Jump to content

Avengers Endgame with spoilers


Bazza

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, massey said:

  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.

 

That's fair. I read the intent as a humorous bit between Lois and Supes, with more regard for style than physics. If there's some other indication that shows Snyder Supes has a Casual Killer limitation, then I'll rethink my position, but I'm not seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 675
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

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

Etrigan kissed batman on the cheek and called him brother as Batman has his own demons(that could be his near/ super human levels in what he is doing0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's people that thought the terrorist survived that move through?

 

Superman hits him at incredible speed.  You don't even need a wall there for him to be dead.  Just the collision with his dense Kryptonian body at that speed would be absolutely fatal.

 

Add the brick wall (hit by Superman first or not) and that guy is a broken, bloody ruin best left off camera to preserve the PG-13 rating.

 

Though I'll admit I see the Flash do stunts that are worse - all the time - and somehow not instantly vaporize someone by punching them full force while moving faster than a bullet. 

Taking a rough guess at the Flash's weight he's roughly 1000x the weight of a 9mm bullet.  The energy transfer would vaporize mere mortals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

There's people that thought the terrorist survived that move through?

 

Superman hits him at incredible speed.  You don't even need a wall there for him to be dead.  Just the collision with his dense Kryptonian body at that speed would be absolutely fatal.

 

Add the brick wall (hit by Superman first or not) and that guy is a broken, bloody ruin best left off camera to preserve the PG-13 rating.

 

Though I'll admit I see the Flash do stunts that are worse - all the time - and somehow not instantly vaporize someone by punching them full force while moving faster than a bullet. 

Taking a rough guess at the Flash's weight he's roughly 1000x the weight of a 9mm bullet.  The energy transfer would vaporize mere mortals.

 

The Flash knows how to punch. Just like Scott Lang had to learn.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit that I have a hard time parsing Snyder's intent when it comes to the combat action of his superheroes. His DCEU movies inhabit this grim, ultra-violent milieu where bad guys appear to die left and right. This kind of setting doesn't enjoy the benefit of treating good guys and bad guys differently in this regard. The tone of the DCEU isn't such that I accept a traditional "comic book" approach to the consequences of the application of superpowered force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zslane said:

I admit that I have a hard time parsing Snyder's intent when it comes to the combat action of his superheroes. His DCEU movies inhabit this grim, ultra-violent milieu where bad guys appear to die left and right. This kind of setting doesn't enjoy the benefit of treating good guys and bad guys differently in this regard. The tone of the DCEU isn't such that I accept a traditional "comic book" approach to the consequences of the application of superpowered force.

 

Yeah, that's my feeling on it too.  I accept that people survive things that should be fatal in the Marvel films.  They've got a more comic-booky type physics going on.  Even though bad guys die, often frequently, a lot of people survive falls or hits that should kill them.  So if Iron Man slaps some dude while wearing his suit, I don't think "oh he's gotta be dead".  I can basically accept that some villain goon will wake up in the hospital in a few days with his jaw wired shut.

 

It's strange that the Marvel heroes are generally far more lethal than their DC counterparts (Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye... all of them have huge body counts), and yet I don't see any of them in the same "Casual Killer" light that I do Zack Snyder's heroes.  Maybe it's because Superman has like 80 different ways that he could stop that terrorist, and he chooses the one that looks fatal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

Though I'll admit I see the Flash do stunts that are worse - all the time - and somehow not instantly vaporize someone by punching them full force while moving faster than a bullet. 

Taking a rough guess at the Flash's weight he's roughly 1000x the weight of a 9mm bullet.  The energy transfer would vaporize mere mortals.

 

The Flash makes a lot more sense (though of course, it still doesn't really make sense) if you assume that he travels in a bubble of speed force.  This explains why people he grabs aren't ripped to shreds.  Since they are in his speed force bubble, they only experience it as Barry Allen grabbing them not as the supersonic Flash grabbing them.  It also explains why he sometimes gets punched non-speedster foes.  By getting close enough to melee them he can accidentally include them in his speed force bubble allowing them to deal with him on equal speed terms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bazza said:

This discussion has gone so far from home that I'm inclined to say that a real estate deal has been made. Normon Osborn bought Stark Tower. Allegedly. The deal hasn't gone through yet. 

 

A large part of that was my fault, for which I apologize. So let me see if I can get it back on track, with an observation raised by massey:

 

55 minutes ago, massey said:

It's strange that the Marvel heroes are generally far more lethal than their DC counterparts (Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, Hawkeye... all of them have huge body counts), and yet I don't see any of them in the same "Casual Killer" light that I do Zack Snyder's heroes.  Maybe it's because Superman has like 80 different ways that he could stop that terrorist, and he chooses the one that looks fatal.

 

That could be. It's certainly what was on my mind when I saw that now-infamous scene. But it might also have to do with the way most people have come to learn about these characters. Superman and Batman in particular have had the highest profile among non-comics readers due to previous movies; and their principles against killing are probably well established in the cultural zeitgeist. OTOH the majority of people were introduced to Marvel's heroes as presented in the MCU. Tony Stark was an arms manufacturer, and was shown killing recognizably bad people in his first movie. Steve Rogers was a soldier during war time. Thor was a warrior from a warrior culture. Hulk was a raging but innocent monster. Black Widow and Hawkeye were literal professional assassins. The standards established for them in those appearances didn't include unwillingness to kill.

 

OTOH the MCU heroes have repeatedly been depicted going out of their way to protect innocent civilians, something the DCEU heroes had generally neglected, at least in their first few movies. That has reinforced the impression that the Marvel crew don't treat life lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, on the whole, but I have always kinda felt that the extra effort Joss Whedon went to to show the Avengers protecting civilians in Sokovia while it was being ravaged by Ultron was a direct commentary on Superman's complete disregard for civilian casualties in Man of Steel. It was as if Feige and Whedon very much wanted you to know that their heroes cared about civilians in a way that Snyder's god-hero did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zslane said:

I admit that I have a hard time parsing Snyder's intent when it comes to the combat action of his superheroes. His DCEU movies inhabit this grim, ultra-violent milieu where bad guys appear to die left and right. This kind of setting doesn't enjoy the benefit of treating good guys and bad guys differently in this regard. The tone of the DCEU isn't such that I accept a traditional "comic book" approach to the consequences of the application of superpowered force.

 

This is a good point. Snyder himself has said in several F-bomb laden tirades that he wants to show this level of violence. On the other hand, he's also said that he didn't intend that terrorist to die. And that's the reason I believe him: He's never once defended one of his choices, he simply tells people to F-off if they don't like something he's done. I think his own crassness and pig-headedness is actually a defense in this case.

 

We're on a gaming discussion board, so I'm assuming most of us are gamers, and are applying game logic to the scene, along with what you said above. In this context, I can see it being hard not to assume that the terrorist got pasted. Another result is inconsistent with those facts. However, absent any other evidence, there's also clear intent that Superman is not a casual killer (which he'd have to be to smirk about killing a guy), since each hero's approach to violence is supposed to be driving the central conflict:  Batman has become more brutal because he perceives Superman's lack of regard for letting innocents die as he exercises his godlike power, while Superman is struggling to do what he sees as the right thing under a barrage of false accusations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, zslane said:

I agree, on the whole, but I have always kinda felt that the extra effort Joss Whedon went to to show the Avengers protecting civilians in Sokovia while it was being ravaged by Ultron was a direct commentary on Superman's complete disregard for civilian casualties in Man of Steel. It was as if Feige and Whedon very much wanted you to know that their heroes cared about civilians in a way that Snyder's god-hero did not.

 

Exactly this.  Even though the Marvel universe has always been grayer than DC, the MCU films stressed the importance of protecting innocents to the point where it was literally the central catalyst for at least two of the films (AoU and Civil War).  Whereas the Snyderverse took one character who is consistently written as protecting innocents and made him seem indifferent at best to the collateral damage he caused, and took another who specifically refuses to use guns and won't even blow up ducks and turned him into a machinegun-wielding hardcore vigilante. 

 

In fact off the top of my head:  

 

  • Avengers I: During the Battle of New York, Cap's entire focus is protecting bystanders from collateral damage.  Iron Man risks his life to save the city from a nuke fired by Hydra.
  • Avengers AoU: Stark creates a suit whose entire purpose is to stop Hulk from rampaging in a city.  Hawkeye directs the evacuation onto the helicarrier and sacrifices himself to save Sokovian citizens from machine gun fire.  Stark and Thor risk their lives to blow up Sokovia preventing it from killing uncounted civilians.
  • Avengers IW: Quill lets his own anger get in the way of saving the universe, and audiences hate him for it.
  • Thor: Thor finally gets motivation when he sees Destroyer defeat the Warriors Three and come for the diner and its mortal occupants.
  • Thor Ragnarok: The last half of this film is Thor & Co. saving Asgardian civilians from Hela.
  • Captain America: Cap deliberately crashes the Hydra plane to prevent its weapons from being used against American cities.
  • Iron Man 2: Stark refuses to sell suits to the DoD.
  • Spider Man: Homecoming: Washington Monument, Staten Island ferry.
  • Doctor Strange: Protecting Earth is literally his entire job.
  • Black Panther: By the end of the film T'Challa has saved the world from the Wakandan military and has taken a more active role in protecting civilians worldwide.

 

Tl;dr: The protection of civilians is a constant thread throughout the MCU.  In the DCEU prior to WW, it's... not a priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding to Old Man: Thor 2: The beginning is Asgard protecting the Nine Realms (inc Vanaheim) now that Bifrost is destroyed. 

 

So, adding to Old Man, Thor has been shown to to protect innocents in each of his three films, and three of the four Avengers films. With Endgame, Thor is shown defending Earth/Universe from Thanos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Starlord said:

Let's be fair here, Man of Steel has a heart-warming scene where Supes saves millions of acres of cornfields and dirt by deliberately dragging the battle into the center of Smallville.

 

That aspect of the movie was even worse in the 30+ minute battle royal at the end where instead of luring Zod out of the city they proceed to demolish half of New York.

 

Like, the guy wants to kill you, take it to a grassy hilltop and stop tipping over buildings full of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bazza said:

Adding to Old Man: Thor 2: The beginning is Asgard protecting the Nine Realms (inc Vanaheim) now that Bifrost is destroyed. 

 

So, adding to Old Man, Thor has been shown to to protect innocents in each of his three films, and three of the four Avengers films. With Endgame, Thor is shown defending Earth/Universe from Thanos. 

 

The same Thor who, in a fit of rage, chops the head off of an unarmed and helpless prisoner right after chopping off one of his hands?

 

It seems like we are much more willing to give violent actions in the MCU a pass than violent actions in the DCEU (such as a Superman who weighs the balance of one life - Zod - against all the lives he is clearly about to take and makes the hard choice).

 

Really, much more of this lies in the plotting, rather than the characterization.  When the GM puts the Superman player in a position to take one life or allow thousands to die, he has no right to criticize the player for not living up to that Code vs Killing.  D&D has had the "Paladin's Dilemma" issue for decades.  A movie true to the Superman ethos would have an out where he can, in fact, save the civilians without taking a life.  But, since that plot did not include such an out, all of the DCEU is forever tainted and we can never assume Superman did not turn a gunman into a fine red mist with a smirk on his face and a song in his heart.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also note that filmakers weighing what a few die-hard comic geeks would like to see against what millions of ticket buyers want to see are likely to choose blockbuster success over a few happy comic fans.  Is the DCEU losing money, or just not winning as big as the MCU (and is there ANYONE winning as big as the MCU?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The same Thor who, in a fit of rage, chops the head off of an unarmed and helpless prisoner right after chopping off one of his hands?

 

You mean the helpless prisoner who murdered Thor's people, friend, and brother right in front of him? Who had just recently used that hand to kill half the universe, after first mocking Thor for not killing him right away when Thor had the chance? And then mocking the Avengers again for being too late to do anything about it? Pretty much the definition of "extraordinary provocation," which I believe most fans understand and accept. But I also noticed that the other Avengers seemed shocked that Thor did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I'll also note that filmakers weighing what a few die-hard comic geeks would like to see against what millions of ticket buyers want to see are likely to choose blockbuster success over a few happy comic fans.  Is the DCEU losing money, or just not winning as big as the MCU (and is there ANYONE winning as big as the MCU?)

 

I would suggest that the MCU has been winning so big in part because they do weigh what would make comic fans happy; that is to say, staying true to the essence of who the Marvel comics characters are, which has kept them popular for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The same Thor who, in a fit of rage, chops the head off of an unarmed and helpless prisoner right after chopping off one of his hands?

 

It seems like we are much more willing to give violent actions in the MCU a pass than violent actions in the DCEU (such as a Superman who weighs the balance of one life - Zod - against all the lives he is clearly about to take and makes the hard choice).

 

Really, much more of this lies in the plotting, rather than the characterization.  When the GM puts the Superman player in a position to take one life or allow thousands to die, he has no right to criticize the player for not living up to that Code vs Killing.  D&D has had the "Paladin's Dilemma" issue for decades.  A movie true to the Superman ethos would have an out where he can, in fact, save the civilians without taking a life.  But, since that plot did not include such an out, all of the DCEU is forever tainted and we can never assume Superman did not turn a gunman into a fine red mist with a smirk on his face and a song in his heart.

 

 

 

I don't blame Superman for killing Zod.  He didn't have a choice.  I do blame Zack Snyder for making a Superman movie where protecting civilians is not a priority.

 

I said earlier, Marvel's heroes all have a body count.  I mean, dear God, Iron Man gave a teenage kid a suit with an "instant kill" option.  He's definitely got the irresponsible uncle role down.  Tony kills I don't know how many terrorists in the first movie.  Now these are all bad guys who are getting killed, and the heroes all make a dedicated effort to save innocent people.  And the only person who is portrayed as any sort of moral paragon is Cap.  Thor is awesome, but he's not exactly a role model in our modern society.  Captain America is a soldier, and we all accept that killing Nazis in WW2 is okay.  Then in Winter Soldier, he's kind of a James Bond superspy, going on missions for what he thinks is a good cause serving his country.  But Cap goes out of his way in Civil War to avoid killing any of the cops who are going after Bucky.

 

Superman is a different character altogether.  As far as moral symbols, he and Cap are similar.  But Cap has always been willing to kill, if he had to.  His powers are more limited, and often he doesn't have the choice.  Superman's powers mean that he almost always has the option to not kill.  If he had spent the entire movie saving civilians, and then he had to snap Zod's neck at the end, we'd have more sympathy.  As it was, he had just had a brawl where tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people would have died, and then he's sad because he had to kill the villain?  It didn't feel right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The same Thor who, in a fit of rage, chops the head off of an unarmed and helpless prisoner right after chopping off one of his hands?

 

It is not the act but the context... and you were supposed to be shocked by the act. It was not played for smirking good times. It was a moment of defeat for Thor, which played out in the rest of the movie, not a feel good "show the dude bro being KEWL!" moment.

Thematic context matters a lot.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...