Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Possibly, to the people of Earth in the Cinematic Universe - since as far as we know Superman is the first, or at least the first to get the level of attention that would merit such a huge reaction.

edited 22nd Aug '14 8:35:54 PM by KnownUnknown

Let's see: Clark had to fight against a Zod and his soldiers in Smallville by himself. Then Clark had to take care of the World Engine in India by himself. Then he had to fight Zod by himself. Most super heroes don't have to be in two places at once, or have a group to be able to minimize collateral damage, or have a smaller area to be focused on.

I would point out that the only time Zod deliberately targeted civilians rather than just damaging buildings, Superman broke his neck. During the rest of the fight we only see civilians watching the fight from a distance or running for their lives. The reason other heroes are shown saving civilians is because those civilians were put in a position where they could be saved, like in the Smallville fight where he rescued the soldier falling from the helicopter or attacking Faora before she could kill Hardy.

Clark saved the human species that day. I don't think that should be forgotten.

Kal-El is what Jor-El and Lara called him. It's good enough for me.

Average MOS reviewer hails from the Marvel Universe.

(Edit: No, I don't mean it in the 'rivalry between companies' sense).

edited 22nd Aug '14 8:46:19 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

But how does he identify himself?

In the DCCU, I assume he calls himself "Clark", he's grown up under that name. He may be Kryptonian by birth, but he's Clark Kent of Kansas.

I would imagine as Clark, mainly because he's been called it so long that he might not care to know better. But it's still not his name. At least, not for me. You can call him whatever you want, even Space Jesus, which some folks on the internet call him, I'm not laying down the law or anything that silly.

Everyone knows Superman is actually Bruce Wayne.

And Batman is Hal Jordan.

And Clark Kent is the Martian Manhunter.

I thought Hal Jordan was James Howlett in drag?

Hal Jordan is Booster Gold.

^^^ That's silly. Everyone knows Bruce Wayne is a cowardly trust fund playboy with no brains. What next, he's using his fortune to fund Batman? Come on, now.

edited 22nd Aug '14 9:18:07 PM by KnownUnknown

That's why he allowed all those people to die and all those buildings to crumble while acting as Superman.

Remember, we saw at least one of those buildings belonged to Lexcorp. So that's irrefutable proof he was trying to harm a honorable business rival.

edited 22nd Aug '14 9:19:24 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

Well, there is that rumor Wayne Industries is trying to get in on the reconstruction of Metropolis, too.

edited 22nd Aug '14 9:20:00 PM by KnownUnknown

Booster Gold in the DCCU.

"I am NOT GREEN LANTERN!"

You know, I kinda like to consider that the destruction of Metropolis was just Superman having first-day jitters.

Because if you guys think about it, during the time span of the movie, Clark had only been Superman for a day or so and Zod just showed up threatening the planet that Clark had been living in for pretty much his whole life.

And you gotta admit, if any of us were in Clark's position, the resurrection of the home planet of your species at the cost of the planet you've lived for most of your life is a really tough call to make IMO.

You know what I mean?

…

(hears whispers of "he's defending Man of Steel, let's get him", followed by the sound of various guns cocking.)

Oh, Crap!.

(Runs and ducks for cover from the incoming bullets.)

Seriously, though, I really hope this movie doesn't do one of the few things I outright disliked about Superman The Animated Series: having everyone who disliked or was critical of Superman be deluded, secretly (or openly) evil, a Jerkass, incompetent or some combination thereof.

In-universe critical or suspicious of Superman after the battle have a point, after all, and one of the main themes of the movie should be Superman proving that he deserves the trust of the world, not dismissing the distrust itself. Otherwise, there's less of a point to introducing that sort of thing in the first place.

edited 22nd Aug '14 10:43:14 PM by KnownUnknown

^^ At least in this thread (not representative of the internet as a whole), it's probably a 40-60 ratio of those defending the movie vs those continually attacking it, so don't worry.

^ It's hard to devise a completely sympathetic character with legitimate concerns about a hero because, well, the hero is the main character trying to do the best they can. So the complainer comes across as petty or misguided even if they have good arguments. We see things from the hero's POV by default, if it was strictly from the critics POV you might be able to get somewhere.

I see the ability to write decent characters critical of the heroes as tied to writing characters having actions with legitimately ambiguous (or negative) consequences, and the inability to do so as tied with the trappings of a Protagonist-Centered Morality. Or maybe less harshly, that it's tied to the kind of conflict the hero goes through and how much weight the aftereffects of their actions have.

For example, Justice League did a lot better with it than Superman The Animated Series, portraying Cadmus - and Waller in particular - as Well Intentioned Extremists rather than Strawmen, in a similar way as Batman Beyond portrayed Bruce Wayne as becoming emotionally stilted and jaded a lot better than The New Batman Adventures did. It's something closely involved in how those criticisms or character flaws are portrayed, and not something I would agree is inherently difficult to portray while focusing on the character who is being criticized - especially since dealing with those criticisms is an arc that ought to be filled by the character themselves, not the person criticizing them.

There is a "Good Samaritan" law stating that you can't be charged for inadvertently harming someone while administering needed first aid, even if they were harmed because you did a poor job of the first aid.

I think the equivalent should logically be applicable to any collateral damage caused when saving the world. The situation would have been worse without Superman's assistance, because the entire human race would be dead.

Yes, you can say that Zod would never have attacked Earth if Superman wasn't there, but 1) that's not necessarily true - it's a world with water and an atmosphere and all those convenient things and 2) it's irrelevant; if someone breaks into a building with the intent of killing you, that doesn't make you responsible for the damage they cause.

And "crash landing on earth as an infant" is not "illegal immigration" except by the standards of the most raging xenophobe. It's not something Superman had any control over, and they can't extradite him to a planet that has exploded. If we're going to equate interstellar migration with international migration, he unquestionably qualifies for refugee status given that his home "nation" is now nonexistent.

edited 22nd Aug '14 11:22:07 PM by WarriorEowyn

I view Protagonist-Centered Morality as more the default than a result of bad writing or whatever. The only way to avoid that is to actively write the protagonist as fundamentally flawed, not just with flaws. They are misguided, selfish to some degree, makes blindingly stupid mistakes because of their flaws, etc. From there the critic has a chance of serving a purpose in offering criticism that the hero can actually fix about themselves.

In Superman The Animated Series, Superman was well meaning, down to Earth and gentle. Criticisms of him were always in the realm of Beware the Superman, simply the possibility that he could turn tyrannical. Or Holding Out for a Hero in that people start relying on him to fix all of their problems, even though he has never said he was anything more than a friend. Neither are something Superman can really control in the moment, because those criticisms are political, not character flaws. Justice League had the benefit of showing an older and more jaded Superman, surrounded by and effectively in control of an obscenely powerful group that was growing every day. Things like the Wave-Motion Gun on the Watchtower and banishing Doomsday to the Phantom Zone without consent were far more serious concerns about Superman's judgement and behavior, and made critical characters like Amanda Waller more justified, even if their own actions toed a moral line.

Now what about Superman in Man of Steel? He was sent to a distant planet as a baby and didn't even know he was alien (not just a weird human) until he was like 12. He tried to help people whenever he could, on occasion his anger got the better of him but never retaliated physically against a person. He snuck around doing odd jobs under fake names, but never seemed to cause problems that way. He accidentally alerted the Big Bad to the planet, but humans had already found the ship and might have ended up activating it somehow in the near future anyway. It was his intuition that helped develop a plan to stop the Big Bad. It turns out he had the MacGuffin ingrained into his DNA, but that's hardly his fault. People died in the ensuing conflict, but lots more people would have died if he wasn't there.

I guess, really, the worst thing you could argue that Superman did in the movie was the Sadistic Choice of stopping Zod with the Genesis Chamber or letting him stop the Phantom Zone vortex plan. "Krypton had its chance!" has been offered by several people as a huge character/story flaw.

Just read the script for the cancelled Justice League Mortal.

If that had been made it would have been the best Superhero movie ever.

Wasn't the wave motion gun installed to the watchtower by the Justice Lords anyway? I forget when that showed up, but they added a lot of firepower to the tower (i've been rewatching the series for the past three months, at about one two-parter a week, more in the last week as a vacation week, and just got past "A Better World")

Season 2 is really the peak of the series, though Season 2 of unlimited gets perilously close.