I never got the implication that he was the way he was because of genetics but because of his life experiences. He's had to kill before because he probably hasn't led a shielded life and he hangs out with people who kill quite happily as well (but he doesn't arbitrarily kill innocents), he doesn't believe in the American dream as much and is fed up with being used and abused by society so concludes that it may be better to just lead them to get past all the petty stuff. Palmer comes up with the same conclusion and he isn't Zod's son.
So why even make him Zod's son? The film starts with this, so it's likely to be relevant (beyond "So he can have a snazzy threatening goatee"). It's definitely given more weight in the film than his immigrant foster parents.
As I said, it's not egregious in that respect, and I don't want to overstate the point (although I may already have done so), but the implication is definitely there: he's Zod's son in more than just a literal way. (Barring surprise plot developments in the second half.)
The point of these characters was to have new iterations that bear a resemblance and similiarity to the trinity while being distinctly different from their namesakes.
Also you are judging what is at it's core a mystery film based on only half it's content.
Also you are judging what is at it's core a mystery film based on only half it's content.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that based on what I've seen, I dislike a trope the film seems to use, but that otherwise I like Gods and Monsters so far and I'm fully aware the rest of the film may change my perception of this. That's all I'm saying.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
I don't know, he admits pretty early on that maybe it's not such a bad idea to break out the boot and bring the world to heel. I don't think he'd get that attitude from migrant farmers who likely know full well what it's like to be downtrodden and marginalized.
Disagree. If you know what the boot feels like then the lesson learned is be the one wearing the boot.
It's when you never feel or see the boot that you start to question why we would ever want the boot.
Solid choice. As long as he shaves his head for the role because I don't see movie Steve Trevor as pretty boy soldier with highlights.
Uh, you're not really familiar with Steve Trevor, then.
pretty much. he wasn't a big character in the post-Crisis stuff, and then he appeared in Heinberg's WW run again I think but I didn't care because the book was delayed forever and I lost interest and then DC went out of business in 2011.
I'm just going with the shaved head thing because he's already pretty boy highlights in Star Trek and Jack Ryan and whatever.
I think that him being Zod's son is given a sort of thematic destiny element but I think that is as much about audience perception as anything. We know he's Zod's son, and thus we fear him acting like Zod. Furthermore, legacy has always been an important element of Superman. Whether he will embrace that legacy or reject is basically flipped from the usual.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Disagree. If you know what the boot feels like then the lesson learned is be the one wearing the boot.
Right. That's why every person oppressed and discriminated against becomes a fascist.
We're going off topic here and "every" is a super dangerous word but history is littered with populist uprisings that end up in super authoritarian regimes.
My point is that I found it perfectly reasonable that somebody from that background could long for an authoritarian change in which their priorities are the one with the force behind them. Clearly it'd only be justice for all those past wrongs.
I could see it going the other way as well but that's much less common and would take a pretty heroic person to get there.
Which is of course exactly where SuperZod ends up.
Also you are judging what is at it's core a mystery film based on only half it's content.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that based on what I've seen, I dislike a trope the film seems to use, but that otherwise I like Gods and Monsters so far and I'm fully aware the rest of the film may change my perception of this. That's all I'm saying.
By not finishing the film you aren't seeing what the arc of that character is and making a judgement on one aspect of them.
So yes: you are making a judgement without all the available context.
Gods and Monsters was great. Dark and violent, yet colorful with a bit of optimism. Rather than "hey, this is what the kids today like, right?" it felt like a well-done, fleshed out universe I'm eager to discover more of.
And was it just me, or was the final twist a damn good fakeout?
Oh, Magnus has a robot named Tin, that's a neat shout out to the Metal Men... holy shit, those murder aliens are the rest of the Metal men?!
Wonder how many different notes Bruce wrote for Alfred in that scenario.
"Okay Alfred, give him this one if he flays the skin from my bones then launches my screaming skeleton into the sun, this one if he just flattens me like a pancake, this one should work pretty well if he just drags me into the sky and lets me fall screaming to my death, here's one for if he lobotomizes me with his laser eyes... "
DevoutlyApathetic:
As I've mentioned, I've only watched about half so far. Do Superman's (foster) parents figure more prominently further into the movie?
His parents specifically don't but has upbringing comes up and is a major reason he is who he is.
I never got the implication that he was the way he was because of genetics but because of his life experiences. He's had to kill before because he probably hasn't led a shielded life and he hangs out with people who kill quite happily as well (but he doesn't arbitrarily kill innocents), he doesn't believe in the American dream as much and is fed up with being used and abused by society so concludes that it may be better to just lead them to get past all the petty stuff. Palmer comes up with the same conclusion and he isn't Zod's son.
So why even make him Zod's son? The film starts with this, so it's likely to be relevant (beyond "So he can have a snazzy threatening goatee"). It's definitely given more weight in the film than his immigrant foster parents.
As I said, it's not egregious in that respect, and I don't want to overstate the point (although I may already have done so), but the implication is definitely there: he's Zod's son in more than just a literal way. (Barring surprise plot developments in the second half.)
They do deal with the theme of nature vs. nurture.
Superman doesn't actually know that Zod was a vicious warlord responsible for Krypton's destruction. However, Luthor finds out about it and he reveals it to Waller and her cabal but he never tells Superman because he's afraid that it will cause him to become more like Zod. Much of Luthor's animosity and suspicion towards Superman was because he knew about Zod and ironically, Luthor ends up pushing Superman to become more like Zod.
When the truth was revealed to Superman, he doesn't get angry or go crazy, he laments that things could have been different if Luthor had been truthful to him. And by the end, Superman and Luthor come to an understanding of sorts.
So if Jena Malone isn’t playing Robin, then just who is her character? We may finally have an answer. Find out more about Jena Malone in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice after the jump, but beware of potential spoilers!
Latino Review has heard from three different sources that Jena Malone is playing Barbara Gordon in Batman v. Superman. She’s the daughter of Commissioner James Gordon, who has also been rumored to be dead in the story. If this is true, the big question is whether or not she’ll suit up as Batgirl, or even eventually be seen as Oracle, as in the comic books. (The latter would be pretty dark if the Joker is involved.) It’s already a movie crowded with superheroes, so that likely won’t happen in this movie, but maybe later in the DC Comics cinematic universe.
Previously, it was Malone’s recently dyed bright, red hair that made people think she could be playing Carrie Kelley, the female version of Batman’s sidekick from The Dark Knight Returns. And since Snyder has used some elements from Frank Miller’s take on Batman (including this cool shot from the trailer), that’s certainly still a possibility. After all, if Robin really is dead — or one Robin, at least — then Batman could use a new sidekick.
But that new sidekick could just as easily be Barbara Gordon. It would be easy for she and Batman to bond, both having lost their parents to the world of crime. And as far as character design goes, Barbara Gordon has also been seen with bright red hair in the comics as well, so Malone’s ‘do still fits with the role.
This is excellent news, if it's true. The last time Barbara was in the movie she was a child in Nolan's trilogy, who got side lined completely. As Batgirl she was in Batman and Robin. That said, it is from Latino Review so take it with a mountain of salt.
I assume she going to appear in a Batman flashback to further show how "more broken, kind of f—d up Batman" he is now. Or Oracle... well Babs back in the saddle cause Out-of-retirement-Bruce lost the key to the Batcave; Oracle
Nah, put Batgirl on Supergirl so they can talk about, but not show, Batman as well as Superman.
0
Options
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
Honestly, you could make a show out of the Stewart/Tarr Batgirl and run it alongside Supergirl and (going from what little I've seen of Supergirl in the trailers and things) it'd be perfect.
So I guess the Luthor's diabolical plan was leaked/released:
He kidnaps Martha Kent.
So does this mean he knows who Superman is? Makes sense I guess, the one home that was wrecked by Zod and Crew was the Kent house. Maybe he doesn't think Superman is Clark, maybe he does, that kind of changes everything with how Luthor operates though in regards to outing Superman.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I think it would be interesting to see a Superman who has no secret identity. If he doesn't have to maintain the charade of being human, would he even bother?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think it would be interesting to see a Superman who has no secret identity. If he doesn't have to maintain the charade of being human, would he even bother?
nope, Clark Kent is the real identity, 1986-2011 4 life.
Not by removing the secret identity from his life. Which, given how MOS ended, isn't out of the question - if they bothered dealing with the natural consequences of the events. They won't.
Posts
The point of these characters was to have new iterations that bear a resemblance and similiarity to the trinity while being distinctly different from their namesakes.
Also you are judging what is at it's core a mystery film based on only half it's content.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Disagree. If you know what the boot feels like then the lesson learned is be the one wearing the boot.
It's when you never feel or see the boot that you start to question why we would ever want the boot.
pretty much. he wasn't a big character in the post-Crisis stuff, and then he appeared in Heinberg's WW run again I think but I didn't care because the book was delayed forever and I lost interest and then DC went out of business in 2011.
I'm just going with the shaved head thing because he's already pretty boy highlights in Star Trek and Jack Ryan and whatever.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
We're going off topic here and "every" is a super dangerous word but history is littered with populist uprisings that end up in super authoritarian regimes.
My point is that I found it perfectly reasonable that somebody from that background could long for an authoritarian change in which their priorities are the one with the force behind them. Clearly it'd only be justice for all those past wrongs.
I could see it going the other way as well but that's much less common and would take a pretty heroic person to get there.
By not finishing the film you aren't seeing what the arc of that character is and making a judgement on one aspect of them.
So yes: you are making a judgement without all the available context.
And was it just me, or was the final twist a damn good fakeout?
Wonder how many different notes Bruce wrote for Alfred in that scenario.
His parents specifically don't but has upbringing comes up and is a major reason he is who he is.
They do deal with the theme of nature vs. nurture.
When the truth was revealed to Superman, he doesn't get angry or go crazy, he laments that things could have been different if Luthor had been truthful to him. And by the end, Superman and Luthor come to an understanding of sorts.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
http://www.slashfilm.com/jena-malone-in-batman-v-superman/
Latino Review has heard from three different sources that Jena Malone is playing Barbara Gordon in Batman v. Superman. She’s the daughter of Commissioner James Gordon, who has also been rumored to be dead in the story. If this is true, the big question is whether or not she’ll suit up as Batgirl, or even eventually be seen as Oracle, as in the comic books. (The latter would be pretty dark if the Joker is involved.) It’s already a movie crowded with superheroes, so that likely won’t happen in this movie, but maybe later in the DC Comics cinematic universe.
Previously, it was Malone’s recently dyed bright, red hair that made people think she could be playing Carrie Kelley, the female version of Batman’s sidekick from The Dark Knight Returns. And since Snyder has used some elements from Frank Miller’s take on Batman (including this cool shot from the trailer), that’s certainly still a possibility. After all, if Robin really is dead — or one Robin, at least — then Batman could use a new sidekick.
But that new sidekick could just as easily be Barbara Gordon. It would be easy for she and Batman to bond, both having lost their parents to the world of crime. And as far as character design goes, Barbara Gordon has also been seen with bright red hair in the comics as well, so Malone’s ‘do still fits with the role.
I dunno, I think with a couple tweaks, Thea Queen/Speedy could fill most of the badass Batgirl tropes by herself, and she's already in Arrow.
The more the merrier. And this one would be the lead, not a sidekick.
On their first crossover, have their first time meeting each other play out in the same way as Batman and Superman's first meeting in the DCAU.
I mean, either way I'd watch it... wait. Have Roy form the Outsiders, and he can run into various characters to make the team along the way.
I like where this is going. :winky:
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
So does this mean he knows who Superman is? Makes sense I guess, the one home that was wrecked by Zod and Crew was the Kent house. Maybe he doesn't think Superman is Clark, maybe he does, that kind of changes everything with how Luthor operates though in regards to outing Superman.
Boom, instant reboot.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If Gods and Monsters is anything to go by
Not especially
Kal-El.
Not by removing the secret identity from his life. Which, given how MOS ended, isn't out of the question - if they bothered dealing with the natural consequences of the events. They won't.