect the whole population of the earth is a worse moral action then wiping a woman’s memory after having sex with her and leaving her to raise his super powered kid who has already killed.

Sorry it’s nothing personal I am just trying to explain why I don’t get it and I don’t think I ever will. I have tried to understand since seeing Superman 2 why some people are okay with that ending and I have always failed and then Superman Returns compounded the problem beyond all hope of repair for me. I am really glad the franchise didn’t continue down that road.