Avengers Endgame with spoilers

[Bazza]

Iron Man and Iron Woman 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I just find the contrast sort of amusing.  Iron Man doesn't kill either.  Until now.

 

The real difference seems to be "this alien looks really human so it feels like murder"

 

Kinda like everyone getting upset at dolphins dying in tuna nets, but nobody cares about the tuna; the cute animal syndrome.

[Starlord]

Didn't Iron Man kill about 50 terrorists in his first movie?  Not to mention nuking the chitauri space army in the first Avengers.  Why are we suddenly talking about his kill ratio?  Perhaps I don't understand the discussion.

 

PS:  Superman doesn't kill...and he also doesn't mope around like an angst-ridden emo teen depressed about his life as a god or deliberately try to cause as much property destruction as possible.  There's more than one problem with the Snyderverse.

[Old Man]

Iron Man was an arms dealer until half an hour into the first film, so we can expect Tony Stark to have a less idealistic take on the matter.  As it is he seemed to have been bothered less by the fact that his weapons were being used to kill people, and more that they were being used to kill the wrong people.  And then he went and built War Machine.

 

Meanwhile, Superman is a god among men who could wipe the floor with Iron Man in about a turn.  The entire point of Superman is that he has no limitations other than the ones he puts on himself.  That's why he usually isn't written into situations where he has to kill.  Superman's code vs. killing is a worthwhile subject for exploration, but Snyder didn't explore it--he just had Superman run out of ideas and kill Zod.  If there were earlier scenes showing Martha Kent scolding Clark for killing an animal, or showing Superman failing to save an innocent by refusing to kill a villain, or otherwise setting up that ending, I don't remember them.

[Pattern Ghost]

13 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Instead in Batman vs Superman Snyder took him in the opposite direction. When Clark rescued Lois Lane there was no need for him to kill the terrorist holding her. With his powers he could have stopped the man effortlessly. But Snyder Supes murdered him without a second's hesitation.

 

Do you mean this scene?

 

 

I don't see him kill the guy, just fly off with him through a few walls.

 

Edit: I found this article mentioning that Snyder commented on the scene.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Do you mean this scene?

 

 

I don't see him kill the guy, just fly off with him through a few walls.

 

Edit: I found this article mentioning that Snyder commented on the scene.

 

Seriously? The guy was hit by a human-size mass flying at the speed of a bullet, and pushed ahead of Superman through "a few" stone walls. We're supposed to believe a human survived that?

 

IMO Snyder's comment was him trying to cover his ass after fans protested the scene. I believe it's another example of what he did in Man of Steel with the final Zod fight: go for the spectacular visual while ignoring or overlooking the implication.

[massey]

Yeah, that dude's dead.

[Lord Liaden]

The first forty seconds of this clip from Superman: The Animated Series shows how Supes has traditionally handled those situations.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyOyD2cx4u8

[zslane]

In Avengers, Infinity War, and Endgame, the Earth was being invaded by a hostile alien army. The circumstances under which Tony killed all those aliens were what we call "wartime conditions", and his so-called victims were enemy combatants. There are many pacifists who consider all wartime combat as "murder", but I do not agree with them. Neither, apparently, does Tony Stark.

[slikmar]

17 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Correction: In Man of Steel Kryptonite hadn't been introduced yet. Zach Snyder purposely set up a situation in which Superman's only choices were to deliberately kill Zod, or allow him to murder innocent people. That's really no choice at all for the kind of man the movie had shown Clark Kent to be. But we saw how agonized Supes was over making that choice. That would have been the perfect motivation for him to pledge, "Never again."

 

Instead in Batman vs Superman Snyder took him in the opposite direction. When Clark rescued Lois Lane there was no need for him to kill the terrorist holding her. With his powers he could have stopped the man effortlessly. But Snyder Supes murdered him without a second's hesitation. In that movie we see again and again how arrogant and impulsive Superman was becoming.

 

What Zach Snyder doesn't get is that there's a huge difference between being forced to kill, and being willing to kill. Clark Kent in the comics is desperately afraid of the temptation to cross that line, because with his power he couldn't be held to account by anyone. No few "Elseworlds"-type stories have shown Superman following that path to become a conscienceless monster.

I would actually 2nd this that Snyder doesn't get Batman either. He doesn't kill or use guns because he believes that is what separates him from the villains he fights. If he stoops to those levels, then he is what his detractors say he is.

[csyphrett]

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Seriously? The guy was hit by a human-size mass flying at the speed of a bullet, and pushed ahead of Superman through "a few" stone walls. We're supposed to believe a human survived that?

 

IMO Snyder's comment was him trying to cover his ass after fans protested the scene. I believe it's another example of what he did in Man of Steel with the final Zod fight: go for the spectacular visual while ignoring or overlooking the implication.

There is a chance that Superman knocked the walls down first as he is dragging this guy along.

 

I'm just saying this because as a writer it would be something I would put in if I had a CVK hero splattering someone into a million pieces instead of the end of an episode of OPM.

 

But yeah, it looks like the guy is dead just from that one clip.

CES

 

Also he's fast enough to slam someone through a wall, but not fast enough to Jet Li a pistol? come on

 

[Greywind]

Supes could have gone through the wall backwards. He's moving too fast to tell.

[Pattern Ghost]

Or grabbed the guy with one hand, and knocked the walls down with an outstretched arm. Either way, they don't show the result on screen, and I never got the impression he killed the guy when watching the movie the first time. His smile right before the move looked more "I'm going to make this guy wet himself, like we've done all those other times someone's held you hostage, Lois," than "Hey, honey, watch me turn this guy into goo."

[massey]

I watched the clip several times and paused to see what I could see.  Superman definitely doesn't go through the wall backwards or otherwise shield that guy with his body.

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Seriously? The guy was hit by a human-size mass flying at the speed of a bullet, and pushed ahead of Superman through "a few" stone walls. We're supposed to believe a human survived that?

 

IMO Snyder's comment was him trying to cover his ass after fans protested the scene. I believe it's another example of what he did in Man of Steel with the final Zod fight: go for the spectacular visual while ignoring or overlooking the implication.

 

You mean like the realistic way Batman is damaged in combat, or Cyborg's human parts get mashed?

 

It's a super hero movie, not a textbook on real world physics or biology.

[Lord Liaden]

Then Lois Lane won't die when thrown off a building? And those senators should have survived the bomb that totaled their committee's meeting hall?

 

Superheroes get the benefit of superhero physics, up to a point at least. Normal people are more fragile, which is the reason why heroes go to great lengths to protect them. Physics in superhero media don't have to be realistic, but they do have to be consistent.

 

(But Batman as embodied by Ben Affleck performed clearly superhuman feats, despite supposedly being "just a man.")

[Greywind]

Falling won't killing. Sudden stoppage at the bottom will.

 

Lex was just clearing out the dead wood for the next election cycle.

[Pariah]

Isn't there a DC Movies thread where we can discuss the myriad logical, moral, and artistic shortcomings of the Snyderverse? Do we have to darken this tread, too?

[Lord Liaden]

Fair enough, and my apologies. I hereby withdraw.

[Pattern Ghost]

22 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Seriously? The guy was hit by a human-size mass flying at the speed of a bullet, and pushed ahead of Superman through "a few" stone walls. We're supposed to believe a human survived that?

 

15 hours ago, massey said:

Superman definitely doesn't go through the wall backwards or otherwise shield that guy with his body.

 

This is the best pause I could get of Supes and the terrorist hitting the wall:

 

 

It's impossible to state that the terrorist hit the wall first. Superman's leaning forward, and the terrorist's leg is the only part of his body visible. Superman can be hitting the wall with his head or with one of his hands easily here. You've got to be kidding me if you think even Snyder had Superman make a smirk like that as a prelude to murder. You don't have to believe Snyder's statement of intent, but it looks to me like the intent here was just to do a very comic book style take down of the bad guy. It's the simplest explanation once you set aside your (mind you, justified IMO) vitriol for Snyder.

[Pattern Ghost]

11 hours ago, Pariah said:

Isn't there a DC Movies thread where we can discuss the myriad logical, moral, and artistic shortcomings of the Snyderverse? Do we have to darken this tread, too?

 

Sorry, End Game was such a cheerful and upbeat movie that we certainly wouldn't want to do that.

[Toxxus]

22 hours ago, zslane said:

There are many pacifists who consider all wartime combat as "murder", but I do not agree with them.

 

Not being willing to kill - even in the most obvious self-defense situation - is choosing to go extinct.

 

When inherently peaceful people take this stance they offer the world on a silver platter to violent invaders.

 

Even Non-Aggression Principle followers will defend themselves.

[Lord Liaden]

Killers never smirk at their victims?

 

I'm sorry, I know I said I'd leave this alone. But if we have to go to such lengths as these to rationalize what the director of a movie says his intent was, when many others took something different from a scene, then the director has failed at Job One, which is to make his intent clear to his audience.

[massey]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

 

This is the best pause I could get of Supes and the terrorist hitting the wall:

 

 

It's impossible to state that the terrorist hit the wall first. Superman's leaning forward, and the terrorist's leg is the only part of his body visible. Superman can be hitting the wall with his head or with one of his hands easily here. You've got to be kidding me if you think even Snyder had Superman make a smirk like that as a prelude to murder. You don't have to believe Snyder's statement of intent, but it looks to me like the intent here was just to do a very comic book style take down of the bad guy. It's the simplest explanation once you set aside your (mind you, justified IMO) vitriol for Snyder.

 

I didn't say the terrorist hit the wall first.  I said that Supes doesn't go through backwards or shield the terrorist with his body.  He doesn't.  Maybe Superman's fist (or forehead, or whatever) did enough damage to destroy a hex of wall, and the GM ruled that it was clear when he pulled the terrorist through.  Like the wall sort of explodes outwards or something.  But I thought the intent was to show Superman killing that dude.  That was really what I thought when I saw the scene, and watching it again doesn't change my mind on that.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

Killers never smirk at their victims? 

 

Show me where I asserted this. I believe I was more specific.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

But if we have to go to such lengths as these to rationalize what the director of a movie says his intent was, when many others took something different from a scene, then the director has failed at Job One, which is to make his intent clear to his audience.

 

This thread is the first time I've seen anyone take your stance on that scene. Nobody who I know who saw the movie thought Superman killed that guy. It's just comic book schlock. I'm not doing any rationalizing here, you're attempting to put forth real world physics, and as of the first comment I posted, straw men, to defend your position. I don't like  Snyder's DC movies either, but I also don't think he had Superman smirk and kill someone in cold blood. It seemed more of an attempt at humor, an in joke showing that Lois clearly has to get rescued like this so often that they have it down to a routine.