Originally Posted by SneakerPro
Let use this example.
Iron Man is my favorite comic book character. I've legit been reading IM comics for 27 years now.
When Iron Man hit the theaters I was all in. I stopped counting how many times I saw it after 10. It was a success in every way.
But if we are honest with ourselves that Tony Stark is not the one that existed in the comics. They took liberties that most people myself included let rock because the movie was so good.
I think that is what they are trying to do with Supermam they just aren't doing a good job.
But I like the current Superman so what do I know.
The liberties they took with Tony Stark were all strictly personality wise and it was arguably a more infectious fun entertaining personality than in the comics. So much so that since the first movie Tony has been more and more like his MCU counterpart without missing a beat story wise.
If movie Tony suddenly was more like the Punisher or more like Captain America or an every man with bad luck like Peter Parker then I could see you saying hey this isn't the Tony I know.
The bigger problem with changing Supes from the comics is that it doesn't seem like they have a clear concept to change him in to. I really don't know what message they're sending with the Kent's guidance, in hiding childhood, and Clark's hobo drifter adulthood before he becomes Superman. What are they going for? Not to mention none of it seems to be heroic in nature.
Like even before we get to it not being good. I'm not sure what they're trying to portray story wise about this character's story, arc, and overall development in the DCU. Is he a flawed hero with GOD like power? What kind of man is Clark Kent that informs us what kind of hero Superman will be?
At best what I got out of MOS was that he's willing to kill when others are in danger when he gives up and feels he has no other choice since he was wasting time fighting and causing the death of so many but I'm still lost on this take of Superman. Got nothing from BvS. A definitive compelling arch enemy could solve that but they gave us nutbag Lex Jr. so it'll be even more difficult to figure out Superman if they face off again.
Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh
Originally Posted by Master Zik
Can't hate on the ideas and concepts he started or brought up but it's always been execution. Definitely didn't like how he ended things.
Yeah the ending, the xorn twist, can't lie, that was real wack.
but Cassandra Nova is such an incredible concept/ character it more than makes up for it.
Exactly. Magneto turning Manhattan in to a holocaust oven for humans cuz that's the Magneto he thinks he grew up on in the 60s
Could've went somewhere with that Beast revelation about humanity too. Thought that was setting up another X-event. Cassandra could've been one of the new long lasting villains.
Originally Posted by amel223
If they wanna take liberties with Supes they should've took it all the way. They play up the God and savior thing and also the public enemy number one thing and the murdering thing already so they should've given him a personality to match that. Egotistical, cocky - much like mcu Thor but maybe nastier.
You do that and it wouldn't even need to be much work to rationalize why Bats would want to take him down.
And it would've made Supes more fun.
If Superman was even the implied bloodthirsty guy he was in JL: War, both movies would've been more entertaining.
Snyder and the writers have made a boring character.Edited by Master Zik - 4/2/16 at 6:03pm