HISHE Has A Point: Man of Steel vs Godzilla 2014

[cojo965]

Anyone see How it Should Have Ended: Godzilla?


This topic is about that last scene in the video where Superman calls out how he has a fight with Zod in Metropolis and the internet got up in arms over it while Godzilla does the same thing and no one bats an eye. Superman does have a point though, why is it Godzilla gets away with it, while Superman gets backlash?

 

[Zontar]

Because Superman is a person who understand right and wrong, while Godzilla is a force of nature.

There's also the fact that Superman should have (and was fully capable of) forced the fight outside of the densly populated city which puts New York to shame in size (both Metropolis and Gothem dwarf New York, which itself is a city in the DC universe) and forced it into the ocean or the countryside. Instead, he directly kills a quarter of a million people and makes it so that another million are guaranteed to also end up dead in the long run.

Godzilla, on the other hand, is a force of nature which cares not for morals or humanity.

Basically it's that for Godzilla, the movie fit the character's 60 years of history, while for Superman it did not fit anywhere in his 75 year one.

 

[tippy2k2]

Because Superman is a person who understand right and wrong, while Godzilla is a force of nature.

This

Plus...

I suppose it's been a good month or two since it came out but I don't exactly remember everyone cheering that Godzilla saved them. The "NEWS" caption thingy said "SAVIOR?" (notice the ever so important question mark). People were probably pretty happy that the world wasn't annihilated by the two giant bugs wanting to make sweet sweet baby-makin-love but I didn't get the feeling that people were gleeful about San Francisco being demolished...

 

[Zontar]

@MarsAtlas (sorry, quote button isn't working for me right now) the number isn't my own, but an estimate made by a group (I think it's the same guys who estimated the cost of the damage from The Avengers) based on the time and location of the fight. Comparing it to Katrina doesn't work for 3 reasons, 1st is that Metropolis is much larger, with a down town core which is probably of a similar size to New Orleans. 2nd is that New Orleans was evacuated (though many stayed behind) while in Metropolis it was high noon on a weekday, which made the city both packed and impossible to evacuate. And 3rd is the fact that the sheer damage is much, much worst to Metropolis, which isn't to be unexpected from having a miniature black hole dropped on you.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

There is also the fact that Superman is known for saving people. How many comic covers, cartoons, or just pictures in general are of him stopping a plane from crashing, holding up a building while people flee, catching someone who is falling to her death, or countless other heroic life-saving acts? If Superman saw a building full of people starting to collapse, he would abandon the fight and try and stop the building from falling, not swing harder to knock his opponent through another populated building. In Justice League Unlimited, he even says that he holds himself back because he's worried about hurting people or the destruction he would cause.

That is why Superman got so much flak for what happened in Man of Steel. He didn't behave like Superman would. Godzilla has never been known for saving people. He's known for smashing building and causing massive destruction, and sometimes saving humanity from another monster in the process.

 

[Olas]

Something is up with this thread, it says at the bottom that there are 143 pages of comments but that's clearly BS because not even this first page is full yet.

Anyway, as much as I'll defend Man of Steel from haters, I'll admit that the above commenters are right. You don't expect the same thing from Godzilla as you do from Superman, one is a giant monster with no direct allegiance to humanity who can barely move without breaking things and the other is an intelligent humanoid who's been raised to value human life and who is nowhere near as prone to collateral damage by nature.

I'd still argue that people are expecting too much from an unexperienced, barely having dawned the cape Superman. Not to mention the fact that 95% percent of the damage in MOS is done by a giant machine and not as a result of anything Superman had control over, and also that Superman miraculously saving everyone all the time sounds insanely boring. But comparing it to Godzilla is unfair none the less.

 

[Scarim Coral]

The thing is, Superman has a long running history of never putting people in harm way while Godzilla has been known for destruction even when he is the goodguy!
In saying so I do agreed that I did find it strange that they view Godzilla to be the hero especially that headline from the news at the end- "Kind of the monster: Saviour of our city?" I would of prefered it to had been "King of the mosnter, friend or foe?". I mean yes he was more passive compared to the Muto but his arrival in Hawaii did certainly killed some people from the tital wave.

 

[LobsterFeng]

I actually thought Godzilla caused less collateral damage than Superman in these movies. Which is pretty hilarious to think about.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

Well, being a building size monster, it's only natural for there to be collateral damage. In fact, I think Godzilla caused less damage than superman, not to mention that at the point the city had already been evacuated, with the exception of the few trapped under the rubble, in which he ensured their safety, while in Man of Steel you can clearly see people standing in the open in the city while Superman and Zod were fighting and wreaking buildings. Superman should have known better than to bring the fight deeper into the city where people still haven't evacuated. He did the same thing during the fight in that small town. He hits a foe into a gas station at the speed of a bullet, before anyone has any time to know what hit them.

The thing about Godzilla is that you expect him to cause damage, but in that movie he was very restraint. He didn't purposefully knocking down building just for the sake of it, and he wasn't after the people, but the MUTOs. Despite basically being a giant animal, he had a level of intelligence, character, and dignity that you never expected from a giant monster. Because of this, you're actively rooting for him.

With Superman, however, you expect him to do the right thing and try his best not to endanger the lives around him. He could have taken the fight to a less populated area away from the city, but didn't. He should show concern about the people's lives and the property damage, but never does. You expect him to contain the damage, not add to it. This makes him look irresponsible, and not particularly someone to root for.

Godzilla succeeded at being Godzilla and then some, but Superman failed at being Superman.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

HISHE are always pretty funny. I think that the guy (or gal) that makes these threw that Superman bit in to poke fun at Sups for destroying half of Metropolis, not to rag on Godzilla for doing the same thing to San Fran or viewers for criticizing Superman. Destroying a city is something one expects from a giant atomic monster, not Space-Jesus.

 

[Anachronism]

Superman is a being of pure altruism who has taken an oath to never kill. Godzilla is a 300 foot tall radioactive dinosaur.

You expect Superman to care about and protect people, whereas Godzilla is basically the patron saint of collateral damage.

 

[happyninja42]

Something is up with this thread, it says at the bottom that there are 143 pages of comments but that's clearly BS because not even this first page is full yet.

Anyway, as much as I'll defend Man of Steel from haters, I'll admit that the above commenters are right. You don't expect the same thing from Godzilla as you do from Superman, one is a giant monster with no direct allegiance to humanity who can barely move without breaking things and the other is an intelligent humanoid who's been raised to value human life and who is nowhere near as prone to collateral damage by nature.

I'd still argue that people are expecting too much from an unexperienced, barely having dawned the cape Superman. Not to mention the fact that 95% percent of the damage in MOS is done by a giant machine and not as a result of anything Superman had control over, and also that Superman miraculously saving everyone all the time sounds insanely boring. But comparing it to Godzilla is unfair none the less.

I agree about the whole "new superman" thing. I think they were trying to set up where from this point forward he's going to swear off death and violence, because of the events of Man of Steel. Which I actually don't have a problem with. I agree though that the level of destruction on his part was over the top, and how casually he sentenced the entire Kryptonian race to genocide, and then proceeded to kill the ship filled with their embryos. There was a distinct level of disconnect and dissonance there that felt off to me.

Though I still defend his choice to kill Zod, and don't actually have a problem with it. He killed Zod in the original Superman 2 as well, and nobody seemed to give a damn back then.

 

[happyninja42]

Superman is a being of pure altruism who has taken an oath to never kill. Godzilla is a 300 foot tall radioactive dinosaur.

You expect Superman to care about and protect people, whereas Godzilla is basically the patron saint of collateral damage.

I've never really read the superman comics, so I'm not sure, but did he actually take an oath? Or swear some personal code to never ever ever ever kill anyone? I mean I know the fan base has basically put this mantle on him over the years, and the writers have run with it as canon, but I mean did he ever actually make any declaration that he would never kill anyone?

 

[Anachronism]

Superman is a being of pure altruism who has taken an oath to never kill. Godzilla is a 300 foot tall radioactive dinosaur.

You expect Superman to care about and protect people, whereas Godzilla is basically the patron saint of collateral damage.

I've never really read the superman comics, so I'm not sure, but did he actually take an oath? Or swear some personal code to never ever ever ever kill anyone? I mean I know the fan base has basically put this mantle on him over the years, and the writers have run with it as canon, but I mean did he ever actually make any declaration that he would never kill anyone?

That's a good question, and I'm honestly not sure. I couldn't tell you which issue he swore an oath in, if indeed there was one, but pretty much every writer has written him as having a code against killing. Click the spoiler box for a particularly good example of this.

Spoiler: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?

At the end, he kills Mr. Mxyzptlk, who was going to destroy the world, without fully realising he was going to do so - and he's so appalled with himself that he exposes himself to gold kryptonite, permanently stripping him of his powers. It's an interesting contrast with the end of Man of Steel, in that in the comic he still doesn't think the killing was justified, even though Mxyzptlk was going to cause at least as much damage as Zod was in the film.

The problem with making Superman be willing to kill is that he becomes terrifying rather than inspiring. The invincible god-alien who chooses to help people and never uses his unfathomable power to kill becomes an avatar of benevolence, an aspirational figure who shows us the best that we can be. But, if the alien who can fly faster than sound, see through walls, shoot lasers from his eyes and demolish mountains with his bare hands is willing to kill people, he becomes a bully at best and a tyrant at worst.

 

[briankoontz]

I'd like to defend Man of Steel, since I liked (didn't love) the movie and I don't think it's worthy of the internet response to it.

The original Superman was created in a Modernist philosophy - the idea was that Superman would help humans reach a "higher level" ala Nietzsche's ubermensche. In other words it was optimistic and "progressive".

As should be well known by now, Christopher Nolan has a modern (not to be confused with Modernist) vision of the world, where humans have given up on "becoming greater" in favor of clinging to their humanity and lives in a dying world. Memento is a classic example of an epic struggle to cling to identity.

Superman, for all his power, is subject to human culture in terms of how he interacts with humanity, and Nolan's Superman is based on a different cultural understanding than the original. The many critics of Man of Steel seem utterly blind to this, preferring that "Superman version 1.0 be Superman forever!" at the expense of the changing nature of reality.

All of Nolan's characters are besieged, and just like Dick Cheney people who are besieged go to the "dark side" and do whatever it takes to fulfill their will. Dark Batman and Dark Superman therefore have lost their moral compass because they feel that if they don't do "whatever it takes" to succeed the world is doomed. Nicholas Winding Refn thinks along similar lines, with the Drive protagonist being a more stylish version of a Nolan protagonist.

The critical response to the end of Modernist Superman is that Superman provides the optimistic light in a dying world, a kind of escapism, and that should continue for the emotional benefits it provides the audience, irrespective of whether or not it correlates with reality. I disagree. Maybe if the audience was comprised of 2 year olds that would be a good idea.

A quick note on Godzilla - Godzilla is a metaphor for the detonation of nuclear bombs in Japan in WWII - so indiscriminate widespread destruction is Godzilla's thing. Godzilla was created to give the Japanese populace the ability to put a face on the otherwise inhuman nuclear horror that devastated their nation.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Godzilla isnt a hero, he just likes a good fight. Just so happens the enemy of my enemy is my hero. He always doesnt give a crap about the people. Superman on the other hand protects the people and is a true superhero. Now in his movie every punch ended up with a zod/supes flying through a building. Just became laughable after a while. But i do understand the neck breaking and its a shame we have to wait 4 or more years for an official sequel to see how superman copes with the death and damaged he caused. but in the big picture, one city destroyed/Zod killed saved every life on earth.

Problem is as the official Supes sequel is being made after BvS and Justice League - timeline wise can they have a supes movie with him moping about what happened in the first movie? After all by then he has had a movie with Batman and a superhero team up in Justice League fighting a major villian. They cant go back to where the MoS finished. This is why DC really hasnt thought through its movie universe. Cant have a awesome supes fighting enemies in JL then go back to a beginner superman in his MoS 2 movie.

 

[Mave]

Aham this again:

-Superman first time fighting someone as strong as him
-The city was under attack before zod and supes fought, so tha authorities should already had evacuated the city by the moment the fighting start
-Superman fighting in a city has cause this much destruction before in comics and cartoons: When fighting Doomsday, in the animated series fighting Darseid

Now I do agree that Godzilla gets a free pass because it's a "forcé of nature", but really haters are gonna hate, me? I loved the movie and I'm looking forward for it's sequel.

 

[happyninja42]

The problem with making Superman be willing to kill is that he becomes terrifying rather than inspiring. The invincible god-alien who chooses to help people and never uses his unfathomable power to kill becomes an avatar of benevolence, an aspirational figure who shows us the best that we can be. But, if the alien who can fly faster than sound, see through walls, shoot lasers from his eyes and demolish mountains with his bare hands is willing to kill people, he becomes a bully at best and a tyrant at worst.

Eh, I disagree with that assessment. Simply having the capability and willingness to kill doesn't automatically make him a bully or tyrant. Just like normal people today who have the capacity to kill people, doesn't mean they exercise that right whenever they feel like it. If he's still only willing to kill in extreme and dire circumstances, then how does that make him any less noble or good as any of the myriad other superheroes over the years, who are willing to kill? Or any number of regular humans in real life who have had to make that choice, and are still considered good people?

I mean, he could just as easily be a tyrant and bully and not kill people. I mean what are they going to do to stop him? He could dismantle every military in the world, lay waste to major cities and industrial centers, and knock back human development to the stone age if he felt like it, and set himself up as the high lord overseer of earth, because nobody can stop him. But hey, he didn't kill anybody when he did it. That sound more tyrannical than a guy who says "yes, I am basically all powerful, but I live my life to help people whenever I can. But if I have to kill someone for the greater good, I will, but I really don't like to." That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Yeah, i'd agree it's total bullshit. Especially with how hard Godzilla '14 was jerking off Godzilla and wanting him to be seen as a hero.

At least in Superman, Zod was a trained badass, not a passive monster with backup half its size.