thevarioty436

better fight than last time round, I would say widow and hawkeye are still fodder, cap and war machine used as good destractions, hulkbuster, vision, thor and hulk would be the main focus of the fight for superman

Superman wins: widow no effect, hawkeye shoots explosive arrows that don't phase him, cap and war machine does get his attention but are made quick work of, hulkbuster really isn't built to go up against a guy who can melt his suit at such high temperatures and the equal strength to dismantle it, and maybe too slow to catch off guard, vision and thor seem equal in strength, vision has higher physical durability, not sure about internal, superman takes thor and vision, knocks thor out and vision can't physically harm superman from what i've seen except for maybe the gem, his flight is impressive, and his hammer swing is too, hulk either get's bfr'd or knocked out after a good brawl

Avenger's win: same outcome until the vision and thor bit, since superman has no way of completely killing vision from what we've seen and heard so far, him and thor can use their ranged attacks to strike superman while hulk keeps superman busy physically, the one thing that is certain to knock superman out is thor's hammer strikes, enough of those and it should be a knockout just like when superman got knocked out by faora namek, if they work as a team in that way exchanging who will strike superman with the hammer between vision and thor it should work

Other than thor's incredible lightning feat in aou which disintegrated an entire city, his strength feats are still not on par with any of the kryptonians, his durability is a bit better but still wasn't as tested as the kryptonian, didn't see any cuts on his face this time around though, fighting style has improved and developed, i would say best combatant out of all of them so far.

Breaking down how his lightning feat actually works though:

Circumstances: city was crumbling, can't remember if iron man was in range if he was, his armor survived the lighting attack, so did ultron. lighting was very impressive in range, but still earth and whatever that city was made of isn't nowhere near as durable as kryptonians, so i doubt it'll disintegrate a kryptonian, it would knock them out certainly imo, so that's one way team 1 can win

vision was very graceful when he fought, reminded me of superman ironically, but strength feats aren't even on thors standards, durability should speak for itself? usually shouldn't but this is a special case, he can maneuver in the air better than thor, much more of a graceful flyer, the mind gem seems to emit something that helped disintegrate vibrainium, he showed density shift? hard to tell, they didn't focus on it that much in the movie

conclusion:

Team 1 has 1 maybe 2 ways to win

Team 2 have several

would have been more of a close fight if the hulk and hulkbuster where in this fight but i say team 2 takes it

whedon said in an interview quicksilver will be nearly as fast/just as fast as a bullet, that's comparable to superman speeds more so than flash, i think however, while faora and superman can move at those speeds, QS will be able to think at those speeds like suggested by other interviews

Spiderman has got way higher stats, he's a shiz load stronger, he's faster, better senses, thus reaction time, and if he went for the kill, he'll get it

@zzombie13: Ah i see, haha! Zombies are always awesome, yes i've noticed how Zack Snyder tackles cult fan favorites

@zzombie13: The Iron man example is a perfect example, i understand where your coming from, not all changes are relevant and they shouldn't change things for the sake of change, the key things i've seen change in the mythos presented in Man of Steel was now Kal-el was truly special, he was a kryptonian who was born naturally and has freedom of choice, Lois Lane is an intelligent reporter and finds out who Clark is, Superman killed Zod in a defining way, the new suit was explained more solidly, added to that were messages which where important to the character of superman, the tone was different also but since it was a reboot where you're meant to discard the old continuity and recreate a film in a new fresh take i wasn't surprised, i actually enjoyed it more because of it.

In my opinion i really do believe that these changes were necessary in most cases and did improve upon what has come before. i honestly don't think they made any changes that were really for the worst, Zack Snyders actually a director who isn't a big fan of change, not saying he hates it but he usually sticks close to the source material, Nolan on the other hand likes a realistic take on things, i think the changes made worked well for Superman, gave us a realistic take but didn't didn't stretch the character to accommodate the changes, instead worked it in not apologizing for the character like some superman writers do.

Overall i understand where your coming from, i don't think apologies are needed, it's always good to hear opinions from the otherside of the spectrum, i see you enjoyed the film to a certain point, and it's fine not to like it wholeheartedly, movies are subjective first and foremost, i just respond to people who i believe are stating things that are in the movie which are not, and things that are not in the movie which are. Zack Snyder is a great visual director, i like and love all his movies, and it's nice to know his film is being appreciated as a spectacle if not anything else, i think you give good reasons for why that's not a bad thing. Thanks for your time again sir.

@divine_disorder: Yes i thought if i refer to your comments explanation, i may as well let you know, i guess i did end up helping you understand the scene a little bit more in process lol, but sorry for bothering you all the same.

@zzombie13: Costner dying is simply part of the mythology as we all know, so what direction they took was gonna be hard to keep fresh and bring new meaning while also reinterpreting what the original mythologies reason was for father Kent to die

If i could elaborate what i meant by that before i directly address your comment sir, when i said bring new meaning i wasn't talking about the overall concept if the world was ready for him and vise versa, that was more for a the wider scope of the movies message, the core message in that scene was "he shouldn't think twice to save someone" the old message was "for all his power he can't save everyone" well i think that message was the most clear, and one of the most powerful messages in the movie, however most misunderstood it when it really popped out, pretty much everybody whether criticizing it or giving it praise addresses this, that message wasn't lost in translation nor sidelined for a weaker message, now i keep saying this message was shown but i'm not saying when so i'll get to it.

When the world engine was destroying metropolis, why didn't superman save anyone? he was on the other side of the world destroying the world engine When zod was fighting superman in the city why didn't superman save anyone? he was dealing with the primary threat, stopping zod."Why does Clark Kent, the man of tomorrow who can do what no human can, feel so impotent to stop the destruction or even trying to lessen the impact of the Kryptonian threat to the humanity he seeks to cohabitate with?" "for all his power he can't save everyone" (and destruction in a superman fight is nothing new, comics, animation, and movies, in fact if superman 2 and 4 had the special effects of today, you would notice the large amount of destruction more), now you may say the puzzles fit but why switch such an intimate but life changing message and set it up so destructively and switch it for the other message? the other message still fits into the core essential characteristics of superman, he doesn't think twice to save someone, even a guy who shoots at him with lethal intentions, shown later in the movie he saves him, the old message was placed in a realistic destructive world where not everyone can be saved.

The fact that the old message is more universal that life is fragile and life is precious is why it was switched for a more intimate message adding to the character of Clark where he won't think twice to save someone, and this message still can be recognized universally. They haven't change or undercut the message, they just reinterpreted it in a new light from a new angle. "Why" is the most important question to ask, it's when you ask this question you try to find answers, when superman was killed for the first time in the comics, the question asked then was "why" when superman killed zod the question we asked was "why" whether we get it straight away or need some time, we do find out more about the character.

For the record i don't think of you as an old fan who doesn't accept change sir, i think i should respect you even more just knowing you knew the character for this much longer, and have enjoyed understanding glimpses of your interpretation of this rich character. Hopefully the follow up will appeal to you and do the characters justice in your opinion.

@divine_disorder: Costner dying is simply part of the mythology as we all know, so what direction they took was gonna be hard to keep fresh and bring new meaning while also reinterpreting what the original mythologies reason was for father Kent to die, that being said, if you understood the scene you would know Clark was in his teens at that time, he was portrayed as a child listening to his dad, not understanding the full scope when he didn't take action, the message was that he won't make that mistake again, and he won't hesitate to save another human being again, in Kent's perspective, he was protective of Clark, emotionally, physically, which was a key part of his character, all he knows is that it's too early for his son to be revealed and is not ready for his son to handle the intense scrutiny under once his existence is known. The key message surrounding Jonathen kent in this movie was balancing the messages of when willClark be ready for the world? and when will the world be ready for Superman?

as for the powers part, @divine_disorder rounded up most the points above.

Characters like Zod and company they are more personal to superman, and the story would be mainly focused on him, the other characters fans wouldn't be happy, i really disagree that this should be considered a league level event just because of the scope of the story, Thor just saved potentially the universe in the dark world, GOTG just saved the galaxy from what I've heard (still need to see that) and the films don't necessarily need to raise the bar with scope but can do by the story itself, just look at the winter soldier, still big in scope but the story is what got to people, not because of depth necessarily but you get the concept, the rest of your pressing questions, just aren't that pressing, the absence of the league, green lantern could be off in space, flash could be streaking in photos saving people in flashbacks in the metropolis event, or maybe still hasn't been established, the rest such as Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Cyborg seem to be getting addressed in the sequel, and these are just problems you have that you personally have brought up for yourself, if you thought through them, you would see these aren't really plot holes nor problems for the DCCU...yet, i agree with the rest of your opinions to a degree.

Overall i would like to say, this was the best superman origin story put on screen, and one of the most thought provoking superhero movies, and one thing you can't deny is that Man of steel did shake things up, whether good or bad with the messages in the movie. So i disagree it's just a dumb blockbuster full of spectacle and nothing else. And using your words there are thousands of things that work consistently "if you put it under a microscope" ignorant to use that sentence and not know how to 'walk the walk.' and i'm not trying to use the word 'ignorant' in a attacking way just saying.

56 pages!!