Pattern Ghost

That's unrecognizable as Wonder Woman, so I hope its just some weird side costume she gets handed to wear instead of her real duds.

But, on the plus side -
 
Come to the Phantom Zone!Live forever! See the universe! 
 
It practically sells itself.

One interpretation of that would be that the Director decided that they DID die and cut the only scenes that would indicate they didn't.
 
I think it was largely accepted that they did not die because "Superman does not kill", but then that should be equally acceptable for the terrorist scene, shouldn't it?
 
It doesn't make the current crop of Superman movies great cinema, or great portrayals of the character, but it seems like we will go out of our way to make excuses in favour of some film equally out of our way to reject explanations for others.

You're talking about "all members of society" and "changing people's attitudes" in a broad sense. Generally, Americans aren't particularly any more violent than anyone else. Why target the general population versus the populations that account for the majority of gun homicides?
 
It seems like these conversations always start with a mass shooting then veer off to general gun violence solutions, including statistics about how the US has more gun crime, how our culture is more violent, etc. If we want to reduce crimes like mass shootings, we need to look at the minds of mass shooters, not the general population. If we want to reduce general gun crimes, we need to look at the populations that are committing the bulk of those crimes: career criminals and gangs. I don't see this as a general problem that can be handled by restricting the largely peaceful bulk of our population and infringing on their rights without first addressing the specific problem populations.

I'm for convicts being able to petition to have their rights fully restored, but yes, I'm also OK with limiting rights for violent offenders. Most of which are repeat offenders. You can't really agree with the argument that most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders then a few posts later assert that that same group that commits most violent crime should keep their right to own guns. I mean, you could. I just don't see the logic in it.
 
Are there subgroups that might be unfairly impacted? Sure. Innocent people have been convicted. Non-violent felons should probably be excluded. And probably more examples. Those issues can be addressed separately by criminal justice reform and a national level process for rights restoration.

Let's be fair. The only misdemeanor that bars one from gun ownership is a domestic violence conviction. I'm personally fine with that one.

Let's be fair. The only misdemeanor that bars one from gun ownership is a domestic violence conviction. I'm personally fine with that one.

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.

You'll never be unpopular with me. (Though that post was kind of silly. )

You're talking about "all members of society" and "changing people's attitudes" in a broad sense. Generally, Americans aren't particularly any more violent than anyone else. Why target the general population versus the populations that account for the majority of gun homicides?
 
It seems like these conversations always start with a mass shooting then veer off to general gun violence solutions, including statistics about how the US has more gun crime, how our culture is more violent, etc. If we want to reduce crimes like mass shootings, we need to look at the minds of mass shooters, not the general population. If we want to reduce general gun crimes, we need to look at the populations that are committing the bulk of those crimes: career criminals and gangs. I don't see this as a general problem that can be handled by restricting the largely peaceful bulk of our population and infringing on their rights without first addressing the specific problem populations.

Support this assertion with statistics, because all of the statistics I see indicate the opposite. Gun crime tends to follow the Pareto principle, as far as I can tell.

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

Maybe if they toss in a shock collar...

Maybe if they toss in a shock collar...

That's about where I am. Despite being a firearm owner, I do acknowledge that we have way too much firearm-enabled violent crime here in the US, and that Something Must Be Done. However, I also have serious qualms about whether the kind of laws popular among my fellow liberals would actually help. Many such laws focus on cosmetic features, and are thus useless. We also see that in many cases, shooters were already prohibited by law from having the guns they used, making it obvious that laws aren't an effective barrier. And finally, as Pattern Ghost pointed out, there are many ways for people to commit mass violence, if that's their goal, which don't require access to firearms.
 
I'm in favor of actual solutions, and I'd be willing to accept some restrictions on my firearms ownership if I felt confident that those restrictions would actually save lives. However, I don't think the root of the problem is access to guns--I think it's cultural. There's some pervasive aspect of US culture that makes people think that enacting violence is a go-to solution, and I feel that until we address that, passing laws against specific tools of violence won't accomplish anything good.

I'm quoting this simply because it's so quotable.

I'm quoting this simply because it's so quotable.

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.

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.

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.

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:
 
 
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.

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."

Perhaps you'll get lucky and his bone spurs will keep him from attending.

Here's how I generally read RT scores:
 
Low Critics rating / High Audience score: Probably a fun popcorn flick.
High Critics rating / Low Audience score: Probably artsy or pretentious, might watch if the trailers grab me
Scores are about Even: Probably the fairest assessment. Anything that gets at least 70% on both might be worth watching if I liked the trailer.