|
Although, I should note, I did hear one spoiler about Superman lore that has me rather angry at James Gunn. The kind of thing that seems like crapping on Superman fans.As a lifelong DC fan (but not a diehard Superman lore fanatic), I didn't notice anything that felt like a massive deviation at least not from the spirit of the lore, if not the letter.
There was one twist--which I believe actually has been done before in at least some comic variations; a background character's motivations are potentially changed--I could see as *upsetting* some fans. But I can't fathom any part of the film as "crapping on" fans, i.e., making fools of them or being dismissive of the fandom.
And that twist I thought actually did a good job of helping serve Superman's arc and actually helped reinforce who he is and who he chooses to be.
I think we're talking about the same point...
At worst, they may have been portrayed as mostly just wanting their son to live, keeping the memory of Krypton and its heritage alive. Outside of maybe some Elseworlds style story, I can't recall a single instance of the two ever being portrayed as that evil. That sounds like more of a Zod thing, or maybe even something from Invincible.
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
I think we're talking about the same point...
** spoiler omitted **
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
In fairness, this particular change has been made before. Smallville did the same thing in Season 2, similar messages existed in the Post Crisis Eradicator introduction. This is not new. It is also left unresolved, so that it is likely setup for a future story. Perhaps involving a character who is alternatingly a superior intellect/a futuristic AI in control of a series of Matryoshka doll like robots/ Kryptonian AI construct/obsessive collector of long lost civilizations.
|
In fairness, this particular change has been made before. Smallville did the same thing in Season 2, similar messages existed in the Post Crisis Eradicator introduction. This is not new. It is also left unresolved, so that it is likely setup for a future story. Perhaps involving a character who is alternatingly a superior intellect/a futuristic AI in control of a series of Matryoshka doll like robots/ Kryptonian AI construct/obsessive collector of long lost civilizations.
I think we're talking about the same point...
** spoiler omitted **
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
As did my adventures with superman to an extent.
Also considering who is responsable for said reveal it is possible that is not what was actually said or that it was made to be interpreted in the most harmfull way possible.
|
|
In fairness, this particular change has been made before. Smallville did the same thing in Season 2, similar messages existed in the Post Crisis Eradicator introduction. This is not new. It is also left unresolved, so that it is likely setup for a future story. Perhaps involving a character who is alternatingly a superior intellect/a futuristic AI in control of a series of Matryoshka doll like robots/ Kryptonian AI construct/obsessive collector of long lost civilizations.
I think we're talking about the same point...
** spoiler omitted **
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
True. I never liked it then either. I prefer the more common "they weren't bad" characterization. Here's hoping they will fix it in a future issue. I'd love to see it as a way to bring in that other character they've retconned so often over the decades (I think we're talking about the same character).
True. I never liked it then either. I prefer the more common "they weren't bad" characterization.
In all of those instances, they weren't and it was just a manipulation.
(I think we're talking about the same character).
There's no need to be coy, it's not spoilery or potentially giving anything about Superman 2025 away, I'm talking about Brainiac
|
|
There's no need to be coy, it's not spoilery or potentially giving anything about Superman 2025 away, I'm talking about Brainiac(I think we're talking about the same character).
Yeah, I figure. It’s just there seem to be a lot of people who dislike spoilers of any kind. So I’ve grown a bit….nicer?….about that sort of thing. I for one could give two craps less about whether an entire plot is spoiled.
I know a dude who refuses to even watch trailers or commercials for movies. Weird, but that’s how he rolls.
I think we're talking about the same point...
** spoiler omitted **
I, personally, see that as crapping on fans. I'm old and cranky at the best of times and have seen a lot of crapping on characters over the years. So I've become far less forgiving. Other people (such as yourself) don't see it that way, and that's okay. I think it's good for fans to argue and nitpick over actual comic lore like this.
Aberzombie, I think the only thing you and I disagree on is the relationship of the fans to the change in the backstory (I could debate the merits and flaws of the actual change). I don't think it's disrespectful to fans to change that bit of lore, especially with how it's handled in the film (more on that below). I think this kind of writing can engage fans and it treats them like people who are emotionally and intellectually intelligent enough to consider and accept different versions of the same story. As, indeed, I am a fan, and I did not feel "crapped on." (There are certainly changes to characters I've seen in other shows and films that I felt was disrespectful to fans; that usually involves stuff where the show/filmmakers seem embarrassed to be making superhero story, which is certainly not the case with James Gunn.)
I wasn't sure what to make of the twist and part of me didn't like the suggestion of a certain character's true motives, but I really, really, really liked how it made Superman reflect on the situation, and the resulting arc showed us why Superman is Superman. AND as others mentioned, the way the twist is presented, the audience can't trust that it is 100% true. What's more interesting is what Superman and other characters do with that information.
I certainly don't expect or even want you to agree with me, but I think this is a script decision that is better understood and appreciated seen in the context of the film, and I'd be really interested in your thoughts about it after you see it.
|
|
.....and I'd be really interested in your thoughts about it after you see it.
Be careful what you wish for.... : )
Just kidding. Mostly.
I shall present my thoughts in abundance once I see the movie. I rarely ever go opening weekend to a movie anymore. I'll probably take at least the boy this weekend. It depends. If my daughter wants to go, then it might be the whole family.