Its hard being a DC fan. (Rant)

[Hawki]

I see that a few threads up above, Arrowverse material has entered the conversation. And it's systemic of why I don't like a shared universe approach unless it actually feels like the same universe (Star Trek, Stargate, the "Whoinverse", etc., to use TV series that have done this effectively).

So, take the first two seasons of Arrow. I liked them, even if I liked season 1 more. I liked how down to earth they felt, I liked the protagonists, I liked the antagonists (actual understandable motives...how quaint). Sure, season 2 seemed to be going down a bit more of a 'comic booky' road as it introduced stuff like the mirakuru, but I was onboard. Even if stuff like the Suicide Squad and ARGUS have their roots in comics, it still felt like something that could exist in the real world.

So then you have The Flash, which is where things start going awry for me. Taking The Flash in isolation from anything else, I'd probably enjoy it. The characters are decent, the music is pretty good, action and effects are much better than what you'd get a decade or so ago, and if looked at in through the lens of 20th century pulp sci-fi, comic or otherwise, then yes, it's a fun romp. However, I have to wrap my head around the fact that this is in the same setting as Arrow which is completely different in every regard. To me, it diminishes Arrow because suddenly Starling City feels provincial. Suddenly Ollie's efforts feel meaningless (he's never had to deal with wormholes or time travellers), and he feels redundant in terms of ability as a result. Likewise, this bleeds over into The Flash for me, because keeping Arrow in mind, Barry suddenly feels overpowered, the villains feel less 'real' (with the exception of Wells/Thawne), and I can't shake the feeling that time travel just feels...wrong, for the overall setting (time travel by its nature opens a can of worms if introduced into a fictional universe). Arrow, by itself, was enjoyable to me. The Flash, by itself, is also enjoyable. Trying to wrap my head around them being in the same universe however, and to me, both suffer because of the tonal dissonance. And then apparently you have the confirmation that demons exist in the setting (Constantine), and time police of some kind exist (Legends of Tomorrow), and there's a multiverse with flying girls (Supergirl) and...yeah.

Or, if you want a Marvel example, it's part of the reason why I was invested in Spectacular Spider-Man, but not Ultimate Spider-Man. The former is focused on one character and introduces villains at a steady state. The latter throws an entire plenthora of villains and heroes into the mix in its very first episode, and I'm under the impression that I'm meant to know who they all are beforehand. The cringeworthy humour doesn't help either, but Ultimate feels systemic of the shared universe approach, while Spectacular feels more akin to traditional storytelling. Guess which one I find more effective.

 

[Mangod]

So, here's a question for you guys? How profitable has this movie been for WB?

Now, according to most sources I've seen, BvS had a total budget of around $400 million ($250 for making the Movie, $150 for marketing). And according to Box Office Mojo, it's made $868m, rounding up. Since the studio only sees half the box office gross (meaning a movie has to make twice its budget to break even), it'd put the total profit WB has seen from this at $34m.

Is $34 million really worth it to WB to keep making these movies? The Avengers had a similar budget, far as I've heard, but it also pulled in $1.5 billion dollars at the box office, which would put it's profits in the range of $350 million.

Is the DCEU really worth it to WB at this point, given the risks of them suffering a legit bomb?

It's generally considered closer to three times the budget to be a success. That means it'd need Avengers money just to break even.

But that's not necessarily why they would do this movie, or why they would keep doing them after (or not). The studio behind the Last Airbender movie put a fuckton into promotion of the movie, well over the normal promotion, because they were so sure it was going to be a franchise. They may have even gone all-out with budget on setpieces with the idea that they were investing for the long run.

BVSDOJOMGWTFLOLBBL is a movie that could technically be a failure and still be worth pursuing. The problem I see with that is not so much that it might be a failure, but how it might have failed. This is a movie that was hated by critics. It's a movie that was hated by a lot of DC fans, even some of the fanboys. It's a movie that did well the first week, and had a record dropoff the second.

At that point, it might be worth scrapping even if it was profitable, because your next outing might not get those week one sales.

Which is what I was getting at; are the risks of the next movie in the DCEU making even less profit (or God forbid, not breaking even), worth it at this point? If Batman v Superman could only turn a very modest profit (and that's assuming that you're wrong about it needing to make X3 it's budget to break even), are the chances of the next movie doing potentially worse worth funneling cash into the DCEU?

Granted, I'm not sure what the alternative would be at this point...

 

[tzimize]

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting.

Y'know what? If I wanted realistic I wouldn't be watching a goddamn Superman movie. I don't watch Superhero shows and movies for a 'real world' look at superheroes. Most often because people use "But realistic!" for the reason why everything sucks in this setting.

Which is fine, but doesnt make the movie bad. I personally prefer Marvel movies over DC. I like the nolan trilogy a LOT, but Batman is that kind of character. I wouldnt have minded a Superman more filled with hope and light, but DC decided to take another approach. That in and of itself doesnt make it bad, just not what you wanted. There is a difference

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

So, here's a question for you guys? How profitable has this movie been for WB?

Now, according to most sources I've seen, BvS had a total budget of around $400 million ($250 for making the Movie, $150 for marketing). And according to Box Office Mojo, it's made $868m, rounding up. Since the studio only sees half the box office gross (meaning a movie has to make twice its budget to break even), it'd put the total profit WB has seen from this at $34m.

Is $34 million really worth it to WB to keep making these movies? The Avengers had a similar budget, far as I've heard, but it also pulled in $1.5 billion dollars at the box office, which would put it's profits in the range of $350 million.

Is the DCEU really worth it to WB at this point, given the risks of them suffering a legit bomb?

It's generally considered closer to three times the budget to be a success. That means it'd need Avengers money just to break even.

But that's not necessarily why they would do this movie, or why they would keep doing them after (or not). The studio behind the Last Airbender movie put a fuckton into promotion of the movie, well over the normal promotion, because they were so sure it was going to be a franchise. They may have even gone all-out with budget on setpieces with the idea that they were investing for the long run.

BVSDOJOMGWTFLOLBBL is a movie that could technically be a failure and still be worth pursuing. The problem I see with that is not so much that it might be a failure, but how it might have failed. This is a movie that was hated by critics. It's a movie that was hated by a lot of DC fans, even some of the fanboys. It's a movie that did well the first week, and had a record dropoff the second.

At that point, it might be worth scrapping even if it was profitable, because your next outing might not get those week one sales.

Which is what I was getting at; are the risks of the next movie in the DCEU making even less profit (or God forbid, not breaking even), worth it at this point? If Batman v Superman could only turn a very modest profit (and that's assuming that you're wrong about it needing to make X3 it's budget to break even), are the chances of the next movie doing potentially worse worth funneling cash into the DCEU?

Granted, I'm not sure what the alternative would be at this point...

WB is in the same position most large businesses end up in at some point - It's better to produce and sell at a loss then it is to just pack it in and try again later.

 

[Something Amyss]

Granted, I'm not sure what the alternative would be at this point...

Close shop and reboot in 5 years seems common.

I think a lot of this will ride on Suicide Squad. Not because it's the DCEU lynchpin, but because it's the one that's done and coming out next. They better hope those reshoots make a difference....

"Whoinverse", etc., to use TV series that have done this effectively).

Really? The only commonalities I saw between Doctor Who and Torchwood were Barrowman and aliens. I suppose that's off-point a bit, but I was just surprised.

Or, if you want a Marvel example, it's part of the reason why I was invested in Spectacular Spider-Man, but not Ultimate Spider-Man. The former is focused on one character and introduces villains at a steady state. The latter throws an entire plenthora of villains and heroes into the mix in its very first episode, and I'm under the impression that I'm meant to know who they all are beforehand. The cringeworthy humour doesn't help either, but Ultimate feels systemic of the shared universe approach, while Spectacular feels more akin to traditional storytelling. Guess which one I find more effective.

Honestly? I'm not so sure. Avengers Assemble and what I've seen of both Agents of SMASH and Guardians of the Galaxy seem to be pretty solid. The only flaw with AA is that it's not EMH. EMH and Spectacular were some of my favourite superhero cartoons, though. Still, I think that the overall shared universe works fine. I think Ultimate is just a weak show.

I also disagree that Spectacular took its time. Its first episode alone introduces the Enforcers, Hammerhead, an overarching "Big Man" who is totes not Kingpin because we didn't have the rights, and Doc Ock and Curt Connors. Possibly others I forget right now.

 

[mduncan50]

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting.

Y'know what? If I wanted realistic I wouldn't be watching a goddamn Superman movie. I don't watch Superhero shows and movies for a 'real world' look at superheroes. Most often because people use "But realistic!" for the reason why everything sucks in this setting.

Which is fine, but doesnt make the movie bad. I personally prefer Marvel movies over DC. I like the nolan trilogy a LOT, but Batman is that kind of character. I wouldnt have minded a Superman more filled with hope and light, but DC decided to take another approach. That in and of itself doesnt make it bad, just not what you wanted. There is a difference

Doesn't make it a bad movie, at least not that part, but it does make it a bad adaptation when you strip away everything that is identifiable about a character other than his powers. Who knows though... if they can claim that Jesse Eisenberg was playing Lex Jr, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point they revealed Henry Caville has actually been playing Bizarro.

 

[Hawki]

Really? The only commonalities I saw between Doctor Who and Torchwood were Barrowman and aliens. I suppose that's off-point a bit, but I was just surprised.

Torchwood is a bit of an outlier. I'd argue it still fits the mold though given that while it's the darkest series of the overall universe, it still conforms to its more off-beat tone and esoteric sci-fa (as opposed to sci-fi) approach. There's also stuff like K9 & Company, The Sarah Jane Adventures, the upcoming series "Class," and more obscure sub-series like Bernice Summerfield. Exposure to them has been minimal (or in the case of BS, non-existent), but they do feel like they belong in the same overall setting.

Honestly? I'm not so sure. Avengers Assemble and what I've seen of both Agents of SMASH and Guardians of the Galaxy seem to be pretty solid. The only flaw with AA is that it's not EMH. EMH and Spectacular were some of my favourite superhero cartoons, though. Still, I think that the overall shared universe works fine. I think Ultimate is just a weak show.

I also disagree that Spectacular took its time. Its first episode alone introduces the Enforcers, Hammerhead, an overarching "Big Man" who is totes not Kingpin because we didn't have the rights, and Doc Ock and Curt Connors. Possibly others I forget right now.

Can't comment on any of the above shows rather than the Spider-Man ones - original post was only dealing with the comparison. I'm also in the position of not being able to watch either show right now (or really, ever, unless I import DVDs from the US and play them using my PC's software), but my memory, as flawed as it is, does point to the first episode (the only point of comparison) of each series feel less cluttered. Spectacular does introduce us to a lot of characters in its first episode, but it feels more organic - Octavius is a long way from being Doc Oc, Sandman and Rhino are a long way from getting their abilities, Norman Osborne won't be donning his Goblin suit for awhile, Eddie Brock is just a uni student, etc. The only villain that really gets a 'proper debut' per se is Vulture, who remains the main threat in the first episode.

In contrast, as I recall, Ultimate Spider-Man starts with Peter in a street battle, where we're then introduced to Nick Fury, who then introduces us to Iron Man and Captain America (done in a way that it expects us to know who these characters are), and we're then introduced to some weirdos who attack the school, who are acting on Doc Ock's and Osborne's instructions, and this is only the first episode, whereas next episode we'll be introduced to Peter's entire team, and...ugh. Oh, and Mary Jane exists because...she does.

Maybe the approach is just systemic of writing style, but confining this comparison entirely to the first one or two episodes of each series, Ultimate is the one that sticks out in my mind as being far more cluttered. Characters are introduced in both openings, but in Spectacular, I remember characters and one bona fide villain, whereas in Ultimate, it felt like villains, and a few characters.

 

[Dandymanx]

...also The Brave and The Bold still cheers me up even if it is a tad goofy and silly, but thats what happens when you pilfer from the Silver Age I guess

It doesn't cheer you up even though it's a tad goofy, it cheers you up because it is a completely goofy. Brave and the Bold is a show about super heroes doing super things, and everything else can be damned. It's a show made for the sole purpose of being fun, and that was fantastic. And it featured probably the last truly new thing in the DC universe worth a damn.

I dare the movies to come up with something as brilliant, entertaining, and new as the Music Meister. Hell, I dare the comics to do it too.

Curse you, I had stuff to do today and nows its been de-railed by a need to go on a Brave and Bold binge

 

[Mangod]

...also The Brave and The Bold still cheers me up even if it is a tad goofy and silly, but thats what happens when you pilfer from the Silver Age I guess

It doesn't cheer you up even though it's a tad goofy, it cheers you up because it is a completely goofy. Brave and the Bold is a show about super heroes doing super things, and everything else can be damned. It's a show made for the sole purpose of being fun, and that was fantastic. And it featured probably the last truly new thing in the DC universe worth a damn.

I dare the movies to come up with something as brilliant, entertaining, and new as the Music Meister. Hell, I dare the comics to do it too.

Isn't that just a redesigned Music Master from Justice League's Legends episode?

 

[Kyman102]

Which is fine, but doesnt make the movie bad. I personally prefer Marvel movies over DC. I like the nolan trilogy a LOT, but Batman is that kind of character. I wouldnt have minded a Superman more filled with hope and light, but DC decided to take another approach. That in and of itself doesnt make it bad, just not what you wanted. There is a difference

Yeah, you're right. Attempting to make a Superman movie a bit more realistic isn't necessarily bad. Making it BAD is bad.

The Nolan Batman movies (or at least two of them, I can't speak for Rises because I didn't see it) were good movies, and they were clearly set in reality.

But WAY too often I see people use "But realistic" as an explanation for the heroes being miserable, the citizens being douchebags to said heroes, and any attempt to be good and heroic is shown as being almost childishly naive.

Frankly motherfuck that sentiment. Y'know a damn good result of blending "Superheroes in a more real world" while still being true to the Superhero genre?

Fucking Tiger & Bunny, an anime from 2011. It's a bit more real-world with things like the heroes having sponsorship deals (and ad space on their suits) as well as their heroing being a televised reality show, where they gain points for how quickly they respond to crimes and for apprehending criminals.

The difference is that while the anime does take some jabs at the sillier aspects of Heroing, it also happens to be one of the best examples of superhero stories I can think of. WORLDS better than DC's recent live-action movies, to be sure.

Kotetsu Kaburagi is a better Superman than BvS's Superman. He has doubts, he screws up, he's kind of a dork and he's seen as an old washed-up yesterday's news Hero in-universe. But he's also undeniably a HERO. He helps people and saves the day, even without recognition or praise. He'll move the Earth itself to save his daughter.

At one point, a rogue Super sets fire to a building where a criminal gang was holed up with stolen weapons. We get to see Kotetsu (along with the other Heroes) pulling the criminals out of the burning building. An EMT looks at a gangster that Kotetsu pulled out, then looks at Kotetsu and shakes his head.

Kotetsu grits his fist and yells at the sky in frustration. Because he couldn't save one guy. And reminder: He didn't know this guy. This wasn't an innocent bystander who was wounded in the crossfire. This was a gang member that was holed up and shooting at cops with stolen weapons.

And Kotetsu still cared enough to be hurt by not being able to save him.

To me? THAT is a true hero. THAT is what we need more of, not people just brooding.

 

[Cicada 5]

Which is fine, but doesnt make the movie bad. I personally prefer Marvel movies over DC. I like the nolan trilogy a LOT, but Batman is that kind of character. I wouldnt have minded a Superman more filled with hope and light, but DC decided to take another approach. That in and of itself doesnt make it bad, just not what you wanted. There is a difference

Yeah, you're right. Attempting to make a Superman movie a bit more realistic isn't necessarily bad. Making it BAD is bad.

The Nolan Batman movies (or at least two of them, I can't speak for Rises because I didn't see it) were good movies, and they were clearly set in reality.

But WAY too often I see people use "But realistic" as an explanation for the heroes being miserable, the citizens being douchebags to said heroes, and any attempt to be good and heroic is shown as being almost childishly naive.

Frankly motherfuck that sentiment. Y'know a damn good result of blending "Superheroes in a more real world" while still being true to the Superhero genre?

Fucking Tiger & Bunny, an anime from 2011. It's a bit more real-world with things like the heroes having sponsorship deals (and ad space on their suits) as well as their heroing being a televised reality show, where they gain points for how quickly they respond to crimes and for apprehending criminals.

The difference is that while the anime does take some jabs at the sillier aspects of Heroing, it also happens to be one of the best examples of superhero stories I can think of. WORLDS better than DC's recent live-action movies, to be sure.

Kotetsu Kaburagi is a better Superman than BvS's Superman. He has doubts, he screws up, he's kind of a dork and he's seen as an old washed-up yesterday's news Hero in-universe. But he's also undeniably a HERO. He helps people and saves the day, even without recognition or praise. He'll move the Earth itself to save his daughter.

At one point, a rogue Super sets fire to a building where a criminal gang was holed up with stolen weapons. We get to see Kotetsu (along with the other Heroes) pulling the criminals out of the burning building. An EMT looks at a gangster that Kotetsu pulled out, then looks at Kotetsu and shakes his head.

Kotetsu grits his fist and yells at the sky in frustration. Because he couldn't save one guy. And reminder: He didn't know this guy. This wasn't an innocent bystander who was wounded in the crossfire. This was a gang member that was holed up and shooting at cops with stolen weapons.

And Kotetsu still cared enough to be hurt by not being able to save him.

To me? THAT is a true hero. THAT is what we need more of, not people just brooding.

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

 

[mduncan50]

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

Because most of that is telling us what a hero he is instead of showing us, and the other 5 hours of movie paint a different picture.

 

[Cicada 5]

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

Because most of that is telling us what a hero he is instead of showing us, and the other 5 hours of movie paint a different picture.

Him saving the bus fool of kids, his saving Lois from death after the ships' security attacks her, him surrendering to Zod and the fighting him when he threatens Earth, the montage of him saving people, the sacrifice at the end. How are the not showing? What exactly is it you're expecting here?

 

[Kenbo Slice]

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

Because most of that is telling us what a hero he is instead of showing us, and the other 5 hours of movie paint a different picture.

Him saving the bus fool of kids, his saving Lois from death after the ships' security attacks her, him surrendering to Zod and the fighting him when he threatens Earth, the montage of him saving people, the sacrifice at the end. How are the not showing? What exactly is it you're expecting here?

Superman doing Superman things is what we want to see. He fights Zod with little to no regard for his surroundings. He straight up kills a guy 2 minutes into BvS when he could've easily disarmed him and saved Lois. There was also no fucking reason for him to sacrifice himself. There really, really, really, really wasn't. Wonder Woman or Batman could've poked Not-Doomsday with the magic stick.

 

[Cicada 5]

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

Because most of that is telling us what a hero he is instead of showing us, and the other 5 hours of movie paint a different picture.

Him saving the bus fool of kids, his saving Lois from death after the ships' security attacks her, him surrendering to Zod and the fighting him when he threatens Earth, the montage of him saving people, the sacrifice at the end. How are the not showing? What exactly is it you're expecting here?

Superman doing Superman things is what we want to see. He fights Zod with little to no regard for his surroundings. He straight up kills a guy 2 minutes into BvS when he could've easily disarmed him and saved Lois. There was also no fucking reason for him to sacrifice himself. There really, really, really, really wasn't. Wonder Woman or Batman could've poked Not-Doomsday with the magic stick.

I don't know how many fights you've been but it's very difficult to pay attention to anything other than the guy bashing your face in. We don't know if the guy in the opening is dead. Batman was too weak to fight Doomsday and Wonder Woman was holding Doomsday so no, neither could use the spear at the time.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

Because most of that is telling us what a hero he is instead of showing us, and the other 5 hours of movie paint a different picture.

Him saving the bus fool of kids, his saving Lois from death after the ships' security attacks her, him surrendering to Zod and the fighting him when he threatens Earth, the montage of him saving people, the sacrifice at the end. How are the not showing? What exactly is it you're expecting here?

Superman doing Superman things is what we want to see. He fights Zod with little to no regard for his surroundings. He straight up kills a guy 2 minutes into BvS when he could've easily disarmed him and saved Lois. There was also no fucking reason for him to sacrifice himself. There really, really, really, really wasn't. Wonder Woman or Batman could've poked Not-Doomsday with the magic stick.

I don't know how many fights you've been but it's very difficult to pay attention to anything other than the guy bashing your face in. We don't know if the guy in the opening is dead. Batman was too weak to fight Doomsday and Wonder Woman was holding Doomsday so no, neither could use the spear at the time.

In the comics Superman goes out of his way to ensure there's not a lot of collateral damage. I'm pretty sure he's dead, no human could survive going through a few reinforced walls with that kind of force, and even if he survived he'd be paralyzed or fatally injured, which still goes against Superman's character. Are you telling me that Superman couldn't hold Doomsday while Wonder Woman got close enough to poke him? Because he easily could have done that.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

Because most of that is telling us what a hero he is instead of showing us, and the other 5 hours of movie paint a different picture.

Him saving the bus fool of kids, his saving Lois from death after the ships' security attacks her, him surrendering to Zod and the fighting him when he threatens Earth, the montage of him saving people, the sacrifice at the end. How are the not showing? What exactly is it you're expecting here?

Superman doing Superman things is what we want to see. He fights Zod with little to no regard for his surroundings. He straight up kills a guy 2 minutes into BvS when he could've easily disarmed him and saved Lois. There was also no fucking reason for him to sacrifice himself. There really, really, really, really wasn't. Wonder Woman or Batman could've poked Not-Doomsday with the magic stick.

I don't know how many fights you've been but it's very difficult to pay attention to anything other than the guy bashing your face in. We don't know if the guy in the opening is dead. Batman was too weak to fight Doomsday and Wonder Woman was holding Doomsday so no, neither could use the spear at the time.

In the comics Superman goes out of his way to ensure there's not a lot of collateral damage. I'm pretty sure he's dead, no human could survive going through a few reinforced walls with that kind of force, and even if he survived he'd be paralyzed or fatally injured, which still goes against Superman's character. Are you telling me that Superman couldn't hold Doomsday while Wonder Woman got close enough to poke him? Because he easily could have done that.

I guess the only answer is for Superhero movies in general to stop having their big epic fights in Cities.

And Marvel is guilty of this aswell. I mean why did Ultron need to cut a chunk of land that had a city on top of it in the first place if the point was to basically make a Meteor big enough to destroy the world? Why does he need the city on top of the Rocky Chunk if it would be blown up anyway?

 

[Kenbo Slice]

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

Because most of that is telling us what a hero he is instead of showing us, and the other 5 hours of movie paint a different picture.

Him saving the bus fool of kids, his saving Lois from death after the ships' security attacks her, him surrendering to Zod and the fighting him when he threatens Earth, the montage of him saving people, the sacrifice at the end. How are the not showing? What exactly is it you're expecting here?

Superman doing Superman things is what we want to see. He fights Zod with little to no regard for his surroundings. He straight up kills a guy 2 minutes into BvS when he could've easily disarmed him and saved Lois. There was also no fucking reason for him to sacrifice himself. There really, really, really, really wasn't. Wonder Woman or Batman could've poked Not-Doomsday with the magic stick.

I don't know how many fights you've been but it's very difficult to pay attention to anything other than the guy bashing your face in. We don't know if the guy in the opening is dead. Batman was too weak to fight Doomsday and Wonder Woman was holding Doomsday so no, neither could use the spear at the time.

In the comics Superman goes out of his way to ensure there's not a lot of collateral damage. I'm pretty sure he's dead, no human could survive going through a few reinforced walls with that kind of force, and even if he survived he'd be paralyzed or fatally injured, which still goes against Superman's character. Are you telling me that Superman couldn't hold Doomsday while Wonder Woman got close enough to poke him? Because he easily could have done that.

I guess the only answer is for Superhero movies in general to stop having their big epic fights in Cities.

And Marvel is guilty of this aswell. I mean why did Ultron need to cut a chunk of land that had a city on top of it in the first place if the point was to basically make a Meteor big enough to destroy the world? Why does he need the city on top of the Rocky Chunk if it would be blown up anyway?

In the Marvel films the heroes clearly go out of their way to save as many people as possible and try to keep the fight contained. In the DC films they can't even do that.

Edit: To answer the second part, yeah that part was dumb. I didn't care much for AoU because they could've done so much more.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

Because most of that is telling us what a hero he is instead of showing us, and the other 5 hours of movie paint a different picture.

Him saving the bus fool of kids, his saving Lois from death after the ships' security attacks her, him surrendering to Zod and the fighting him when he threatens Earth, the montage of him saving people, the sacrifice at the end. How are the not showing? What exactly is it you're expecting here?

Superman doing Superman things is what we want to see. He fights Zod with little to no regard for his surroundings. He straight up kills a guy 2 minutes into BvS when he could've easily disarmed him and saved Lois. There was also no fucking reason for him to sacrifice himself. There really, really, really, really wasn't. Wonder Woman or Batman could've poked Not-Doomsday with the magic stick.

I don't know how many fights you've been but it's very difficult to pay attention to anything other than the guy bashing your face in. We don't know if the guy in the opening is dead. Batman was too weak to fight Doomsday and Wonder Woman was holding Doomsday so no, neither could use the spear at the time.

In the comics Superman goes out of his way to ensure there's not a lot of collateral damage. I'm pretty sure he's dead, no human could survive going through a few reinforced walls with that kind of force, and even if he survived he'd be paralyzed or fatally injured, which still goes against Superman's character. Are you telling me that Superman couldn't hold Doomsday while Wonder Woman got close enough to poke him? Because he easily could have done that.

I guess the only answer is for Superhero movies in general to stop having their big epic fights in Cities.

And Marvel is guilty of this aswell. I mean why did Ultron need to cut a chunk of land that had a city on top of it in the first place if the point was to basically make a Meteor big enough to destroy the world? Why does he need the city on top of the Rocky Chunk if it would be blown up anyway?

In the Marvel films the heroes clearly go out of their way to save as many people as possible and try to keep the fight contained. In the DC films they can't even do that.

BVS the fight with Doomsday was an empty ruin of a city.

Man of Steel: most of the city destruction was mostly done by the world engine. Superman had to deal with the one on the other side of the world. By the time Superman arrived at Metropolis the city was already 9/11ed.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

You know the first thing we saw of an adult Clark is him saving some people from an oil rig. Lois flat out states the only reason she was able to track him down is because he kept saving people. The second film has him dying to save the world while telling the woman he loves how much she means to him.

Don't know why people ignore this.

Because most of that is telling us what a hero he is instead of showing us, and the other 5 hours of movie paint a different picture.

Him saving the bus fool of kids, his saving Lois from death after the ships' security attacks her, him surrendering to Zod and the fighting him when he threatens Earth, the montage of him saving people, the sacrifice at the end. How are the not showing? What exactly is it you're expecting here?

Superman doing Superman things is what we want to see. He fights Zod with little to no regard for his surroundings. He straight up kills a guy 2 minutes into BvS when he could've easily disarmed him and saved Lois. There was also no fucking reason for him to sacrifice himself. There really, really, really, really wasn't. Wonder Woman or Batman could've poked Not-Doomsday with the magic stick.

So what about when they were rocking each others socks in Smallville and crashing through buildings that clearly had people in it? BvS clearly shows people in buildings that Zod and Superman were fighting through. He couldn't save the people he wasn't there to save, but he also couldn't be assed to try to save the people who were still around when he got there?
I don't know how many fights you've been but it's very difficult to pay attention to anything other than the guy bashing your face in. We don't know if the guy in the opening is dead. Batman was too weak to fight Doomsday and Wonder Woman was holding Doomsday so no, neither could use the spear at the time.

In the comics Superman goes out of his way to ensure there's not a lot of collateral damage. I'm pretty sure he's dead, no human could survive going through a few reinforced walls with that kind of force, and even if he survived he'd be paralyzed or fatally injured, which still goes against Superman's character. Are you telling me that Superman couldn't hold Doomsday while Wonder Woman got close enough to poke him? Because he easily could have done that.

I guess the only answer is for Superhero movies in general to stop having their big epic fights in Cities.

And Marvel is guilty of this aswell. I mean why did Ultron need to cut a chunk of land that had a city on top of it in the first place if the point was to basically make a Meteor big enough to destroy the world? Why does he need the city on top of the Rocky Chunk if it would be blown up anyway?

In the Marvel films the heroes clearly go out of their way to save as many people as possible and try to keep the fight contained. In the DC films they can't even do that.

BVS the fight with Doomsday was an empty ruin of a city.

Man of Steel: most of the city destruction was mostly done by the world engine. Superman had to deal with the one on the other side of the world. By the time Superman arrived at Metropolis the city was already 9/11ed.

For some reason my response didn't take. Anyways, Superman couldn't save the people who died when he wasn't there, but he couldn't be assed to save the people still around when he got there?