Pattern Ghost

Wait. Were they de-powered? So the water would have given them hypothermia within minutes. I guess that really was at worst.

MCU Cap makes a great Superman IMO. Heck, his power level isn't much lower than the original.

Sully starring Tom Hanks.  The movie has to invent an adversarial NTSB investigation board to come up with some conflict, and even then the movie is kind of slow.  But otherwise it's not bad, and as usual Hanks carries the film.
 
(Note that after Apollo 13, Cast Away, The Terminal, and now Sully, the joke is that you should never, ever travel with Tom Hanks.)

I just want to say that I approve of this Freudian slip or pun, whichever it is.

I just want to say that I approve of this Freudian slip or pun, whichever it is.

I just want to say that I approve of this Freudian slip or pun, whichever it is.

I just want to say that I approve of this Freudian slip or pun, whichever it is.

It is the writer's task to see to it that he always can. Somehow. Remember, the writer is always in control here.
 
In my view, a writer who has decided to tell a story in which the hero can not, and does not, find a solution to that dilemma has perhaps told an interesting story, but he (or she) has not told a Superman story.
 
By way of analogy, The Godfather is a brilliant story, but a lousy romantic comedy.

"You sly dog! You caught me monlologuing!"

I thought Thor 2 was better than Thor 1. I would rate them both around the same level as Iron Man 3. I enjoyed watching all of them, but they were not the best of the Marvel lineup. 

Wow. You know we've sunk low as a culture when it takes an online porn company to treat the recently deceased with some sort of respect. 
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3788000/Former-lover-Alexis-Arquette-sells-sex-tape-featuring-transgender-rights-activist-porn-company-25-000-just-day-passed-away.html

My wife isn't a comics fan and only has a passing familiarity with the characters. She likes comic book movies and TV shows (and other SF and fantasy shows and books, etc.), but has never been a comic fan. She also had absolutely no problem with the Zod neck snap.
 
Of course, on Vampire Diaries, that's pretty much how the vampire characters greet each other, so the constant staccato of snap-snap-snappity-snap-snap is something she's used to. (She's had her fill of vampire fiction of all media, though. Got a bit saturated with vampire and werewolf stuff over the last couple decades.)

On this day, 17 years ago, the moon was torn out of Earth's orbit and the brave personnel on Moonbase Alpha were lost to us forever...after 2 series and 48 episodes...
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wr41gaM_ow

What? Grow up.

Changes to a long-standing character don't bother me in principle. Times change, people's expectations change, it's fair for these characters to evolve with the times. I'm bothered by changes to the fundamental qualities of a character who has remained very popular literally for generations. There's a reason why that character appealed to people for so long.
 
Before he was ever given the MoS director's position, Zack Snyder was on record as not liking the character of Superman. IMO that should not be the person directing a movie about Superman. I liked Man of Steel, and I was willing to accept its somber tone as a path to Superman discovering who he really is and his purpose in life. I don't feel like my acceptance was rewarded in BvS. To me it looks like Snyder still doesn't like Superman.

I miss when some vampires and werewolves were actual, y'know, monsters, to be feared and destroyed. Not tragic, misunderstood, angsty emo romantic fan-fic figures.

That's uncalled for. People having differing tastes doesn't make them stupid.

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

That's uncalled for. People having differing tastes doesn't make them stupid.

That's uncalled for. People having differing tastes doesn't make them stupid.

That's uncalled for. People having differing tastes doesn't make them stupid.