The battle of Metropolis (Man of Steel) vs the battle of Titan (Infinity War)

Contrast the rag-tag group of people on Titan who couldn't even win the fight, let alone the war, resulting in the deaths of billions.

@darthvaderrocks: 3. Thanos actually has an arc. Thanos goes from someone who enjoys killing, going on this plan of his end to someone who looks almost depressed. Thanos is pretty much only still going along with his plan because it's his destiny and whatnot. Doing his plan because it's fun went away when Gamora dies. It's rare for villains to have a arc on any level but when they do it instantly makes them better than before. Thanos is still evil but how it's presented and how he presents his evil actions to us after Vormir are completely different. He changes on an emotional level.

^^^

This is a half baked arc, nothing about his character has changed besides him being sad that he killed his daughter, he still cracks a joke right before he kills half of the universe, Thanos has no arc.

They did win, until Star-Lord messed it all up. That's what being flawed human characters means, as opposed to a perfect archetypal hero.

@godzilla44: That's exactly what a character arc is. Start the story in one place and end it another. All those traits he had in the first 2 halfs are simply gone in the third act.

And Thanos never cracked a joke. There's nothing funny about what he said.

Wtf no

I ranked the Titan/Wakanda battle over the Metropolis battle in my Top 20 Superhero Movie Battles list. Metropolis at 11, with Titan/Wakanda at 3.

Do feel free to list off some other examples as opposed to denying it. It's only a lie if it's frequently done.

I mean no, not really. It's not a group of people like family members but simply an entire world. He thought he could save them but he simply didn't when they told him he was wrong in thinking that he could. So they died and Thanos lives with the guilt of that. Unfortunately he's too traumatized to realize they were right all along.

Except he was proven right time and time again. His method was proven right with Gamora's people, so this guilt you speak of is false.

Again, duh.

"I made a dumb list thinking I made good points but that was the point, duh"

Thanks for highlighting the tragedy of it. There was a problem with Titan that no one could solve but Thanos ofc thought he could. Him failing and him letting himself fail by not going through with Titan's fall is a tragedy. It's someone wanting to do the right thing but when that time came failed to do so. Its why Thanos had to sacrifice Gamora because he could not feel that way again.

Nice breakdown, but it has nothing to do with my point. You're trying to give props to Thanos that are exclusive to Zod, which is coming of as very childish since they aren't comparable. You can try and sell Thanos, but don't try to take what's part of Zod's character and apply it to thanos. THe point that you're responding to was that you think what applies to Zod's failure will apply to Thanos, which is flat out wrong and this statement doesn't do anything to debunk that.

Zod is just some warrior who wants to save Krypton because he was born that way.

Once again dumbing it all down and dismissing it all to fit some narrative. Not even going to repeat myself, just go back and read why him being made that way is integral to the movie

But that doesn't mean regret, my guy. Duh Zod would have wanted someone to agree with him but if they don't it's pretty much "oh well".

It's not just some guy, he was the smartest man on Krypton. He wanted Jor-El because he was smart enough to figure out what was happening and he wanted his help to rebuild it, but Jor-El didn't agree with his actions which become the central thesis of the movie.

But he never once was not going to not save Earth. Zod never had him thinking "hey maybe let me give this some thought". None of that happens. He wanted to stop Zod from the beginning and that's that. And his death doesn't mean something either. Sure he screams but it's because he had to kill someone. He doesn't want to kill anybody. But what happens after that? Nothing. It's never discussed again in MOS. It doesn't change Clark as a character because it's meaningless.

It's not about saving earth it's about saving Krypton. Clark's purpose according to Jor-El is to save Krypton, he had to destroy the last chance of Krypton being reborn by destroying the Birthing Matrix and once again by killing the last of his kind. It's not discussed cus it's the end of the movie, and they don't need to talk about it again because by Clark being on Earth the actions taken during the film are important because he sided with Earth. He was close to essentially leaving Earth, and helping rebuild Krypton because he thought that was the plan, but by the end he has chosen his human home. So while your opening statement is blunt and trying, it is wrong.

He was never not going to. Like do you not get that? He literally was never going to pick Krypton. He didn't even seem concerned about Krypton dying or him destroying it again knowing he wiped out any chance of his race surviving. It's not even a debate for him.

Except he did, he was literally going to leave earth to save Earth from Conflict and Krypton.

No, you said it was more important when Zod showed emotion and all I've been arguing is why it doesn't because it means nothing.

And you've failed spectacularly by downplaying the facts of the character by using your own personal opinion as opposed to what the film was showing. I on the other hand haven't tried to downplay Thanos actions in the movie, and fairly debating what was shown on screen. Get better at debating

Which makes the scene even less impactful. If that's what Zod is and why he is emotionless then why did he go back to being emotionless when all his people were dead? He should have showed that pain throughout the fight instead of just more evil sh!t like "I'll kill you!!!" Think of how much better Zod would have been if he was an emotional wreck.

Because what good comes from him being an emotional wreck? It's better to keep your cool and be a strong base for your peopel. Nothing you said changes that he had to be strong for his people and that he came from a race that is not accustomed to it. Even Jor-El who knew it was going to end wasn't crying or yelling, he was pretty calm and collected as were the council. Not to mention he was shaken when they died but it's been 30 yeras since then, being an emotional wreck for 30 years serves no one. He only became an emotional wreck when all hope was lost and he had nothing else to fight. That moment, that speech when he had lost everything mattered because had he been an emotional wreck for hte entire movie it would taken away from that final fight moment. Again, those small cracks make the emotional beats pop. It's like trying candy once in a while as opposed to eating all the time, when you do try it it's great whereas the later you get used to it and it's not as special.

No. I never said Thanos showed rare emotion, I said "you don't think he's an emotional wreck all the time do you" (paraphrasing). Thanos only shows emotion for Gamora but it's such an important relationship to him that when he does lose her he remains a wreck throughout the remainder of the film. Zod instantly is back to being cold.

Zod goes insane when he lost the last chance of saving everyone, so that's factually wrong.

I don't understand your point. What are you arguing then?

I don't even know anymore, the way this conversation has been going it'ss getting harder and harder to tell. You go back and start reading the context, I'm tired of doing it for you

Yes they are. IW doesn't need exposition dialogue to state its themes it simply shows them.

Quill, Scarlet, Vision, Gamora, Loki and Thanos all love someone in this film. And because of that love they must either kill or sacrifice that person for the greater good of the universe. That is the theme of IW. We see it 4 times in the film and Thanos very existence is responsible for it all. Like how did you not get this?

Fair enough, I'll give you sacrifice, but it's not the one I flat out deny being one. Even so, this theme also plays a role in MoS, since he's sacrificing as well something he had searched for his entire life (meaning) to save humanity and killing someone despite not wanting to and begging him multiple times to stop. So they sorta cancel each other out. the next one however

And Thanos love for Gamora is the definition of misguided. He loves her from a warped viewpoint as many abusive parents/relationships go. It's not healthy what they do to the abuser but they often view it as love. We literally see this theme being played out for 6 minutes straight.

While you made a case for sacrifice, this one is still flat out wrong. Again, it's a part of his character but it's not a theme. The other case played a role within multiple characters, across the movie. Again a theme has to play a role within the entire movie and or multiple characters.

You know that Thanos plan is the Malthusian philosophy, right?

Nice try adding the word philosophy to Malthusian, but it's not a philosophical concept, rather an economic and political theory. Philosophy is more abstract, while there is nothing abstract about Malthusianism.

It wasn't tackled in a new way. You keep saying it but all you're doing is saying "they did it the philisophical route" but never explaining how. Sounds like you're just saying that because you think the word philisophical actually makes something better haha.

I literally state many times how. Let me simplify it for you even more, the fight between Clark and Zod was that of nature vs nurture. Why it's more integral here isn't because Zod grew up on Krypton, but because Kryptonian society literally was breeding them and creating them to function to the best of their potential in their jobs. It's funny how you claim to be so smart that you understood IW even though they don't spoon feed you, but MoS talks about this multiple times throughout hte movie and the concept of choice, but somehow your too dense to understand that they did. IDk, I'm tired of repeating this to you, unless you can prove that a character like Zod isn't new or fresher, then don't bother responding since it's clear that talking to you is like talking to a wall

A guy whose whole motivation is "I'm programmed to act this way" isn't a terribly deep or interesting character. Michael Shannon acted the heck out of it but he didn't have much to work with.

Trying to argue Zod is a better villain than Thanos is laugh out loud hilarious.

Titan stomps. Better stories/arc, more creative, more impact, better acted, better subversion of expectations. Hell there are better fights in the DCEU and Titan is better than all of those.

@saintwildcard: "Do feel free to list off some other examples as opposed to denying it. It's only a lie if it's frequently done."

That's not how that works. A lie is a lie. It's that simple and you told a lie.

"Except he was proven right time and time again. His method was proven right with Gamora's people, so this guilt you speak of is false."

No, he feels guilty about Titan not anything else. Titan's collapse is why he starts wiping halving other planets. He doesn't want the same fate to happen to other planets.

No, we know for a fact that Thanos can never stop overpopulation. His plan was doomed from the start since he could never actually stop it. He'd have to continue snapping until the end of the universe.

Also, Thanos saying Gamora's people are doing good doesn't mean anything. The Russo brothers literally said "do you believe Thanos or Gamora?" There's no proof he actually knows what happened after he left. He's delusional at the end of the day and he has to think he's right for anything to matter.

"I made a dumb list thinking I made good points but that was the point, duh"

You said Zod was better than Thanos and I gave you reasons why I think Thanos is better imo. How do you not understand this?

"THe point that you're responding to was that you think what applies to Zod's failure will apply to Thanos"

It does apply.

"Once again dumbing it all down and dismissing it all to fit some narrative. Not even going to repeat myself, just go back and read why him being made that way is integral to the movie"

But it's not really. We only learn Zod is like that from that one scene. That's the first time we ever learned he was born that. It's never apparent from the get-go like how it should have been. It's also empty and short lived.

"It's not just some guy, he was the smartest man on Krypton. He wanted Jor-El because he was smart enough to figure out what was happening and he wanted his help to rebuild it, but Jor-El didn't agree with his actions which become the central thesis of the movie."

And Zod doesn't regret it. Why do you think he hates Kal so much and wants to terraform Earth? It's because he wants to get back at Jor-El. He hated what he did and he killed him. There is zero regret.

"Clark's purpose according to Jor-El is to save Krypton, he had to destroy the last chance of Krypton being reborn by destroying the Birthing Matrix and once again by killing the last of his kind. It's not discussed cus it's the end of the movie, and they don't need to talk about it again because by Clark being on Earth the actions taken during the film are important because he sided with Earth. He was close to essentially leaving Earth, and helping rebuild Krypton because he thought that was the plan, but by the end he has chosen his human home. So while your opening statement is blunt and trying, it is wrong."

It needs to be discussed. That's what good storytelling is. Discussing important things that just happened.

When was Clark ever going to leave Earth? Please show me him even debating it.

Also can you actually explain why Superman chose Earth without saying stuff like "he's a good person" or "it's the right thing to do" because that's essentially just projections of our own ethos. Why does humanity matter to Clark? Is it because he has human parents? But that's nothing on a dramatic level that makes us believe in his connection.

"Except he did, he was literally going to leave earth to save Earth from Conflict and Krypton."

When? The scene where he turns himself in? No, he leaves Earth so they don't attack. He then boards the ship and gets sick. Then him and Zod have a scene together and he's just asking questions but has this blank face the whole time. He never seems to actually consider the possibility of saving his people. It also doesn't help Zod says Earth will die.

"And you've failed spectacularly by downplaying the facts of the character by using your own personal opinion as opposed to what the film was showing"

The film can show whatever it wants. I'm arguing why it doesn't work. You're just say what happens but you're never actually arguing why it works. You're basically saying "this is a fact" (describing events) but that's it. Like actually give reasons as to why it works.

"Because what good comes from him being an emotional wreck?"

Everything. It would show Zod finally broke down. He has no reason to continue staying strong for his people when they are gone. Let those emotions come out. It would allow not only Shannon to show off his acting ability but also help Zod as a character. But because he went back to putting on that act it means nothing.

"It's better to keep your cool and be a strong base for your peopel."

They are gone. You brought up the Shannon quote not realizing that it just hurt your argument. Why is he still acting that way if he has no people and the whole reason he did act that way was to stay strong for them.

"That moment, that speech when he had lost everything mattered because had he been an emotional wreck for hte entire movie it would taken away from that final fight momen"

No it wouldn't. It would just enhance it. Thor in Ragnarok and IW excelled at that.

"It's like trying candy once in a while as opposed to eating all the time, when you do try it it's great whereas the later you get used to it and it's not as special."

Well no since we all view and like or dislike foods differently. If something is good I personally want more of that.

"Even so, this theme also plays a role in MoS, since he's sacrificing as well something he had searched for his entire life (meaning) to save humanity and killing someone despite not wanting to and begging him multiple times to stop."

Never said it wasn't...

But I will say it doesn't mean anything since Superman didn't grow as a character by killing Zod. He's irrelevant.

"Again, it's a part of his character but it's not a theme. The other case played a role within multiple characters, across the movie. Again a theme has to play a role within the entire movie and or multiple characters."

It does play a part in the movie. Thanos being the parent that he is has a major impact on the film. You think the BO were going around wanting to kill people before Thanos manipulated them and most likely tortured them? They don't play a part in the movie without Thanos warped viewpoint on parenthood. Not to mention all the trauma Gamora and Nebula go through due to Thanos and his actions. Misguided love at it's finest.

"Nice try adding the word philosophy to Malthusian, but it's not a philosophical concept, rather an economic and political theory. Philosophy is more abstract, while there is nothing abstract about Malthusianism."

Eh. Today we wouldn't, probably population dynamics.

"Let me simplify it for you even more, the fight between Clark and Zod was that of nature vs nurture. Why it's more integral here isn't because Zod grew up on Krypton, but because Kryptonian society literally was breeding them and creating them to function to the best of their potential in their jobs. It's funny how you claim to be so smart that you understood IW even though they don't spoon feed you, but MoS talks about this multiple times throughout hte movie and the concept of choice, but somehow your too dense to understand that they did."

Nature vs nuture isn't something that had never been presented before in films, so nothing is new. And trying to find differences like "he was born Kryptonian" aren't gonna work either since it's the same concept thus will never be fresh if it's the same. You can argue about the execution but that's it. There's no such thing as a character or film being original or fresh. How you execute it is what really matters.

That's a ridiculous line of logic if I ever saw one. Anyone could claim something is a lie without the facts to back it up.

No, he feels guilty about Titan not anything else. Titan's collapse is why he starts wiping halving other planets. He doesn't want the same fate to happen to other planets.

I posted the whole statement that I'm replying to, This is how you closed that argument

Unfortunately he's too traumatized to realize they were right all along.

You state that he's too traumatized to see they were right, except Titan is dead and Gamora's planet is alive and prospering. He literally kills Gamora because he truly believes there is no other way, you're completely lying about Thanos's character here.

No, we know for a fact that Thanos can never stop overpopulation. His plan was doomed from the start since he could never actually stop it. He'd have to continue snapping until the end of the universe.

Not in the movie at all and a pointless argument. Maybe it'll be addressed in IW, but it's not in this movie at all

Also, Thanos saying Gamora's people are doing good doesn't mean anything. The Russo brothers literally said "do you believe Thanos or Gamora?" There's no proof he actually knows what happened after he left. He's delusional at the end of the day and he has to think he's right for anything to matter.

He's been doing it for decades so it's likely that it's true. The only thing we know is that people probably hate him, but Gamora doesn't say that he's wrong for his actions he merely calls him a murderer. Thanos knows he's killing people for the greater good but Gamora doesn't dispute anything. Maybe it'll be in part 2, but right now it's all just speculation that you can't use for an argument. It's like if I gave Snyder credit for the prequel comics of BvS, not how it works.

You said Zod was better than Thanos and I gave you reasons why I think Thanos is better imo. How do you not understand this?

I broke down the qualities of the actual character, never do I just say I prefer things or claim to make a list that is just me saying I like this more. That would get us nowhere. Here are the two things from your list that were just you saying he was better

Brolin simply did a better job as Thanos than Shannon as Zod. No other way to put it really.

Thanos simply has a on screen impact that Zod simply doesn't have. When Thanos is on screen you are always focused on Thanos. It's like Vader but Thanos is a better villain than Vader anyway.

It's the same as saying "his suit is cooler". You never state an actual factual quality, you just say you like him more.

It does apply.

No, it doesn't stop lying to yourself. Zod's actions are those of Krypton and therefore he is doomed to fail. Thanos's actions are not those of Titan's so whether his plan fails has nothing to do with the "self fulfilling" prophecy aspect of Zod. You have stated nothing proving otherwise. Thanos is doing the exact oppisite of what Titan wanted.

But it's not really. We only learn Zod is like that from that one scene. That's the first time we ever learned he was born that. It's never apparent from the get-go like how it should have been. It's also empty and short lived.

Literally his entire character in the movie is one that thinks he is right and that his way is the only way. He freaking debated with a scientist who was smarter than him because he couldn't. You being annoyed that the movie didn't spoon feed you the answer up front doesn't change that it did and it was consistent with his character. It truly is ironic how you can praise IW for "not spoon feeding you the answer", but not catch these things or demand it be in a certain way.

And Zod doesn't regret it. Why do you think he hates Kal so much and wants to terraform Earth? It's because he wants to get back at Jor-El. He hated what he did and he killed him. There is zero regret.

That's a bad reading of it. Jor-El has zero ties to Earth, and in the movie we see scenes of failed attempts at Terraforming, Earth was the one planet that could be terraformed. It's heavily implied. Again, ironic that you didn't catch that for the added reason that you say he didn't care for Jor-El despite having respect for him, but JOr-El loved Earth enough to make it a target for Zod.

"Clark's purpose according to Jor-El is to save Krypton, he had to destroy the last chance of Krypton being reborn by destroying the Birthing Matrix and once again by killing the last of his kind. It's not discussed cus it's the end of the movie, and they don't need to talk about it again because by Clark being on Earth the actions taken during the film are important because he sided with Earth. He was close to essentially leaving Earth, and helping rebuild Krypton because he thought that was the plan, but by the end he has chosen his human home. So while your opening statement is blunt and trying, it is wrong."

It needs to be discussed. That's what good storytelling is. Discussing important things that just happened.

Wow, strike three from "the man who doesn't need a spoon". Clark spent the entire movie looking for a reason he was here, asked his dad what was his purpose, went on a soul searching journey for years (till he was 33), when he finally found out what his purpose was he felt whole but even in that moment still cared enough for his mom and said he wasn't leaving her. Several times he begged and pleaded with Zod to stop and was willing to help them out. He wanted to live up to his dads mission, but couldn't. You not paying attention doesn't mean it didn't happen

When was Clark ever going to leave Earth? Please show me him even debating it.

Also can you actually explain why Superman chose Earth without saying stuff like "he's a good person" or "it's the right thing to do" because that's essentially just projections of our own ethos. Why does humanity matter to Clark? Is it because he has human parents? But that's nothing on a dramatic level that makes us believe in his connection.

As was shown in the video above, he never fit in and was always searching for a purpose. Even his dad said that someday he'll find it and it'll be up to him to figure out what to do with it since it's greater than anything humanity deserves. Clark in the video even states that neither Zod nor humanity can be trusted, throwing his choice in the air as to who he'd side with. Also, it's not projection, Clark spent the entire first half of their interactions pleading with Zod and when the time came and Zod begged him he had grown tired and destroyed the Matrix. As for why humanity matters, we see small moments where he bonds with humans in the dark world. Pete Ross showed him kindness when he was bullied and a man "saved" him from being hit by the cage at sea, which he smiled after he did that. He tried to be that bridge, but all he saw from Krypton was an obsolete way of life that couldn't be trusted in the hands of Zod.

When? The scene where he turns himself in? No, he leaves Earth so they don't attack. He then boards the ship and gets sick. Then him and Zod have a scene together and he's just asking questions but has this blank face the whole time. He never seems to actually consider the possibility of saving his people. It also doesn't help Zod says Earth will die.

In the video above he has a debate about who to trust after a life of not fitting in. And as stated above, he hesitates for a brief moment when Zod begs him to leave the Matrix alone. If you needed more spoon feeding, that's on you.

The film can show whatever it wants. I'm arguing why it doesn't work. You're just say what happens but you're never actually arguing why it works. You're basically saying "this is a fact" (describing events) but that's it. Like actually give reasons as to why it works.

How you feel about it is irrelevant to me. I think Ledger's Joker is over hyped, but that doesn't mean the things that happen in the movie and the themes that played out didn't happen. You are literally praising IW for not spoon feeding, but then complain that it wasn't more clear in the movie. It's not up to me to sell you on how to feel about the things that happen on screen. I'm mainly just debating your lies and denials of things that happen, now instead of manning up to being wrong you're saying "well tell me why I should care?". You're moving the goal post

Everything. It would show Zod finally broke down. He has no reason to continue staying strong for his people when they are gone. Let those emotions come out. It would allow not only Shannon to show off his acting ability but also help Zod as a character. But because he went back to putting on that act it means nothing.

That's dumb. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean he should be depressed but still try and do something, but the way it's written now is that he should jsut loose all home and not stay strong for his people implying he should just give up.

They are gone. You brought up the Shannon quote not realizing that it just hurt your argument. Why is he still acting that way if he has no people and the whole reason he did act that way was to stay strong for them.

What quote? The final battle quote? The difference in moments was that there was still some hope when him and his crew were alive, but in that moment he had lost everything and there was no hope anymore. It didn't hurt my argument at all, keep up.

No it wouldn't. It would just enhance it. Thor in Ragnarok and IW excelled at that

A- Bad example since Thor played it up for jokes in both movies for the most part

B- Okay, but you act as if that's the only way to do it. We've seen characters who hold in their emotions and then blow, those kind of characters also work. You act as if there is one way (and me as well, but was bad phrasing on my part).

Well no since we all view and like or dislike foods differently. If something is good I personally want more of that

I clarify this in B- above. But even so, this comment is 100% horse shit and you know it, at some point you would get bored of one food type given time. If you were to eat your favorite food 24/7 for months on end, it would get to you

But I will say it doesn't mean anything since Superman didn't grow as a character by killing Zod. He's irrelevant.

He grew since he accepted the mantle of Superman and not the mission of his father. He chose a route that is counter to both of his fathers. Without the anchor of Zod to his kryptonian heritage, he fully embraced humanity.

It does play a part in the movie. Thanos being the parent that he is has a major impact on the film. You think the BO were going around wanting to kill people before Thanos manipulated them and most likely tortured them? They don't play a part in the movie without Thanos warped viewpoint on parenthood. Not to mention all the trauma Gamora and Nebula go through due to Thanos and his actions. Misguided love at it's finest.

NO, playing a role in a movie means that the entire movie centers around it and deals with it. Being a bad Dad is exclusive to Thanos. The main characters don't deal with it aside form Thanos and Gamora and Nebula. Bad Parenting doesn't affect the characters of Iron Man, BP, Hulk, Thor, Strange, Spider Man, QUill. It's not a discussion being had outside of those three, where as you listed sacrifice does. If parenting playing a role in the movie, maybe, but as it stands it's more of a character trait not really a theme. Personally I don't get why you're so deadset on saying Being a bad parent is a theme, when it's more of a character trait exclusive to THanos. I could make the same case for Zod's patriotism, but that'd be stretching a character trait into something else. Sure I could make an argument for his actions and how it affects some people in the movie, but it doesn't play a role in most of the other characters

Nature vs nuture isn't something that had never been presented before in films, so nothing is new. And trying to find differences like "he was born Kryptonian" aren't gonna work either since it's the same concept thus will never be fresh if it's the same. You can argue about the execution but that's it. There's no such thing as a character or film being original or fresh. How you execute it is what really matters.

All you have to do is name one comic book movie villain dynamic that is that and we could end this. Just give me one at this point.

@saintwildcard: "That's a dumb line of logic if I ever saw one. Anyone could claim something is a lie without the facts to back it up."

You claimed IW had no themes. That's a lie. Even makes it more weird because you then agreed that did have themes.

"You state that he's too traumatized to see they were right, except Titan is dead and Gamora's planet is alive and prospering. He literally kills Gamora because he truly believes there is no other way, you're completely lying about Thanos's character here."

How do you know they are prospering? Because Thanos told Gamora so? He'd tell her anything to try and sell his plan. Even worked for awhile until Gamora snapped out of it. And yes, the other Titans are right. They didn't just kick him out of Titan because he wants to kill people but because it simply would not have worked. This has been proven. It's a fact.

"Not in the movie at all and a pointless argument. Maybe it'll be addressed in IW, but it's not in this movie at all"

It's simple logic that the film expects us to know.

"He's been doing it for decades so it's likely that it's true."

It's not. You do know that Thanos plan is flawed and would never work, right?

"Gamora doesn't say that he's wrong for his actions he merely calls him a murderer. Thanos knows he's killing people for the greater good but Gamora doesn't dispute anything."

She does. When Thanos starts going on about his plan she says "you don't know that" and he doesn't actually rebuttal her point. He simply gives a narcissist like response by saying "I'm the only one who knows that."

"never do I just say I prefer things or claim to make a list that is just me saying I like this more."

That's what you've been doing. This whole argument is about you preferring Zod and me preferring Thanos. What do you think it is we're even talking about?

"You never state an actual factual quality, you just say you like him more."

That's not how debates work. You can say things that happen in a movie and it be factual but it's irrelevant if that's all there is to it.

"Thanos's actions are not those of Titan's so whether his plan fails has nothing to do with the "self fulfilling" prophecy aspect of Zod."

Ofc it does. Thanos assigned himself a prophecy (destiny as he calls it) and he's going to complete it as much as he can.

"Literally his entire character in the movie is one that thinks he is right and that his way is the only way. He freaking debated with a scientist who was smarter than him because he couldn't."

You didn't debunk anything I said. Again, it was never apparent Zod acts this way because he was created that way. Can you at least show me a line of dialogue that even suggest that?

"Jor-El has zero ties to Earth, and in the movie we see scenes of failed attempts at Terraforming, Earth was the one planet that could be terraformed."

His tie to Earth is his effin' son lmao. Also proof that Earth could be terraformed and not something like the moon?

"Wow, strike three from "the man who doesn't need a spoon"."

It's very obvious you didn't understand what that meant so let me remind you. I said IW doesn't spoon feed you its *themes* with dialogue like MOS.

"Clark spent the entire movie looking for a reason he was here, asked his dad what was his purpose, went on a soul searching journey for years (till he was 33), when he finally found out what his purpose was he felt whole but even in that moment still cared enough for his mom and said he wasn't leaving her."

Again why?

"Several times he begged and pleaded with Zod to stop and was willing to help them out."

When did he say he was gonna help Zod? And he wanted Zod to stop because he doesn't want to kill anybody. I already mentioned that.

"As was shown in the video above, he never fit in and was always searching for a purpose. Even his dad said that someday he'll find it and it'll be up to him to figure out what to do with it since it's greater than anything humanity deserves. Clark in the video even states that neither Zod nor humanity can be trusted, throwing his choice in the air as to who he'd side with."

You aren't debunking anything. Why does Superman care for humanity besides bringing up stuff thats part of our ethos.

"As for why humanity matters, we see small moments where he bonds with humans in the dark world. Pete Ross showed him kindness when he was bullied and a man "saved" him from being hit by the cage at sea, which he smiled after he did that."

Really that's all you got? If Zod said "Clark you're a great guy" he'd go and save Krypton because he got a compliment. That's literally how you made it sound like.

"And as stated above, he hesitates for a brief moment when Zod begs him to leave the Matrix alone"

Wow! One small 2 second moment where he hesitated means he was like that the whole film! Amazing!

"I think Ledger's Joker is over hyped, but that doesn't mean the things that happen in the movie and the themes that played out didn't happen."

For the last time, you saying something happens doesn't mean jack if you fail to explain why it works. Get that through your head.

"well tell me why I should care?". You're moving the goal post"

That's been my point the entire time you're just too stubborn to actually understand that.

"I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean he should be depressed but still try and do something, but the way it's written now is that he should jsut loose all home and not stay strong for his people implying he should just give up."

Not at all. Zod showing emotion would make him even stronger to his people. People who are emotional and passionate about things make you emotional and passionate about things I feel. But you just coming off as an archetype isn't gonna do it for me.

"A- Bad example since Thor played it up for jokes in both movies for the most part"

Nah bro watch Ragnarok again. Thor uses jokes to cope. He even creates facades for himself to hide behind. "You're being a very bad friend" that sounds funny and is funny but when you think about it Thor is really just wanting Hulk to be there for him.

"Okay, but you act as if that's the only way to do it. We've seen characters who hold in their emotions and then blow, those kind of characters also work."

Sure but it's so much easier to relate or sympathize with people who can show emotion. And for characters it's simply better. If you come off like a robot (you pretty much compared Zod to a robot eariler) it's hard to garner those things because of how disconnected they are from everyone else.

"But even so, this comment is 100% horse shit and you know it, at some point you would get bored of one food type given time. If you were to eat your favorite food 24/7 for months on end, it would get to you"

Nope. I would happily eat Skittles every single day and have brownies everyday too. Spaghetti too.

"Without the anchor of Zod to his kryptonian heritage, he fully embraced humanity."

But he doesn't grow. Him killing Zod is never addressed. He doesn't talk about it. It doesn't change him as a person. He doesn't try to improve himself as a person after taking a life. He makes a joke and goes to the Daily Bugle.

This is also why I dsilike Batman killing Two-Face in TDK because he never acknowledges he just took a life. He was more concerned about taking the blame for ctimes he didn't commit.

"NO, playing a role in a movie means that the entire movie centers around it and deals with it."

No movie has one theme every movie has several themes and Thanos role as an abusive father and daddy of the universe are big factors to one of the films themes. This video explains the theme perfectly: https://youtu.be/72QQsWm7yFk

"All you have to do is name one comic book movie villain dynamic that is that and we could end this. Just give me one at this point"

Again, it's different in the way genre and character wise but a concept will always be the same concept. That concept has played a part in multiple films. So it's nothing fresh since it's the same concept. You gotta understand this isn't a knock on MOS or Zod. Thanos plan/concept isn't original at all. It's so hard to be original in films nowadays because everything has been brought to the movies. You can like the execution of the concept tho as I like the execution of IW's concept. But I don't go around saying it's original or fresh because I know it's not.

Titan is so much more tense. You just can feel it in the air. The not so powerful team is waiting for the inevitable failure, and the arrival of Thanos.

While the MoS battle may be more over the top and "spectacular"; I just prefer the tense moments in Titan, where you just know they won´t win.

I never said it didn't have any themes, the thing that set the movie up was what made Zod an interesting villain and the themes that play a role in him and the movie. Also, you're the on calling me a liar for statin

"You state that he's too traumatized to see they were right, except Titan is dead and Gamora's planet is alive and prospering. He literally kills Gamora because he truly believes there is no other way, you're completely lying about Thanos's character here."

How do you know they are prospering? Because Thanos told Gamora so? He'd tell her anything to try and sell his plan. Even worked for awhile until Gamora snapped out of it. And yes, the other Titans are right. They didn't just kick him out of Titan because he wants to kill people but because it simply would not have worked. This has been proven. It's a fact.

No it hasn't been proven at all. Even here on Earth we hear about people wanting to wipe out half the population because growth is too much. We have things like population control in animals which works, that's a real fact. Give me facts that it hasn't worked

It's simple logic that the film expects us to know.

Pfft, okay. Delusional comment if I ever saw one.

It's not. You do know that Thanos plan is flawed and would never work, right?

Except it does in real life, so you're wrong.

She does. When Thanos starts going on about his plan she says "you don't know that" and he doesn't actually rebuttal her point. He simply gives a narcissist like response by saying "I'm the only one who knows that."

When I said she didn't give a rebuttal I'm talking about how it has worked in the past. That was a discussion about whether it would still work on a mass scale and Thanos believes it will cus it has worked.

That's what you've been doing. This whole argument is about you preferring Zod and me preferring Thanos. What do you think it is we're even talking about?

You're comments that I quoted were vauge points, not solid factual aspects of the movie. It's like saying I liked his voice or I liked the way he looked. That's what made them obscene

That's not how debates work. You can say things that happen in a movie and it be factual but it's irrelevant if that's all there is to it.

It's how a proper debate should be done when debating qualities of a movie. What each action makes someone feel is way to subjective to properly debate and we'd go around in circles. I wouldn't care to continue debating for this long if that's how it would be, I'd just crack a bunch of zingers and move on. It's about trying to be as objective as you possibly can even when it comes to movies

Ofc it does. Thanos assigned himself a prophecy (destiny as he calls it) and he's going to complete it as much as he can.

That's not self fulfilling you dingus. Self Fulfilling is when there is an order or a prophecy of sorts, and his actions lead to the downfall the way it was described. Thanos's planet died from overpopulation, not from killing have of life.

You didn't debunk anything I said. Again, it was never apparent Zod acts this way because he was created that way. Can you at least show me a line of dialogue that even suggest that?

His tie to Earth is his effin' son lmao. Also proof that Earth could be terraformed and not something like the moon?

Zod doesn't know how Jor-El feels about Earth or if he even cares, all he knows is tthat he cares about Clark. You're implying an connection to Earth and Zod doesn't ever talk about doing what he;s going to do to Earth out of spite. He even debates Jor-El about it and it's never even hinted at. It's funny how you claim to know this which it's never stated but then miss other things which are.

It's very obvious you didn't understand what that meant so let me remind you. I said IW doesn't spoon feed you its *themes* with dialogue like MOS.

Dude, first you're saying they aren't there now you're saying they spoon feed you it. You're lying out your ass

Again, why?

Please be more clear. That paragraph summarized an entire point well and you just bluntly asking "why?" isn't a good rebuttal. I'm tired of having to go back and read the context of your own posts when I very cleary chop up your statements and thoroughly respond to each.

When did he say he was gonna help Zod? And he wanted Zod to stop because he doesn't want to kill anybody. I already mentioned that.

It's implied because he knows what he is and Zod needs his genes. By going he's doing both helping them and saving humanity. It's not an either or situation at this point.

You aren't debunking anything. Why does Superman care for humanity besides bringing up stuff thats part of our ethos.

Because

A) he was raised that way. One thing I think the Tornado scene was trying to show is how Pa Kent is a good man in how he goes around helping in a time of crisis despite telling Clark not to. Clark learned how to be a good man from his parents through their actions. Sure the scene was flawed, but it did sorta get that point across

B) Because despite his lack of place in society, he did see the good in humanity. In his parents, his friends, random good people and Lois. It wasn't always there, but those small nuggets are enough.

Really that's all you got? If Zod said "Clark you're a great guy" he'd go and save Krypton because he got a compliment. That's literally how you made it sound like.

So a compliment=to "saving his life"? Okay then. And it would depend on what saving Krypton would mean.Either way, these small moments aren't meant to be taken as the only good things in his life, I'm sure many good things have happened to Clark but it's just these small moments that add up and matter. We also got the moments with his mom to show that connection to humanity or the fact that Pete Ross never ratted out Clark to random people, only when Lois came with a story of having met him.

Wow! One small 2 second moment where he hesitated means he was like that the whole film! Amazing!

He talked through with it with a priest and he hesitated there again. And to be fair, when Krypton came shit moved quickly, it wasn't like he could talk about it for whole parts of the movie. Plus, he wanted to live up to his dads mission and was going to try but shit hit the fan and it didn't work out that way. SO he wanted to do it again, but the way things played out didn't give him time to consider the options. It's even more fitting to CLark's character because he spent so much time pondering his life goal, that he had to grow and change and decide quickly cus of Zod. And he still came out on top because Zod was doomed to fail.

For the last time, you saying something happens doesn't mean jack if you fail to explain why it works. Get that through your head.

No you dingus, I'm tired of breaking it down why it works. You just say "meh, I didn't feel anything" after I've broken it down multiple times. And the way the replies have been has got me lost at this point. The only thing I recall you wanting me to sell you on was Zod's lack of emotion and why it works. You later on in a post agrees reserved people does work, but that you prefer a range of emotion. If you can remember any other things You wanted me to sell you on, I'll try again, but at this point this is getting off the rails.

EDIT- And other thing you wanted me to clarify was why Zod lacked choice. It's clear because when the one character who understood Krypton's failure told him why Zod's plan wasn't going to work, but he refused to listen. Just like the council refused to listen. Jor-El even told him he was no different than them but he didn't listen. Zod was a product of the same choices Krypton made to it's downfall, Clark represented choice and adapting, which Zod lacked. He's dead, and Clark isn't, there's the proof.

List anything else you wanted me to sell you on. Maybe you'll actually bring up something I can't sell, hopefully this is the last time I gotta hear this shit

That's been my point the entire time you're just too stubborn to actually understand that.

Not it hasn't, For most of this debate in the beginning it was flat out denial, now you're saying why you should care.

Not at all. Zod showing emotion would make him even stronger to his people. People who are emotional and passionate about things make you emotional and passionate about things I feel. But you just coming off as an archetype isn't gonna do it for me.

You're injecting your own point of view to a society that is nothing like our own... do you not see a problem with that? It's like saying "I worked with the jews to fix the economy" when you're leader of the nazi party. Even Zod's crew displayed that same cold emotionless. Further proving my point that Zod comes from a race of cold people, even in their final moments the council and Jor-El displayed a cold and calm demeanor.

Nah bro watch Ragnarok again. Thor uses jokes to cope. He even creates facades for himself to hide behind. "You're being a very bad friend" that sounds funny and is funny but when you think about it Thor is really just wanting Hulk to be there for him.

You're not supposed to think to much about it. It's like Dark Humor, you laugh at the morbid humor, but if you think about it too much it could be depressing. You are never meant to cry, you are meant to laugh. That is the directors intention.

Sure but it's so much easier to relate or sympathize with people who can show emotion. And for characters it's simply better. If you come off like a robot (you pretty much compared Zod to a robot eariler) it's hard to garner those things because of how disconnected they are from everyone else.

And my point is that something breaking the norm is much more noteworthy. It's meant to catch us off guard because it's not normal, We understand Zod's mission and we understand (well, maybe you don't) why he's this cold person. When he breaks it it's more startling. But at this point I just wanna get my point that it can work, whether you like the other way more is up to you.

Nope. I would happily eat Skittles every single day and have brownies everyday too. Spaghetti too.

You're already bending the rules to multiple foods, the theory is one.

But he doesn't grow. Him killing Zod is never addressed. He doesn't talk about it. It doesn't change him as a person. He doesn't try to improve himself as a person after taking a life. He makes a joke and goes to the Daily Bugle.

This is also why I dsilike Batman killing Two-Face in TDK because he never acknowledges he just took a life. He was more concerned about taking the blame for ctimes he didn't commit.

Well that's just flat out wrong. As much as i think the movie could have matched the tone better, he does change. The kind of person he was at the beginning was one who doubted himself and lacked a purpose. At the end however, even in his discussion with the military and doing what he did to their satellite showed a more confident demeanor. It's a night and day comparison, it couldn't be more obvious he changed.

No movie has one theme every movie has several themes and Thanos role as an abusive father and daddy of the universe are big factors to one of the films themes. This video explains the theme perfectly: https://youtu.be/72QQsWm7yFk

fair enough, but the video goes one step further and shows how the theme actually plays a role outside of Thanos and is reflective of Tony as well.

Again, it's different in the way genre and character wise but a concept will always be the same concept. That concept has played a part in multiple films. So it's nothing fresh since it's the same concept. You gotta understand this isn't a knock on MOS or Zod. Thanos plan/concept isn't original at all. It's so hard to be original in films nowadays because everything has been brought to the movies. You can like the execution of the concept tho as I like the execution of IW's concept. But I don't go around saying it's original or fresh because I know it's not.

Yes, the concept of nature vs nuture has existed in other mediums, but my point was that how it plays a part in Zod's character and Clark's is a new spin on a villain who is trying to do the best for his people and was designed with a purpose. . But you can't provide one example. I'll be even more liberal and say pick a villain form any movie who has that kind of relationship with his hero? Just one, it's all you gotta do at this point. Just... one. We could argue about everything else, but this is the main argument I have for Zod. SO yeah... just one.

@darthvaderrocks: also, stop replying in the format you currently are. It's freaking annoying, use a PC, and if you are, learn how to quote things to separate it. It's a freaking eyesore. Probably won't respond if you don't format it well

@saintwildcard: "I never said it didn't have any themes, the thing that set the movie up was what made Zod an interesting villain and the themes that play a role in him and the movie. Also, you're the on calling me a liar for statin"

Actually you seemed to say Thanos didn't play into the films themes which is a lie anyway.

"No it hasn't been proven at all. Even here on Earth we hear about people wanting to wipe out half the population because growth is too much. We have things like population control in animals which works, that's a real fact. Give me facts that it hasn't worked"

Yeah, I can tell you're one of these people who think Thanos is right. Anyway just watch this video: https://youtu.be/iV18Xx5EkaE

"When I said she didn't give a rebuttal I'm talking about how it has worked in the past. That was a discussion about whether it would still work on a mass scale and Thanos believes it will cus it has worked."

Except it hasn't. No proof it does other than the person wanting to be right saying it does.

"You're comments that I quoted were vauge points, not solid factual aspects of the movie. It's like saying I liked his voice or I liked the way he looked. That's what made them obscene"

And you can say that. Why do you think people like Vader so much?

"That's not self fulfilling you dingus. Self Fulfilling is when there is an order or a prophecy of sorts, and his actions lead to the downfall the way it was described. Thanos's planet died from overpopulation, not from killing have of life."

And Thanos thought he could save them and he failed.

"Zod doesn't know how Jor-El feels about Earth or if he even cares, all he knows is tthat he cares about Clark"

I never said Zod hated Earth. I said he attacked Earth because Clark was sent there by Jor-El.

"Dude, first you're saying they aren't there now you're saying they spoon feed you it. You're lying out your ass"

When did I ever say MOS had no themes? Don't confuse me saying characters have no arcs either.

"That paragraph summarized an entire point well and you just bluntly asking "why?" isn't a good rebuttal. I'm tired of having to go back and read the context of your own posts when I very cleary chop up your statements and thoroughly respond to each."

You said Clark said he would stay with his mom but why. A give me reasons beyond our own ethos.

"It's implied because he knows what he is and Zod needs his genes. By going he's doing both helping them and saving humanity. It's not an either or situation at this point"

So you got from MOS that Superman wanted to help Zod because he simply knew Zod needed him? That's what you're telling me even though thats never made clear in the film. I mean, can you even offer a line of dialogue that would support your claim?

"A) he was raised that way. One thing I think the Tornado scene was trying to show is how Pa Kent is a good man in how he goes around helping in a time of crisis despite telling Clark not to. Clark learned how to be a good man from his parents through their actions. Sure the scene was flawed, but it did sorta get that point across

B) Because despite his lack of place in society, he did see the good in humanity. In his parents, his friends, random good people and Lois. It wasn't always there, but those small nuggets are enough."

Ok but that's flawed. Just because you get the occasional smile or encounter nice people doesn't mean much. Clark never tells us why he loves humanity and why he wants to save it. The best thing about Clark in the comics is he loves humanity and he often will say why he loves them. He doesn't need reasons like "well because it's the right thing to do".

"He talked through with it with a priest and he hesitated there again."

Ok but why does he decide Earth deserves to be trusted? And he turns himself in the next scene anyway so not much of a hesitation.

"And to be fair, when Krypton came shit moved quickly, it wasn't like he could talk about it for whole parts of the movie."

Yes he could since it's a movie. If a movie needs more scenes to help flesh out characters than give them scenes. Character is supposed to come first. It's why we watch movies at the end of the day.

"The only thing I recall you wanting me to sell you on was Zod's lack of emotion and why it works. You later on in a post agrees reserved people does work, but that you prefer a range of emotion."

It works but not often. It also doesn't work for robot like characters who are one note for most of the film then have one random scene where they show layers.

"And other thing you wanted me to clarify was why Zod lacked choice. It's clear because when the one character who understood Krypton's failure told him why Zod's plan wasn't going to work, but he refused to listen. Just like the council refused to listen. Jor-El even told him he was no different than them but he didn't listen. Zod was a product of the same choices Krypton made to it's downfall, Clark represented choice and adapting, which Zod lacked. He's dead, and Clark isn't, there's the proof."

And that's why he doesn't have an arc which was my first main part I think. I mean you're pretty much agreeing he doesn't have an arc you just don't care which is fine. But for me character arcs are essential to characters. They either got to change people around them or have an arc of their own. Zod falls flat on that.

"You're injecting your own point of view to a society that is nothing like our own... do you not see a problem with that?"

There is no problem with it. From a character standpoint you should want something from that particular character that you think is best or could work well. Almost offering a new idea on how much better that character could have been. Zod could have and would have been better this way. It seems you're just contempt with a character the way they are. Not really caring why certain choices would be better for that character.

"You're not supposed to think to much about it. It's like Dark Humor, you laugh at the morbid humor, but if you think about it too much it could be depressing. You are never meant to cry, you are meant to laugh. That is the directors intention."

Yeah it's called analyzing it. It even helps my argument since Thor says something about friends supposed to be supporting each other before that line. It's kinda clear on what he was trying to get across, it's just in a funny way that most wouldn't think back on it.

"We understand Zod's mission and we understand (well, maybe you don't) why he's this cold person. When he breaks it it's more startling. But at this point I just wanna get my point that it can work, whether you like the other way more is up to you."

I understand why he's cold I simply do not like it. It's just not particularly interesting and that's all there is to it.

"You're already bending the rules to multiple foods, the theory is one."

Was never a rule but give me Skittles.

"At the end however, even in his discussion with the military and doing what he did to their satellite showed a more confident demeanor."

No, I'm talking about Zod's death. How does Zod's death change Clark on a personal level? Don't give me "he's the last of his kind" or anything like that.

"but the video goes one step further and shows how the theme actually plays a role outside of Thanos and is reflective of Tony as well."

Which is great still helps my point since Thanos is directly responsible for the films themes something you said he wasn't.

And as for your last point again, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Little changes like Zod being a villain and programed are there but it still plays a part in the overall concept of nature vs nirtue. Like there is no villain who's 8 feet tall who saw his planet die and decided to try and fix overpopulation is different but the main concept which is killing to save others or the consequentialism philsophy isn't new. It's the same concept just applied to different characters with different backgrounds.

@saintwildcard: You don't have to respond and I don't particularly care if you don't like the format. Confused on why it took you this long to bring it up tho

And I won't. Because the longer this has gone on, the more this conversation has splintered and become bigger and it's cause the conversation to loose some context and it makes it harder to go back and look for things. It's a freaking eyesore of a really ugly word wall

@saintwildcard: I don't see how but ok. You do you ?

Right before he snaps his fingers "You should've aimed for the head". I'm sorry how is he not teasing Thor there?? Your arguments are about as weak as Thanos's arc.

That's not a joke, it's a statement of fact.

@godzilla44: It's not teasing. It's not presented in a joking manner either.

OP: Metropolis battle.

In regards to Zod vs Thanos:

Zod was a slave to his programming as much as Thanos was a slave to his madness.

Zod and his crew had a realistic reason why they needed to encounter Superman on Earth. They were desperate to survive.

Thanos, on the other hand, had no realistic reason to kill half of the life in the universe other than his madness. He doesn't even need to do that to survive. He already had the most powerful artifact in the MCU. He can just teleport away to another galaxy, to another planet where he can be king or something and live in peace, and leave the rest of the universe in peace without killing half of it. Marvel even tried to make Thanos show emotions and sympathy as if he actually cares. That's just a red herring and I'm not buying it. You don't go killing half of the life in the universe and say you care, that's just bullsh*. That's not caring, that's just being disingenuous.

I can understand, relate and even sympathize with Zod's desperation to survive, but I can't, in any way, sympathize with Thanos' madness.

Thanos, maybe, is more badass because he won in IW (who wouldn't, he had the 6 IG), but Zod is a much deeper and better written character.

@darthvaderrocks: your post is very confusing. Do you know what apathy means?

The one that isn't a mindnumbing PIS fest.

BoM is overrated, it's litteraly just super strong people hitting each other while flying. A step up from Thor vs Hulk, but nothing too amazing.

The Titan battle.