Avengers Endgame with spoilers

[Bazza]

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

You know, it occurs to me that nobody batted an eye when Christopher Reeve Superman tossed a de-powered Zod to his presumed death in Superman II, and when Lois did the same thing to the female Kryptonian. He even smirked after doing it. Of course, maybe he has a pile of mattresses at the bottom of that very long fall, who knows?

 

 

 

Are you saying Kal-El took Zod to the mattresses? (  )

[Pattern Ghost]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

There's no suggestion that they're killed by that

 

[Greywind]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

While I don't dismiss any of the above (at least not entirely), Thor charged in, reasonably believing Thanos was the threat he was earlier, and chopped off his hand.  Not his head; he STILL did not go for the head; he went for the non-lethal option.  WHY?

 

Then, once Thanos said "I destroyed the gems - they are gone" (and if they were not, why would he not still have them?), and it was clear he was now a helpless prisoner, and not a combatant, NOW he gets decapitated.

 

Why?  Pure frustration on Thor's part.  Understandable?  Sure.  Heroic?  Definitely not.  But we accept it for Noble Thor.  And I guess it must have been the right thing to do, since he was still Worthy, right?  What had he done that was worse in his first movie, that he was not worthy then?

 

Would it be OK for Batman to feel similarly frustrated and start branding criminals with a bat symbol (apparently not for the hate levied against that portrayal), or lop off the Joker's head?  But the MCU characters get the slack to not be paragons of virtue.

 

Thor at that point is also the king of Asgardians, as Odin was before him. It is the right of a king to mete out justice for the 50% of Asgardians that did not survive the Decimation.

[Greywind]

6 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

You know, it occurs to me that nobody batted an eye when Christopher Reeve Superman tossed a de-powered Zod to his presumed death in Superman II, and when Lois did the same thing to the female Kryptonian. He even smirked after doing it. Of course, maybe he has a pile of mattresses at the bottom of that very long fall, who knows?

 

 

 

The Arctic Police showed up and hauled Lex, Otis, and the Kryptonians off to prison.

[Greywind]

7 hours ago, massey said:

 

Yuck.  I don't like the tactile TK explanation.  I just like him being strong.  But it's not him grabbing the guy that I have a problem with.  Christopher Reeve caught Margot Kidder while she was falling off a building and she was fine.  It's the "flying through ten concrete walls with the dude in front of him" that he shouldn't have survived.

 

Like it or not, it's established in the books. Otherwise the ship would split at the point where he's lifting from.

[Old Man]

By buying Superman’s strength as a no-range TK, Superman’s player is proven to be a munchkin powergamer.

[Pattern Ghost]

2 hours ago, Greywind said:

The Arctic Police showed up and hauled Lex, Otis, and the Kryptonians off to prison.

 

Yeah, I know that got cut from the theatrical release. I was just messing with LL.

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Regarding Thor's execution of Thanos: I think audiences reactions weren't as harsh because MCU Thor is a warrior with no strong code against killing. It's easy to believe that while his motives weren't strictly just in this case and more revenge-driven and frustration-driven, that this wasn't his first execution. Had Cap done the deed in that moment, not in the heat of battle, then there would have likely been outrage, as it'd be more out of character.

 

All true.  What aspect of being a warrior with no strong code against killing makes him a Super Hero, rather than a vigilante action hero with super powers?  The DCEU, and the Superman portrayals in particular, are being painted as "not superheroic" because Superman is willing to kill.  MCU is being held up as "truly superheroic", yet its heroes are quite willing to kill.  This seems like a double standard. 

 

That's not to say Supes' portrayal is in character (whether within the comics, or a DCU Supes - there seems to be a lot of comments on MCU Thor not being comic book Thor so, again, that's OK for MCU but not DCU, for some reason), or that Thor's is not.  I'm questioning the claim that, if the DCU portrays a Superman willing to kill, that's turning its back on portraying Superheroes in general, but MCU is doing a great job with Superheroes who are portrayed as very willing to kill.

 

11 hours ago, massey said:

 

His failure wasn't in killing Thanos.  That never entered into it.  It never bothered Thor at all.  Do you think Odin, father of Hela, would be bothered by the idea of his son executing Thanos?

 

Thor's failure was in not killing Thanos in time.

 

 

It wasn't heroic for Thor to kill Thanos as he did.  Not at all.  That was the point of that scene -- they had failed as heroes.  All that was left was to render judgment.  Thanos absolutely deserved it.  Even 2014 Thanos recognized that.

 

No question - I agree Thor's "I am not worthy" vision came from failing to protect the lives snapped out by Thanos.  Up until Mjolnir landed in his hand in Asgard, I think he still believed he was irredeemably unworthy.

 

But when the MCU portrays an unheroic act from which the hero recovers, this is perceived as "great superhero cinema".  Aquaman has a similar issue.  For some reason, though, we cannot portray Superman as ever compromising his unwillingness to kill, even when faced with a "kill one villain or let thousands of innocent people die" dilemma, in the middle of combat.  Had Thor gone for the head in IW, it would have been cheered as a win for the SuperHeroes.  Superman going for the neck against Zod, meanwhile, is viewed as a crime against the genre.

 

10 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Regarding Thor killing Thanos, Thor wasn't acting as a noble hero then. He was acting as a man who had suffered unspeakable tragedy, and lashing out at the cause of it. The shock of the other Avengers at that action indicates it's not something any other of them would have considered appropriate in that circumstance, and by implication, neither should the audience. The rest of the movie shows just how much the whole experience had broken Thor.

 

"Worthiness" as Asgardian enchantment defines it doesn't apply at that moment, either. Stormbreaker never received that enchantment from Odin as Mjolnir did. The proof of that is when Thanos while fighting Thor grabbed Stormbreaker out of the air as it returned to Thor, and wielded it to attempt to kill him.

 

The test of a hero isn't that they are unfailing paragons of virtue. The test is how they overcome their failures.

 

Sure.  That's where I see Thor's arc - he perceives himself as forever unworthy because he failed to stop Thanos (leading out of failing to prevent Asgard's decimation at Hela's hands), not as still worthy because he is still fighting the good fight. 

 

But not if it's Superman, apparently.  He is required to be an unfailing paragon of virtue, or the entire cinematic universe he inhabits is an irredeemable failure..

 

9 hours ago, Bazza said:

 

Start an unnecessary war between Asgard and the Giants endangering innocents on both sides. Thor had sworn to preserve the peace and broke that promise. 

 

He was worthy during the time heist as he was fulfilling his oath to: 1) guard the Nine Realms, 2) preserve the peace, and 3) cast aside all selfish ambition and pledge himself only to the good of all the Realms. Undoing the Decimation (ie snap) was deemed by Mjolnir to be in accordance with Thor's oath. 

 

Even without the Infinity Stones, Thanos is still a deadly combatant. Remember that Thor saw Thanos smashed Hulk. He had no reason to presume that Thanos was defenceless while sitting down. 

 

I like that summary of what makes Thor worthy.  Now, let's remove some Asgardian trappings:

 

1) guard the people of earth, 2) preserve the peace, and 3) cast aside all selfish ambition and pledge himself only to the good of all the universe.

 

Isn't that Superman?  Thor can still be worthy after a series of failings, including killing a prisoner who shows no sign of any hostile action.  Superman cannot because he killed an opponent in combat when he perceived no other way to save the lives that opponent threatened.

 

It seems like we hold the DC heroes to a higher standard than the Marvel heroes in order to consider them "cinematic superheroes".

 

[BTW, none of this changes the reality that DCU to date cannot even hold a candle to MCU to date.  I just find the double standard for "superheroic behaviour" confusing.]

[Toxxus]

15 hours ago, Pariah said:

Point of Fact: Superman's creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, were the children of Jewish immigrants.

 

The Jesus metaphor may not be entirely accurate.

 

Jesus was also Jewish as were almost all of his followers.

 

So - hard to say.

[L. Marcus]

Call it a Messianic metaphor. Easy-peasy.

[RDU Neil]

13 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

My take was that he was likely unworthy when he gave up, but became worthy again when he returned to the fight for others.  As I viewed the scene, my sense was that he was waiting for Mjolnir NOT to come so he could say "Now do you see - your son is not worthy".  When Mjolnir arrived, his sense of self-worth was bolstered - failing had not rendered him irredeemably unworthy.

 

This I totally agree with. It was something of a moment of cowardice and moment of courage... could he stand to ACTUALLY find out if he was worthy or not? Easy to wallow and "feel" unworthy... a whole 'nother level to find out you actually ARE! After talking to his mother, he had the psychological strength to find out. Very powerful scene, and again, probably my favorite bit (Thor and his mom) in the whole movie.

[Starlord]

13 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

It seems like we hold the DC heroes to a higher standard than the Marvel heroes in order to consider them "cinematic superheroes".

 

[BTW, none of this changes the reality that DCU to date cannot even hold a candle to MCU to date.  I just find the double standard for "superheroic behaviour" confusing.]

 

Don't know about DC or Marvel, just know that Superman doesn't kill and Bats doesn't use guns.  These are core beliefs of the characters.  Don't care if Thor is forced to kill...or Cap or Iron Man or Aquaman or Wonder Woman or blah, blah, blah.  I DO care about certain aspects of certain characters being maintained, otherwise THEY AREN'T said characters.  A Superman who kills or a Batman who uses guns is akin to a Tony Stark who can't fix a toaster or a Steve Rogers as a lemming-like sidekick.

[Lord Liaden]

For my part, I never expected Superman to be perfect. I didn't share the Zod neck outrage, because he was put in a situation where he had no choice. The widespread destruction in Metropolis was likely to have caused much innocent death, so that's much harder to rationalize; but I'm willing to attribute that to inexperience, and Zod choosing the battlefield (although I actually believe it was directorial sloppiness). I would have accepted all of that as part of Superman's growth as a true hero, if BVS hadn't taken him in the opposite direction.

 

The concern I have with Superman is that, even more than Thor, Superman is a god among men. All his life he's been aware his power is far greater than ordinary men. He's had to constantly restrain himself. He's always afraid that if he loses control innocent people will die. Otherworld-type stories have shown time and again that when Superman uses all his powers to their fullest extent, guided by his great intelligence and experience, he's practically unstoppable. Such godlike power needs to be in the hands of a paragon of virtue. Superman can have flaws, but he can't be undisciplined, impulsive, prone to rage, considering himself above the law. The consequences of those behaviors would be too terrible, and the world would have every right to be afraid of him.

[Pattern Ghost]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

there seems to be a lot of comments on MCU Thor not being comic book Thor

 

The Avengers are all mixtures of their 616 versions and their Ultimate universe versions as far as I can tell.

[Pattern Ghost]

The difference between Superman's neck snap and Thor's beheading is that Thor's beheading was earned. Superman killed his nemesis in his first reboot movie without first establishing his value system, and what the impact of the killing would be on the character. It was a moment that deserved more build up IMO.

 

OTOH, my non-comics fan wife had zero qualms about it. Zod was about to kill some people, Superman killed him, and then Superman felt bad about it. She also didn't complain about the collateral damage or lack of scenes with Superman making any effort to save civilians. These all seem to be things noticed by comics fans more than the general audience.

[Pariah]

31 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

The concern I have with Superman is that, even more than Thor, Superman is a god among men. All his life he's been aware his power is far greater than ordinary men. He's had to constantly restrain himself. He's always afraid that if he loses control innocent people will die. Otherworld-type stories have shown time and again that when Superman uses all his powers to their fullest extent, guided by his great intelligence and experience, he's practically unstoppable. Such godlike power needs to be in the hands of a paragon of virtue. Superman can have flaws, but he can't be undisciplined, impulsive, prone to rage, considering himself above the law. The consequences of those behaviors would be too terrible, and the world would have every right to be afraid of him.

 

This is part of what makes Superman's "World of Cardboard" speech to Darkseid in Justice League Unlimited so memorable.

[massey]

Supes and Thor are just different characters.  MCU Thor isn't comic book Thor, but I still like the character.  Up to that point, we've had 3 Thor movies and 3 previous Avengers movies to get to know him.  We've also had those clips with Thor and his roommate Darryl, and honestly by Endgame we just really really like Thor.  Then when he's got his chance to undo everything bad, it turns out the villain has beaten them to the punch.  It's the Ozymandius "I did it thirty five minutes ago" moment.

 

And so Thor chops his effing head off.

 

Here's a guy who we've spend 6 movies growing to love, and we completely understand his frustration and despair, and he has a completely human moment and he does what many of us might do in that moment.  He becomes more like Eric Draven in The Crow, or Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven.  It's a completely righteous execution of a completely terrible man.  It's cathartic, and yet it doesn't put anything right.  It's not a great heroic moment, but it is a great heroic failure.  It's an awesome moment in the film.  It's final but in a sense it's also anti-climactic.  We're expecting there to be this great battle where the heroes fix everything, and instead Thor kills him and now there's nothing for the heroes to do except live the rest of their lives in a half-dead world.  Thanos is dead, but the heroes still lost.

 

Superman's neck snap isn't unjustified.  I'm not saying he's a villain for killing Zod, or even that he was wrong.  He had to do it, but the filmmaker didn't give it nearly the same dramatic weight as Thor's decapitation.  They haven't even established that Superman has a code versus killing at that point.  Obviously he doesn't want to kill Zod, but there's no indication that he has anything more than the normal "reluctance to kill" that all of us have (and that we get no points for).  Now again, Thor doesn't have it at all, but they aren't the same character.

[zslane]

I think LL absolutely nailed it when he pointed out that being a hero does not mean being an unfailing paragon of virtue. Superman and Thor are both superheroes. I.e., they are heroes with superpowers. Heroes in the sense that they fight to protect the innocent and safeguard the world/universe as best they can. Both have failed in this duty at one time or another, but they remain heroes because they always strive to atone for (and learn from) their failures.

 

In Endgame, there is no doubt left in the viewer's mind that Thor acted out of incredible pain and loss, and that under other circumstances he probably would have acted differently. We know this in large part because Marvel took the time to develop Thor's character over the course of three solo movies and three Avengers movies.

 

However, when it comes to Superman's disregard for collateral damage in Man of Steel, nowhere in the movie is this portrayed as a failure of his heroic ethos. It is portrayed as a mere consequence of superpowered conflict without any regard to how the hero might be (morally) responsible for it, at least in part; in this sense it is very much in the spirit of anime, as the Japanese seem to have a cultural numbness to mass casualties in their action/adventure entertainment. Snyder's proclivity for destruction porn left little room for uneasy questions about the better angels of Superman's nature.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

The difference between Superman's neck snap and Thor's beheading is that Thor's beheading was earned. Superman killed his nemesis in his first reboot movie without first establishing his value system, and what the impact of the killing would be on the character. It was a moment that deserved more build up IMO.

 

OTOH, my non-comics fan wife had zero qualms about it. Zod was about to kill some people, Superman killed him, and then Superman felt bad about it. She also didn't complain about the collateral damage or lack of scenes with Superman making any effort to save civilians. These all seem to be things noticed by comics fans more than the general audience.

One of the comments made repeatedly is that the movies did not set up Supes' absolute Code against Killing.  Maybe  Movie Supes does not hold that same absolute, and it is only those of us bringing it from the comics Supes who are oh so distressed.  Funny...we're OK with Movie Thor (d)evolving into Hercules...but not a Supes lacking that absolute moral standard, or a Bats lacking that absolute "no guns" mindset.  Could it be that more strongly established DC characters create this greater resistance to alternative interpretations?

 

Supes also executed Zod (out of combat) and his allies in the comics back in the early post-Crisis era.  Golden Age Bats was a sharpshooter, and Golden Age Supes wasn't so anti-killing but, of course, the characters evolved.

[Hugh Neilson]

BTW, I don't think "we don't see Zod et al hit bottom after they fall into the mist so they probably were not killed" is any more reasonable than "we don't see Supes shield the terrorist when he flies through those walls, so he probably was not killed".

[Lord Liaden]

13 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Funny...we're OK with Movie Thor (d)evolving into Hercules...

 

Supes also executed Zod (out of combat) and his allies in the comics back in the early post-Crisis era.

 

Re Thor devolving into Hercules... speak for yourself. As I've said before, I loathe that move. But I understand why Marvel Studios went that route.

 

Supes executing Zod and his allies was set up to be unresolvable any other way without risk of more mass deaths. But that action so deeply disturbed Superman that his mind developed a second personality, the vigilante Gangbuster (2), which he was unaware of. When Superman realized he'd effectively lost control of his own mind, he exiled himself from Earth to protect humanity.

[Pattern Ghost]

18 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

One of the comments made repeatedly is that the movies did not set up Supes' absolute Code against Killing.  Maybe  Movie Supes does not hold that same absolute, and it is only those of us bringing it from the comics Supes who are oh so distressed.  Funny...we're OK with Movie Thor (d)evolving into Hercules...but not a Supes lacking that absolute moral standard, or a Bats lacking that absolute "no guns" mindset.  Could it be that more strongly established DC characters create this greater resistance to alternative interpretations? 

  

Supes also executed Zod (out of combat) and his allies in the comics back in the early post-Crisis era.  Golden Age Bats was a sharpshooter, and Golden Age Supes wasn't so anti-killing but, of course, the characters evolved. 

 

That's all true. It's largely the reason my wife gave zero s--ts about it and generally liked the movie. Even taken solely within the context of the movie universe and that version of Superman, the moment was still not earned dramatically. I'd go into more detail, but I'm going to get lunch and that's far more important to me than Snyder's poor storytelling ability.

[Pattern Ghost]

20 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

BTW, I don't think "we don't see Zod et al hit bottom after they fall into the mist so they probably were not killed" is any more reasonable than "we don't see Supes shield the terrorist when he flies through those walls, so he probably was not killed". 

 

To be fair, there is actually cut footage that shows the trio being taken into custody by "Artic police" (whatever that is), which gives more concrete evidence than Snyder's rebuttal to the wall thing does.  I was just yanking LL's chain a bit with it, and was going to post the info after a while (but someone beat me to it).

[slikmar]

On the Zod in the mist thing, you know it never ever occurred to me that he or the other Kryptonians were killed, mainly because of the Superman/Clark that Reeves was portraying. I would say the same thing about the one that Dean Cain portrayed and even the one from Smallville. The Superman from Man of Steel I might have believed, due to listening to his dad basically tell him let me die because your secret is more important with a hand gesture (or, you should have let the bus full of kids die rather then reveal yourself). IF they had taken that first scene and had him look at Martha after the funeral and say to her, "If it is in my power to do so, NO ONE WILL EVER DIE IF I CAN PREVENT IT." Then, you would truly get the angst conundrum when that seems to be his only choices at the end.

Of course, this is directed by the same person who has Lex outsmart Batman (but of course not Lois because she is intrepid journalist).

[massey]

I completely forgot about him letting his dad die.  Man that movie sucked.