quote:
I see that point. But since he had no choice in landing on Earth (That was all on Maximus) I can't blame him for Zod's arrival. Regardless of how he did it, does he not get credit for saving the entire planet from being terraformed by Zod & Co? Keep in mind, in this incarnation Clark has been Superman all of a handful of days before Zod waltzes in and starts wrecking shite. He's never once thrown a punch in his life. He's new to this, and was "fighting" both the Kryptonians and the US Military for much of the movie. The Superman we saw in this movie reminded me a lot of the Spider-Man we saw in the new movie before he worked out all the kinks and put on the official suit. The guy with the ski mask running from thugs and being not quite good enough yet. He was learning. He did the best he could...which turned out to be enough to save the world. I'm assuming that we see a more mature, and set Superman for MoSII.

Then you give him a different villain. Don't give him Zod. Zod (while I don't think he should have been in the reboot series at all) is a villain that is present almost solely due to Superman himself. With Spider-Man and Batman, the Green Goblin and Ra's al Ghul were going to brutally attack their cities regardless of Spider-Man's or Batman's pressence. Give him a villain that is either less destructive (like the Green Goblin) or one that Superman isn't directly or indirectly responsible for (like Ra's al Ghul).

You get into a villain that is a result of the hero's presence in the second film of the trilogy. The Joker is the perfect example. Batman didn't really have a part of the Joker's creation, but Batman's presence allowed the Joker to thrive, and the city quickly turns against Batman. It should have been the exact same way with Superman and Zod. I don't see how anyone could look at Superman as a real hero after this.

quote:
Now...if you want to be mad at Goyer and Snyder for putting Supes into a no win situation right out of the gate, then have at it. I kind of dig that they did that, despite the obscene collateral damage. The mileage of others clearly varies. I think it sets up some great potential stories...namely Lex stepping up as an adversary essentially taking the side of humanity who would be better off without this dick breaking whole cities.

Yeah, that's a big reason I'm pissed about it. This film should not have been this right out of the gate. I think they got way too attached to the fanboys reactions of no more Luthor, lifting heavy shite, and have non-stop action. Well, the movie completely suffers from it.

Instead they should have worked their way up to something like this. I mean, they've already destroyed Metropolis and had a threat that almost destroyed the world. How are they going to top that? The first film should have been pleasant really. Just had Superman saving some nice people from hazards in life, stopping some racketeering rings, and then facing off with a lesser villain like Metallo or Parasite. Someone who isn't going to be a worldwide threat and just a threat to Metropolis.

The second is when Superman's equal comes into play and fricks his world up. I'd recommend a super being from Earth who starts WWIII in order to destroy Superman's legacy. In the end half the world is fricked and Superman's legacy is destroyed and taking a significant portion of the blame for escalating a world crisis with his mere presence.

The third should be his redemption. Give him either Brainiac or Darkseid, someone who is coming to destroy/take over the planet regardless, and then Superman proves his worth and everyone is grateful for his presence. This just seems like a common sense plan for a trilogy, but they completely blew it on this one film.

This post was edited on 6/27/13 at 10:48 pm