Regarding Clark 

+Silence32 Well said. This is also an apt description of the scenario that allowed the nWo to rise to power. Everybody's gotta have their anti-heroes because any purity leads to skepticism.

+Silence32 Frank Miller did a good job of tearing down Superman, where he was essentially not a lap-dog for the US, but he acted within the best wishes of the US and its citizens, and it wasn't that Batman was afraid of Superman "turning evil", he despised the fact that he wasn't willing to challenge authority, even if it was the right thing to do. That's where Batman comes into play.  Superman is the the "boy scout" who mostly obeys and "fights the good fight". Despite what Landis says, Batman is haunted by his past not because "boo hoo, his parents got killed", he's haunted because of what the city turned it's people into to let that happen. Batman breaks the rules. He's the one who killed Darkseid, not Superman, because being a Superhero doesn't always mean being super good. You can also just TELL that Landis has read barely anything related to Batman or Green Lantern. There's a reason Superman isn't as popular of a comic anymore, and it's because people have grown up and realized that the world is a lot more complicated than the overly optimistic, simple world which is portrayed by Superman.

I don't know much about comic books but... Batman killed Darkseid? How? Isn't Darkseid some kind of Alien God? I thought you can't kill Gods without magic. ... Please tell me it wasn't some kind of bat repellent or even worse gun.

+Silence32 Even though Max bashed Batman in this video I am pretty sure he knows the character well enough (especially since he likes Grant Morrison) to know that Batman also represents something mythological, just like Superman. Darkseid is a God, a New God in fact, living embodiment of Anti-Life and pure evil that corrupts absolutely, he wants all of existence to bow down to his will and he wants Darkseid to become everything, he wants Darkseid and existence to be synonymous. He is the ultimate God of Darkness...but in the story he was "dying" because of certain reasons (Read Final Crisis and it's tie-ins, you might enjoy it if you like metaphysical aspects of fiction). Batman dis use a gun, breaking his rule for this one occasion this one time when all of existence was threatened, more importantly he knew that it would most likely fail and even if it would not fail he would most certainly die, but he still did it. He did it because Batman is what Lex Luthor wants to be, an example of a human that despite the odds stands up to the Gods, that humans despite the flaws have a chance to become something greater. Batman dies in that story, of course death of Darkseid and death of Batman mean nothing since Death is Dead in comic books, but he still made a point, that even though Darkseid is the God of Darkness who wants to dominate your mind and soul you can still fight him just like Batman, the good creature of Darkness did. Superman is still "the main hero" of Final Crisis, he defeats Mandrakk the Destroyed of multiverse and he is the one who exorcises the soul of Darkseid and shatters it, but boy would everyone be fucked if a single mortal guy in a batsuit didn't shoot The Big Bad with a Radion bullet.

Silence32 Batman used a radion bullet to essentially kill Darkseid, mortally wounding him, while Batman was also killed by Darkseid's omega beams. This happened in Final Crisis.

I keep coming back to this for the chair asmr lol

+AncientAndroidFromAnotherDimension you should check out the Drakengard/Nier series...

+Adrijana Radosevic Well... Adam Driver _is_ ex-military. So, that's something in his favour, I guess. Moreover, there are enough people who find Kylo Ren attractive, or at least find Adam Driver passable, even if we don't.

Didn't he graduate from Jiulliard? One of the biggest performing arts schools in the country? I figure that gave him a huge edge.

AncientAndroid古安卓 hehe yeah they look so alike with that kind of hair style

declaration14 it's easy to be good when life comes easy. Everyone argues that he's the best and that it must be SO hard to be a God unable to fully relax or you'll break things... That argument of his "hardships" are extremely hard to swallow compared to a hero who is or was nothing before he became a hero. Thats like saying being god is a much greater burden than being a really strong ant. Everyone would mock the god that says that because it's naive and condescending. Being superman will never be as hard on a daily basis as being the punisher to readers because one chooses not to squash his enemies like bugs amd the other nearly gets turned to ground beef weekly to survive the same fights

declaration14 long story short, it's easy not to suck as a person when you have no real reason in life to feel desperation to persevere through hardship

@@wolfwoodphreak This sounds like an excuse someone would make because they *want* to be an asshole to others.

@@jacksquatt6082 as long as we follow that said person becomes one. some heroes live with this weakness and choose to strive to be better despite their disability. Daredevil... Barbara Gordon.... Oliver Queen... they rarely get it right but they're far from monstrous

@@wolfwoodphreak " it's easy to be good when life comes easy." But is it though? Lots of people born with silver spoons in their mouths, with every resource one could imagine develop drug and alcohol problems, John Paul Getty III and Casey Johnson for examples. Many people who build massive fortunes have squandered it, like MC Hammer and Mike Tyson. Some immensely popular people have had their world turned upside down (rightly or wrongly) when public opinion shifted, like Michael Jackson. There have been very popular and beautiful Instagram models and youtubers who have committed suicide partly because of the online hate they have received. Now you might say "each of those people had challenges that Superman wouldn't face." Sure, but imagine the psychological pressure on Superman if he rescues an old man in a car wreck in Metropolis, but as that happened, a family of 6 perished in a fire in Gotham. Or he rescues a dog on monday, and on tuesday that dog mauls a little girl. Or a building collapses when fighting aliens, crushing hundreds of people even though it was 100% an accident? And what if someone murders a child in a particularly sadistic and Superman finds the killer. Would YOU have the discipline to turn the murderer over to the police? Or would you rip him apart piece by piece? I'm not sure I could do the right thing according to the law in that case, and if Superman did that I wouldn't blame him. But that isn't really the point. The point is that Superman doesn't have it particularly easy. He constantly faces supervillains and powerful aliens that are bent on killing him or destroying the Earth. He has to worry about his mortal loves: Lois and his Mother (and Father before he died), and he has the emotional weight of knowing he is essentially the last of his Species (technically not true, but Kryptonians are an endangered species). And as implied above, he has to deal with the fact that while he can save many, he cannot save everyone. Imagine hearing "why didn't you save *my* baby?" every time you went left instead of right,. "We needed superman, but he didn't come" every time there is a fire and Superman was off-planet.

Not to mention that it was six people against an entire army whereas in Man of Steel it's one on one.

Carson McDonald Also one on two. With the two having WAY more combat experience.

Alex L. Also: the Chitauri are way stupider than the Kryptonians *and* their goal was to intimidate earth into surrendering, not to literally wipe everything out. All that posturing about CONTAINING THE DAMAGE!!!!!! means fuck all if the enemy is here To literally tear everything down.

>One On One Ok Imagine the hulk with flight, laser vision, xray vision superbreath, AND superspeed fighting 4 other hulk in new york.

+Drei88 The first Thor was pretty good, but it was forgettable. Thor: the Dark World was more memorable, but was kind of a mess.

Jeffefferyful I don't know what that means. I remember almost everything I hear or see.

That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard

@@g.e.o.r.g.e... Who are you Rainman? Thor was super forgettable, nothing great. Just a standard superhero origin.

@@Crunch_Buttsteak at least I don't remember Thor for only the glaring problems with plot and inconsistent characters, like with the Zack Snyder movies... A _"standard"_ movie is still better than a glaring failure or betrayal of established characters.

"The problems with Superman Returns was too much heroism without any real action or battles." How exactly do you define real action? There was plenty of action in SR except Superman didn't punch anybody.

neosoontoretro Nah, aside from the plane rescue, and the big finale, there was very little action in the movie.

Goatmon So the car crash, Metropolis crumbling, boat sinking, that kid killing one of Luthor's thugs? None of that was action?

neosoontoretro If you put all of that together, that was maybe 10 to 15 minutes of the entire movie. If that.

neosoontoretro What do you think I meant by "big finale" ?

So are Al Qaeda, or the SS during WW2. Unwavering loyalty ain't always a good thing.

enigma19833 boooooom

enigma19833 It is when defending a good movie though.

I would say Marvel fans are way more loyal. Especially considering how bad some of their movies can be.

enigma19833 Loyalty is an admiral quality, as long as it isn't blind.

+Fuuka Ayase Exactly my friend. I believe he is being unfair to a lot of heroes in the brief few minutes of this video. Batman is anything BUT a sociopath or a selfish post traumatic sissy as he puts it. That is just a bunch of bullcrap and biased fanboy talk. He is man that saw the true savage nature of mankind up close and personal and decided to do something about it. His dark experience made him decide to sacrifice his childhood and give meaning to this thing we call existence even if there is none to be found and yet despite that grim realization he decides to give the most evil of villains a chance even when they clearly don't deserve it because he believe life is precious and even the most vile of criminals can turn his life around. (e.g such as the Joker in the Killing Joke) Because he realized he doesn't need superpowers to do what's right and what needs to be done. He is not some farmboy that has no true motive to do the right thing and is just afraid he might trip and crush one of his classmates. He basically didn't lift a finger to save people up until he left for the big city and his earthly stepfather died. Batman on the other hand spent decades honing his skills to reach to that level to even be considered a superhero (just like Wonder Woman, Spiderman) whereas Superman had all these powers simply handed to him. The thing he described as a strong point is actually a major flaw in Superman storylines. The villain doesn't match the power level of the hero. Apart from villains such as Darkseid, Zod and Doomsday, Luthor is like an evil Bruce Wayne that uses his wits to outsmart him and kill him or label him as a threat to the planet and ironically enough, is the most popular and well known of his villains. If this guy actually read a comic book he would know destruction commonly takes place in Superman comic books such as the Death of Superman. Batman Begins is a movie that did exactly what this guy wanted from Man of Steel. He saved his city and stopped the bad guy without having half of it's population killed from fear gas, even though personally i would have much rather preferred he saved Ras as well just like the animated Batman would do. But i get it, they went for that cool moment where the hero makes the villain face the consequences of his actions, so i don't complain.

Yeah I think he intentionally gave the most cynical interpretations of the heroes he talked about just to heighten his point I don't even think he believes it because obviously whoever's writing the character is going to give them good traits. He's just being provocative

Gabriele Riva all because Zack Snyder can't handle criticism

At least Lex Luthor never raped anyone 🤷‍♀️

you get it.

MVG This is why I liked the original Superman movies (Well, the Donner/Reeves ones). Remember Superman 2? Yeah, they fight in Metropolis, and shit gets blown up. But, as soon as Zod goes after the bus, Superman says the most Superman thing of all time: "Zod, the PEOPLE!". The fight ended there, and Supes knew he had to get away from the major city. I WANT to like Man of Steel, but I really can't. It's fundamentally flawed. I want to say "Superman can look back and see the destruction that happened, and he grows as a character, and gains an appreciation of how fragile human life can be." But I can't say that. Because of his father. Well, his Earth father, Jonathan. THAT life ending should have shown him how precious life is. But it didn't. Not in this movie. The most valuable lesson that could have been portrayed in the Superman character was ultimately forgotten for some Michael Bay "Let's blow shit up for 20 minutes" crap. I WANT to like Man of Steel. Everything technical about it was great. Visuals, dialogue, directing....a very pretty movie. But.....

MVG Agreed; and very well stated.

Brad McLeod yea pretty much. Superman leaves the moment he sees Zod attack people. Huge difference with MoS. Supe is like "I don't fucking care, I'm gonna beat the shit out of Zod".

+MVG What gives you the right to say what is good writing for Superman and what isn't? What unnecessary changes were made to the origin story? Over the top destruction? I bet you don't know much about comic books, you know, the source material. Similar levels of destruction happen in Superman comics all the time, especially when Superman fights powerful villains. Kal-El's origin story and development in MoS was actually very similar to the Earth One comic. You can't say the writing was bad when it is based on source material. Just because this Superman wasn't exactly like your own imaginary ideal of what he is supposed to be, doesn't mean it's wrong. How was he supposed to "minimize damage", when he was fighting beings who were equally as powerful as himself and higher skilled, for the first time in his life? The destruccion will be addressed in the sequel. You're a bit short sighted in criticizing them for not addressing the damage at the end of the film, when it was obvious a sequel would be made.

+schradeya Apparently he's good at explaining himself, but really condescending personally and a bit sexually harrassy, or at the very least comes off as such.

+Hugh Jass Wait, the west coast is the enemy to the midwest? I gotta go punch my mom...

+Hugh Jass Hahaha, I'll give you that. He really does! I imagine after spending 20 seconds with him, you just already _know_ he's from California. That's funny! :)

+MrNozza123 Hmm. Interesting. Well, obviously I don't know him personally and have never even met him, so I wouldn't even pretend to know, but _from what I've seen of him myself_ - which is literally only a couple interviews, The Death and Return of Superman (which is one of my _very favorite videos of all time_! I highly recommend it!!), and the two shows he did with Red Letter Media - I don't think I've personally noticed him being either of those things. Those were all interviews and the like, though, with limited and specific subject matter, and now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen him interact with a woman! I'm not trying to dispute your claim (and wouldn't), though, because I've seen like a total of _maybe_ 40 minutes of him talking on RU-vid, which is worth precisely nothing for getting to know a person, so if that stuff is true, then I can definitely understand that! I cannot _STAND_ condescending people, and yeah obviously sexual harassment is shitty. Thanks for the reply!

Actually, since I posted that I learnt something interesting in one of his videos. Apparently he had some girl start saying how he felt her up at some con... to his face! At which point he said to the entire party 'Well I'm Max Landis and I wasn't at that con' and walked out. So yeah, I doubt the sexual harassment one now too. The condescending one probably comes from him being a loud debater who can talk down to people and talk for ages on his own. There's a Movie Fight on screen junkies out there where you can see it, but I don't think he means to do it. I think it just happens. Frankly the more I see of him, the more I think he's a nice guy with opinions who just irritates people and this is the internet, so...

bing.

handsomebrick well from the new batman v superman trailer it looks like that will happen. personally I thought that man of steel's biggest problems was the two different styles of directors. on one hand you have zack Snyder who is known for generally making fun very beautifully shot movies. on the other hand you had Nolan who is known for his dark and subtext style of "this means something" movies. so when you have these to styles together it creates a very polarizing movie. but now that Nolan is gone I think the movie will have a much more focused tone. whether or not that tone or the movie is good, we will have to see.

handsomebrick At the very least, Superman shouldn't have a big hand in causing the destruction.

handsomebrick The problem is though the destruction made sense. What had Superman been doing before Zod showed up? Had he been some big super hero? Did he have a lot of experience fighting super villains or saving the world? No, he was like the "Littlest Hobo" but in human form. Going from town to town looking for work, and if he came across some sort of accident where his powers could help..he would help. He'd never fought a soldier like Zod, someone who is his equal in power, who was bred for battle. To suddenly expect Superman to know how to disarm the situation 100% peacefully with as little damage as possible..is silly. For people to whine over "Superman doesn't kill" is silly. Why doesn't Superman kill? "Because he is Superman" will be the response. Here they gave us an actual reason: because he has had to take a life before, and he never wants to be in a position to do that again. People say Supes could of tried to take the fight out of the city, but Zod didn't want to just fight Superman, he wanted to destroy the people he loved, so he would of just come right back. You know what happens when two god like beings throw down? People die, loads of people. We think Superman know better merely because..well, he is "Superman" without taking into consideration the growth or lack of growth of the character. Superman isn't perfect, he isn't going to suddenly know how to be the perfect superhero by putting on a costume, it takes time, effort, and practice. He didn't really have much experience fighting against Zod. It's actually a miracle he won the fight at all given Zod was bred for combat..and even though he really didn't want to kill one of the last remaining members of his race..he did, to save the world. But people will be upset over the body count, and otherwise upset because this version of Superman wasn't just born perfect. But of course a common complaint about Superman is that he is too powerful and too perfect and people can't relate to him. Thing is? Superman, in comics, has broken his "no kill" code in the best when it TRULY called for it. This wasn't actually a new thing. In the comics, alternate versions of Zod and two other Kryptonian criminals had essentially killed all life on their planet Earth(once again, an alternate Earth). Superman kills them with kryptonite..AFTER he removed their super powers permanently. He kills them. So heck at least in the movie Zod still had his powers and was actively a threat, but in the comics he'd been depowered permanently with golden kryptonite. Superman still killed him, this was in the early-mid 90s and I do not remember a big uproar. Plus everything is not so black and white and a "no killing code" is not automatically the brightest idea. Countless villains have gone on to murder many innocents because Superman failed to stop them once and for all. Superman himself has even nearly allowed himself to be killed by demonic beings because he would of had to kill them to stop them. Now keep in mind how much the world would suffer if Superman were to die, and here his "no killing" code almost literally results in him getting beat to death, and this is portrayed as some kind of noble thing as opposed to just REALLY stupid.

ChestRockwell24 It's mostly a story problem. If Superman is fighting a guy and he can't prevent a city from getting leveled, he loses. Which is fine, but it's weird as an ending, it would be like a Die Hard movie where the badguys simply win at the end, or an intentionally hollow ending like The Big Lebowski. Also, I don't think that Superman has a no kill code, and Max says right in this video that it's okay for Superman to kill, so we're all okay there.

This. So very this. You get the character super hard, thumbs up.

But thats the point, he deciding to kill is against everything he believes and had contact with. Superman's goodness is based by his influence of his parents, he always persuades his enemies instead of beating them because he is powerfull enough to do so. If you chose the situation he kills in the movie you can argue that decision, but as Max said the bigger discussion is why you would chose that direction for a character like Superman.

+MVG I think a lot of people are confused because Max never really says those things in the video. He almost explains it in the description, but fewer than some 20% of people actually read that thing. You worded his point better than he did.

+MVG I agree about overall point and there's a definite popular fascination regarding mass destruction and its depiction on film. Maybe it's because as a spectacle (as terrible as that sounds) it's now possible to do on such a large scale via cgi. Or it's images that exploit horrific real life images that came from tragedies like 9/11. Maybe it's exploitative, maybe it's cathartic. However maybe I miss your point but it seems to have no room for interpretation by the writers. Can't the character evolve to remain relevant? Can't the writer/director project their representation of Superman as seen through their own eyes/lens? isn't that a fundamental thing about art? The characterisation of Clark/Superman seems a strong point of this origin story. The clean cut all-American, just wouldn't sit right I don't think with modern audiences. I'm not saying they had to go the route they did, but that route is none the less valid. A lack of heroism is curious because does that pivot on somebodies perception of what heroism is or is that an absolute? Historically its changed through time. In MoS he fights somebody that is stronger than he is, somebody bred to fight and kill, in almost any other film that would make him a hero archetype, right?

Seriously? You want a "do-it-all-save-em-all-guy" on a screen? Might as well incorporate time travel.

@Nick Dzink No he just has to try to save as many as he can, he has to try his best not to pummel down the buildings, instead of beating Zod into them.

*_THIS IS WHY MARVEL STUDIOS MAKES BETTER MOVIES_*

L

+jon Q Batman Vs Superman. Gives Batman a reason to hate Superman. It's dumb I know to change an iconic and legendary Superhero like Superman and making him into a darker tone.

+jon Q You go to Superman realizing that it was a mistake to take on Zod in that way. You go Superman realizing he was so fixated on Zod that he let other people die. Then you go to Superman using all of that as fuel to be a better hero to the people. That's what they call "character development".

So it takes demolishing an entire city for Clark to learn that? He couldn't have figured that out, oh i don't know, after the second building coming down? Or the world engine? Batman could have still hated him if only two buildings came down... all of america hated a certain individual for the same thing. Plus I am not sure he learned that lesson, looks like Wonder Woman blew up a good chunk in the trailers an then there is going to be doomsday so be prepared for more disaster porn.

+jon Q I've been wondering how intentional this entire thing has been, now that I see where the Marvel and DC movies/TV shows are heading. Take Batman v Superman. Is Zack Snyder's new movie simply keying into the audiences reaction and repulsion to the overblown destruction of Man of Steel, or did he intentionally go over the top -- knowing how the average fan would react -- specifically so that he could create the kind of storyline we're going to see in the next movie? Essentially I'm contemplating a pseudo-conspiracy theory which puts forth the idea that Man of Steel was received exactly the way that Snyder intended. He included and emphasized a catastrophic level of destruction in order to manipulate his audience into the kind of mindset that we'll see from Bruce Wayne in Dawn of Justice. Have we all just been puppets? Or...is the movie industry just obsessed with destroying entire CGI cities because they can?

ZeroSum23 It's tempting to thing that it was carefully orchestrated in order to elicit the reaction it did, but I think that is grossly over thinking it and giving way too much credit to the writers and Snyder. I mean, Batman v Superman looks worse and worse the more I see of it... this leads me to believe that there is no long term plan, just made up on the fly as they go. And hollywood certainly has a long, long, long track record of destroying cities for the disaster porn enthusiasts.

+MegaFunnymonkey123 Could not agree more.

He was a narcissistic bully in The Amazing Spiderman franchise, though. But I agree in general

Mind games are now narcassism. Riiiigggghhhtt.

Geek Ink In TASM he bullies a random thief who he had, from a strategic point of view, no reason to play mind games with. He just mocked him even after catching him. By the way neither does he have emotionally reasons to, since that is not a credible emotional response to catching someone you think killed your loved uncle.

+Adrijana Radosevic but you just used a made up example. In reality spider man has more compassion for his villains. Look at his treatment of the lizard, venom, sandman etc.

Because it is impossible to know that letting thousands of people die and killing a person yourself is wrong unless you've done it? It was piss poor writing at the end of the day, which is a shame because I really wanted to like this movie. Problem was Superman doesn't show up in this movie.

bobbypaycheque I dont't agree that it was piss writing (but not great) :P But I agree that Superman didn't really show up, however I think that was intentional and he will show up in the sequel.

***** Then why did they call it Man of Steel if he wasn't going to show up? I get what you are saying but I paid to see a Superman movie now, not to see a Superman movie where he doesn't show up till the next one. Studios should lead trilogies with a good film. Good writing wouldn't put Superman in a position where he is wrong and the bad guy is right. That is what they did in this movie, and I think that makes it piss poor writing. Superman didn't save anybody, Zod was right and at the end of the movie Supes doesn't even seem to care.

bobbypaycheque Of course he knows it was wrong. But most of the destruction was the sole cause of Zod. Would it have been better if he allowed the entire human population to die? At least then, we would know that it was only Zod that did everything, right?

somebody didn't read the description before commenting.

Almost all of the Batman books I've got in my collection are practically post DKR. Early (good) Miller stuff, pair of things from LotDK, Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum by Morrison, The Cult (actually didn't like that one at all), the Loeb and Sale stuff (not really a fan, but it's decent stuff) and then some more modern stuff, like Morrison's epic run and the new 52. This is the Batman I've been exposed to, the one I practically grew up with. But I've also got a copy of the "demon trilogy" (Son of the Demon, Bride of the Demon and Birth of the Demon) and man, do I love that book. Pure 70's genius in those pages, Batman does way more detective work, is more analytical.. overall felt more like the "world's greatest detective" and less like the "world's greatest brawler" that he became from the late 80's to the early 2000's.. yeah. Completely different stuff, it actually felt refreshing to read those stories. Too bad that wasn't what people wanted, apparently. When they told Miller to write a Batman story, very few people were buying the comics, DC was considering cancelling the title I think..

@@Alaska1925 do you remember any others from that time period and where those might be categorized under?

@@worldweaver2691 you can't go wrong with the Neal Adams stuff. Also, I managed to get a hardcover version of all the Steve Anglehart stories (this collection is often called Strange Apparitions) which should be some of the best from that era.

Max is actually writing a Superman miniseries or two now.

+Greg Bey Superman made out with Lois Lane in the midst of all of the death and destruction he caused. How many humans do you know that would have made out at Ground Zero in New York after the planes took the twin towers down. Nothing in the movie gave the impression that he cared even the slightest amount about any of the death and destruction he caused.

A Olson true but how many times does that happen in movies? Batman kissed Catwoman when there was a nuke about to blow up Gotham. At least Superman kissed after he thought the threat was over.If anything that is a movie cliche that's a problem. Not a fault of the movie....well maybe a fault in choosing to use said cliche.Would everyone give the movie a pass if he flew over all the destruction and cried a little? I doubt it though one thing that I feel would have made a bit of since, wouldn't even need a scene for it was if there was an article in the Daily Planet talking about Superman helping with the reconstruction.

+swoopmott Superman killed Zod 3 times in the comics over the years..and killed in his early run.....Killing Zod in this film wasn't pointless, it builds his moral code...don't know why people like you can't get that....and the aftermath is it's own movie ~

wonder fag It's not that killed him, it's that he violently broke his neck, Mortal Kombat style to save 4 people...AFTER having a completely pointless punching contest for 20 minutes (seeing as their punches do NOTHING to each other) that destroyed countless buildings and millions of lives..None of this is Superman. It's closer to Godzilla actually.

Indubitably Dude, he's been "Superman" for less than 48 hours. Give him a break. I would like to see you do better. There's a reason this movie is called "Man of Steel". Also it's not pointless. Zod wants to kill Superman so that he can wipe out humanity himself. Superman is trying to prevent that and protect the people he loves.

superherofan24 Really? Your resorting to the "like to see you do better" bullshit? So if you can't cook, you should enjoy every meal no matter how bad it is? Two INVINCIBLE gods having a punching contest is pointless. But even IF you want this movie to be your Superman movie, at the very least, show Superman caring about the people around him, show him try to get Zod out of the city and fail, and THEN have the ending they had. It would've been earned. They didn't earn it. Look at your profile pic. Captain America is now this generation's Superman. A hero that truly inspires because he always tries to do the right thing. We don't even know if this Superman kills or not because the movie doesn't even develop it or his relationship with Lois. Let's just make out in the middle of a destroyed city...because were in love remember???

+Indubitably That very same "punching" happens in animation and comics...super powered beings fighting each other for long periods because NOTHING happens from it...pick up a comic. And it wasn't just 4 people, he saved the whole planet from Zods wrath by killing him ...A the way he killed he was emotionally driven and in the moment ..he did worse in the comics ~ try harder !

+GhostStylus Your point being? This country boy was smelling daisies an' shit in his "parents" farm till the age of 20 something before he actually decided to lift a finger and save people. By the way, he also called Bats a cold sociopath. Not to mention he also attacked Spider-man, even frickin' Wonder Woman ffs!!! Yeah, the fanboyism is strong in this one.

Elspethknighterrant I clearly suggested that calling Batman a "post-traumatic sissy" is an underwhelming statement. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Kevin Newman Here's the thing, any villains could show up and do something to devastate a city while Superman fights him. It's not something a Superman fan like me wants to see, though. Superman is like ET with a cape. It should be a movie about hope and making people happy. It should be joyful with some dramatic stuff in it. That's why the movie to me was more like Super-Alien vs other Alien than Superman. There was nothing in the way they had Henry Cavill play the character that was anything "Superman".

All it takes is a dude's musings on RU-vid to completely change around your world view?

Not my world view, a world view consists of so much more than one's appreciation of comic book characters. However, I have acquired a new way of thinking about Superman, and Man of Steel that quite frankly I hadn't thought about myself.

codafett If Jesus had come today rather than 2000 years ago and he did his preachings on youtube, one day people would be looking back on 'that youtube guy who changed the world'. The place isn't important. It's the content.

MakiPcr I'd like to see those Avengers try and SAVE ALL THE PEOPLE when something like the World Engine has a purpose of wiping out *everything* and kills hundreds of people from the word GO.

+yootoobnewbie You've *completely* missed his point.

Devon Barr The point is he's salty.

Sounds a lot more like you are to be completely honest. Especially since your comment is literally the thing he says in the description isn't what he's talking about. But I'm beginning to care less and less about this either way.

He put that in retroactively, to shift the goalposts. He's a salty film writer, we already have the record on that. This situations are perfect for a superman film, because these are exactly what needs to be at stake for 'superman' stories and in this specific type of story, these situations fit and work.

I don't know, I'm genuinely starting to think you're mistaking his intelligence for salt, (His intelligence, another thing we have on record.) putting it in retroactively doesn't change the fact that it's literally still exactly what he said in the video just explained in a more detailed manner. It's not as if his position shifted somehow, it's the same argument. All I'm seeming to realize is someone doesn't want to actually talk about his argument, and what he's trying to say, and wants to dismiss it by shifting the argument to something it's blatantly already been said it wasn't about to desperately defend (As I've seen many times before.) a superman film that misses all of the basic tenants of the character (And that's before the last action sequence in metropolis everyone has so many problems with including myself.) such as making superman an asshole early on in the film and having a ridiculous scene involving a tornado early on that has so many problems and inconsistencies it's not even worth going into them when they've been discussed so thoroughly in the past, and that's just the tip of the iceberg with the film. And that's coming from someone who doesn't hate it like others, but can still admit it's a flawed as fuck film that stars not superman, but some dude in a cape who doesn't act like him at all. The problems with that film reach far beyond that last act despite how poorly constructed from a storytelling perspective it is, but rather start early on, in that you never actually see a shred of Superman in this character, maybe in a couple of moments, but it's usually ruined by something else un-"Super" like he'll do a few minutes later. But now this is going to turn into an argument if I keep going, and I've had it so many times I don't care enough to have it again. So I'm just gonna skip to the end, we'll likely have to respectfully agree to disagree, and off I go, never to bother you or vice versa again. So have a nice day and, no, I didn't mean that with any snark, It *Was* Genuinely sincere.

Joseph Lambert It would be a lot easier to do if his equal wasn't beating on him all the time. We don't know if he didn't help rebuild, but in BvS, it was apparent he was still spending significant amounts of time doing good deeds - that's why he was getting such a following.

lol yeah Superman could have do several other things to stop that guy without violence, like using his heat vision but no, he didn't learn anything from Man of Steel he is still the same.

You missed the point. It's not that Superman killed Zod, but about the gratuitous nature of the film's justification for having Superman kill Zod. As ML said, Superman should have stopped Zod long before Metropolis was destroyed, and thousands of lives threatened.

Okay, gotcha. I thought it was about the killing Zod part. That makes sense.

Joseph Richardson My only reason why I am against Zod being killed is that it prevents a re-match. I like Zod as a villain character for what he represents, being the iconic foe for Superman. Also, Zod's death limits the number of villains that can be a threat to Superman. But, that's just a personal preference for me.

DSWynne It's been a while since I saw the movie, but I think it's because he wanted to resolve it peacefully, without going to war. If he took lethal action first, that would be not be very heroic.

so be a noob is the excuse to leave a murderous asshole destroys two cities?

Darcy Dettmann Junior Um no, Supes actually didn't *"leave"* Zod to do anything - he actively took actions to *stop* Zod and, despite the cost of those two cities, *succeeded* in stopping Zod from killing off Humans as a species. Once again, there was simply a lot of collateral - and, as I've said, much of that chalks up to Superman's lack of experience.

Lonewolf3002 he literally throw Zod in Smallville, and he can end the fight in Metropolis before in even begins. But no, he don't do that. For reasons.

Darcy Dettmann Junior ...aaaand what's to stop Zod from trashing Smallville instead? Or just flying back to Metropolis? Exactly

Lonewolf3002 but you know what? fuck you, i am done. Blocked.

How did Zod demolishes an entire city?

Sorry buddy, Goku got drop on his head, that's why he is a hero.

hallabam I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how FUNimation portrayed him as an overly heroic character with stuff like the "I am the light" speech.

***** Oh, my bad.

+SaiyanZ3 "I am the light" That's an example of what I like to call "Heavy-Handed Heroic Sanctimony". That's basically a writer needlessly beating the audience over the head with evidence indicating that a certain character is the good guy or hero. They tend to do the same thing with villains by making the villain take the time to do something randomly evil to some insignificant character they could easily ignore or just kill quickly. Nope, they stop major villainous activity to torment an insignificant character (or make some long-winded speech about a character(s) can't stop them), thus beating the audience over the head that this character is the villain. An example of that (from Dragonball Z in the Trunks prologue after the Cell Saga) would be Android 17 (and 18) attacking a city and groups of people and 17 stopping to torment an old man with a pistol rather than just immediately blast him with energy from a distance. We get it; these versions of the androids are evil.

MVG I don't have a problem with the Android 17 part, I have a problem with the "I am the light" speech because it isn't Goku's character to say that about himself AND Akira Toriyama wrote Goku's character so that he wouldn't fight on the behalf of others, which ends up being true for the most part

Most people know its shit.

He constantly stops street thugs and there is foes like Shocker, Boomerang and Mysterio. If Spider-Man wanted to he could break their skulls in easy.

Originally Nolan didn't like the idea. Snyder won over Goyer and Nolan eventually. That is a good point. What is stopping movie Superman now?

It might have been too unfair of me to point the fault at Nolan. Snyder has always been a very visual director, but he's also clumsy. He sometimes bumbles between visual and gratuitousness, which kind of makes me fear how Lois and Clark romance is handled in the future movies, if his previous works are any indication... As for Superman killing, lets not kid ouselves; "Becuse the writer said so" got him in and "Becuse the writer said so" will probably get him out. Unless they elect to make him more of a killer, which might be interesting, but more solid writing/character would definitely have to back that up.

+Carpediem06 TFA is a good movie, don't get me wrong. But at it's bare bones it wasn't designed to develop characters. At most, the only characters that were really dynamic were Han Solo and Kylo Ren. Everybody else was static. It's not a bad thing, I'm sure once we get to episode 8 we'll see what happens when they are put through the ringer. But it's like Max said in this very film. He prefers character driven stories than plot driven stories.

HolyknightVader999 Um, nope. First of all, Superman can't just run off for many reasons: 1) Most of the time, his enemies aren't even there particularly to fight him at all - they're only there for their own motivations, and he's just in the way for what they're trying to do. If Superman runs, then they just do what they came to do, and no-one stops them. 2) The ones that actually *are* there to fight him know that he holds back in populated areas. They're not going anywhere if they know that Supes can't go full throttle in the middle of Metropolis and, if he tries to run, then they just threaten civilians. In regards to Man of Steel, in particular, that's not fair to say for the simple reason that it's actually a Superman *Origins* story - Superman hasn't fully-mastered all of his powers, hasn't learned how to hold back while fighting and hasn't even heard of his alien race before the movie, let alone meet another of his kind. In terms of DBZ, that's only happened a couple of times and its totally disregarded at other points - besides, it's balanced by the negligence that some characters show in the Manga. For example, Goku having two 8-year-old children, one of them being his own son, fight a Planetary threat and letting it blow up the Earth. It's ironic that a show like DBZ would need to take protective measures against collateral the *least* with plot devices like the Dragon Balls, but whatever.

Lonewolf3002 Then couldn't he work to have an evac system for the city? Or try to stop the enemy before they get into the city with some kind of warning or observation system? He did have his robots after all-can't they form sentries or sentinels to hold back the enemy before they get to Metropolis, so that the people have time to run? By the later parts of the comics, we have a veritable army of superheroes that can delay the monsters and villains while other heroes and the military can evacuate the civilians. By that point, Metropolis would've probably had shield generators and robot armies ready to fight the villains as well as rocket trains to evacuate the people when the villains come by, based on how many times they get attacked. That only happened with Buu, and Buu killed everyone on Earth that can resist him by that time. Hell, Super Buu could've flattened them all, and they hung on the fact that he wants a strong opponent to make him wait until Gotenks was ready.

HolyknightVader999 Again, it's a Superman *Origins* story - if he's just barely figuring out that he's Kryptonian, let alone that there are others that survived and are trying to take over Earth, what makes you think that he'd have the forethought or resources to get a System like that online? Again, he'd *barely* just found the Fortress - I doubt that even if he did find more robots besides the one that attacked Lois, he'd still have to also figure out how they function and how to reprogram them, to listen to his commands as sentries. Keep in mind that this is Kryptonian technology, which is also *millions* of years beyond anything on Earth. So? It still happened. In terms of resisting Buu, I suppose that I'll have to ignore the fact that Goku and Vegeta did just that later on. Even ignoring that, Goku should've *known* that Gotenks would d!ck around while he's confronting Buu - he's known both the Kids for years, and he also knows how Fusion works in regards to their personalities.

Lonewolf3002 In Man of Steel, the only thing Zod wants was Superman. He wanted revenge on Superman and wanted to kill him. It was only near the end when Zod targeted humans with his heat vision. Prior to that, all the mess Zod and his crew caused aside from the whole planet-remodeling thing was them looking for Superman. Again, not the same thing. None of the major heroes that can stand against Buu were dead. And no, he barely even knew the damn kids. Goku was in afterlife for years, not even seeing how his second son grew up. Not the same thing as when Superman was the only thing Zod wanted to rip apart, and Supes still fought in the City instead of luring Zod away from it.

Lonewolf3002 Except for the fact that Goku was dead at the time, and by his return, everyone on Earth is dead. He couldn't do it like he and the other Z fighters used to-luring the enemy out of the city bounds. Buu even killed everyone on Earth while on the Lookout. So yes, Goku has that excuse, while Zod, after Superman thrashed his ship, looked for nothing else but vengeance and wanted Superman dead. Only Superman. Not everyone else. It wasn't until later on he used his laser eyes to target the humans. Kal-El was the one thing Zod wanted dead for destroying his chances of creating the new Krypton. By the way, that makes Superman REALLY short-sighted for destroying a ship that has the only chance of recreating Krypton within it. He could've just beaten Zod up and then told him to move to Mars, which is completely uninhibited and fresh for a session of terraforming. Mars is just like Earth in terms of a rock in space with decent size, and Superman could tell Zod that he could've just terraformed Mars into the New Krypton. Goku can only stand up to Buu as an SSJ3, and Vegeta's standing up to Buu is only limited until Buu takes off the kid gloves and starts to pummel him to the ground. He couldn't even win against fat Buu, who was less evil and savage than Kid Buu, and he was forced to blow himself up to try and stop him. The two of them couldn't stand a chance against Kid Buu's full powers unless Goku has some time to power up to SSJ3. All the enemies Goku faced at the time were nothing like Buu. Only one was close to it, and that was Cell. Everyone else would've died or fallen over had Goku given them a good punch in the gut. So no, Goku has an excuse, Superman doesn't.

Seriously. Why is everyone expecting Superman to be omnipotent?

I've been arguing that for 7 years and people never learn

@@zhengyingli YO YOU REALLY ARE OBSESSED WITH DEFENDING THIS MOVIE LMFAO

@@codafett YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT. It isn't about the fictional choices that the fictional character took, it's about how inappropriate the scale of death and destruction in that film were for a Superman film. Superman has godlike powers and Saint-like you expect him to struggle and fight the battles human can't and in the end save us. Pretend it wasn't Zod in the film, imagine it was a meteor coming for Earth, Superman manages to blow it up but it still divides and crashes into Earth killing decimating 2 cities and killing 4 million people. That's not a Superman ending, that's a bittersweet Roland Emmerich ending. And that's a condemnation of how superhero films treat destruction as this one-off thing. 9/11 killed 3000 people and destroyed a small portion of New York City. It changed the United States and the world forever from that day forward, from cultural depictions to foreign policy. The impact of something like the destruction wrought in a Man of Steel is of another numerical magnitude entirely, The impact that it would have on the US and Earth is imaginable. You can't just move on from that.

I am now going to go into a deeeeeeep YT hole and watch ALL of Landis' videos.

+William Surrette Oh they did, at several points. Remember Steve talking to those cops to set up a perimeter so people wouldn't get caught in the crossfire? Or Hawkeye helping get people out of that bus? Or Cap saving everyone being held hostage in that bank?

Mandarin.

I don't think he met it like that, I think he met like it could've been done better you know.I mean of course its not supes fault the city was destroyed but, I bet he would've never allowed it to go that far. Also I would never believe superman would allow such a huge battle with Zodd to take place at the center of metropolis. I mean maybe they could've been like super destroys the world engine thing-a-ma-jigs and Zodd enraged by supes actions rushs after him and superman leads him away from the city. I just think thats what he met.

I know Landis is trying to talk more so about what superhero movies have kinda come to, but RIGHT YOU ARE, EBELE! I love hearing this because it simply hasn't been said enough. There was not nearly as much blood on Supes's hands as people kept saying. So many people failed to realize it that I almost wish MoS put in a post-battle scene that served as a kind of who-did-what-to-Metropolis analysis (even though I thought it was pretty damn obvious).

***** I see what ur talking about and i agree completely but, even then superman is a goody two shoes, In all actuality he would be more concerned with the people rather then Zod.I think supes would be thinking of away to lead zod out instead of going into an all-out brawl against him at the center of metropolis.Also as EBELE said he was a noob and this was his baby steps into the supes we all know today so that may play a factor as well.Zod is everything u said and more I just feel it could've been done better but all in all decent movie although I wish they could've focused bit more on clark u know? make me care about the man in the suit and maybe a few tweeks here and there.

DopexMojo I find it still hilarious that people are still trying to justify MoS' "plot conveniences, especially in light of the fact that C. Nolan was out-voted by Z. Synder and D. Goyer, who couldn't write a decent script if he was paid to do so (oh, yeah, he WAS). Check out "Blade: Trinity" as a reason why Goyer sucks as a script writer. Also, if you want the definitive MoS, check out John Byrne's "Man of Steel". Basically, it's Superman's first year, and he doesn't act like the "noob" THIS Superman is.

Wow......you hit the nail on that one.

HolyknightVader999 :D Thanks.

mrcloudlion It's such a common trope in DBZ, yet Superman rarely, if ever, does such a thing, even when the bad guy's main target is Superman himself.

mrcloudlion superman does work for something and thats a peaceful city and he only holds back because he doesn't wanna destroy the city

Cocobarbarian Then why doesn't he knock them out of the city or lure them out?

And in all fairness, if two super powered Kryptonians were to be engaged in a fight, then i expect no less than half a city being destroyed, we are talking powerful aliens from another planet going toe to toe with powers beyond our belief or comprehension so of course buildings will fall and cars will be crushed, but ultimately he will still be there, hundreds may die, but millions more saved, i didn't go into MoS film to see zod and supes have a cup of tea and rant on youtube or do some ballerina ball room waltz, they came to fight, and fight they did.

Gavin Wilkins So you actually went to another comment to comment on it and say "I understood what you were saying," and then still didn't address any of what I said and talked about "Kryptonians" like they were real and the events of the film actually happened. If you're not talking about story structure/script, and instead are talking about the parameters of the events in the movie, you're not disagreeing with anything I'm saying or even having the same conversation. I'm getting pretty tired of explaining this to people. Down there Silverstroke explains this really well.

I talked about them as if they were real? Isn't that the point that we address something as it were to happen in real life, something as fictional as superman or superheroes in general is the best way to escape reality at times, story comes with the territory especially about superman , but I have spoke about his story and the changes made, I just think u like to avoid things very well behind a veil of disregard.

Lol that would have been bad lol

Playing the man of steel is not like the anyone can be batman idea, and nick cage isn't superman now is he? That's my point, they realize the mistakes and cast someone better, Cain was different cos he fit the type , the curl on his hair, the physique, if you look in to the past you would see they picked any physique, like superman one for instance, nower days super heroes need muscles, they need goof looks and sex appeal, they need to look the part as they are depicted in comics.

Corey the Editor Except Zod's goal was to protect the terraforming machines. If Superman wastes time flying out into space and waiting for him, so much the better.

Dragon Ball Z never had destroyed building, aside from movies, because the author was too lazy to draw them.

also, because superman will always make the right choice, he isn't even really a character. he's a deus ex machina that you have to write around. this analysis actually really confuses me

He is just a good natured guy, who tries to do the right thing, lots of people are like that, and they are still individuals human beings who can make mistakes or be wrong. Superman is the same, he is that guy who tries his best to do the right thing, just because he has empathy. Most people don't have hyper tragic back stories, but just normal, kind of up and down average childhoods, and still end up as fully developed individuals who have "scripts" and "dialogues"(aka a life, with probably a couple if hours of interesting content to share over a beer). a character doesn't have to be psychologically deformed or emotionally broken to be intellectually interesting (just like the people IRL don't have to), you can do a character study of guy like Batman or a guy like Clark and end up with 2 equally good pieces of content.Infact comics have done it multiple times for both. Bdw go read America Alien if u haven't.

Kazador I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out that The batman V. Superman trailer literally contradicts what Max is saying about Superman.