Except the dog was poisoned and sad. It wasn’t “awww doggie” it was “awww sad doggie.” Also Supergirl didn’t have her powers for like 3/4ths of the movie (due to her character’s own stupidity). Like they couldn’t write a decent story if she had powers.
Yeah that’s pretty nonsense though. Superman can literally die for days/weeks and come back to life with the sun’s power. Krypto should be able to also.
It’s a general complaint I have about some of the mainstream attempts at Superman. “We’ve got to make him/her weaker.” Is a common theme that has been done way too many times. Because in these people’s minds, there is nothing interesting that can happen if Superman/Supergirl actually has their powers and wins. The drama, for these non-Superman fans writing the script, is in the hero losing their powers. They don’t actually understand what’s appealing about Superman in the first place.
I know what you’re talking about but here it’s rooted in actual character development. Nobody took her powers away, she wasn’t taking care of herself, was reckless, and suffered the consequences. Sure at some point there was Kryptonite involved but even that could’ve been avoided if she had been more level-headed and less self-destructive.
I would like to see a situation that cannot be solved by strength alone. It feels like lazy writing to take that strength away. Kryptonite as a plot device is kinda old. But if you use it for a few seconds here or there, like Superman (2025) that’s great. What I definitely do not want is a movie about Superman without his powers. Powerless for a situation? Yes! Powerless for 75% of the movie? No!
Good, because this movie isn’t about either Superman without his powers or Supergirl without her powers. It’s about a very young adult sabotaging herself because of her pain and overcoming her self-imposed restrictions to save others.
I mean I agree with them. There’s nothing interesting about a character who’s invincible and can do almost anything with ease. I always found Superman painfully boring.
I think the issue was more DC’s power scaling issues. It’s kinda hard to write a compelling story for Superman or Batman at their peak, because they are, for the most part, invincible and flawless according to DC. I suspect that her not having the ability to access her powers for 3/4 of the movie was an effort to make her seem like a Marvel superhero with flaws and relatability. Unfortunately, DC doesn’t know how to do that, as Marvel doesn’t even know how to do that consistently. Power creep is a real problem if you can’t just magic away the hero’s basic invulnerability.
This is one of the issues that Invincible tackled quite nicely at least until the end of season 2. I haven’t gotten around to watching season 3.
It also kind of made the villains seem a bit daft. The rule seemed to be red sun = no powers, green sun = kills her, yellow sun = super powers and the main villain seemed to be pretty powerful no matter where he was, and they establish early on that there are lots of red sun planets where people live, so literally just hide out anywhere without a yellow sun and you’re 100% safe?
Couldn’t get past season 1 of Invincible. You won’t like what I thought about it. But I’m a Superman fan who doesn’t like excessive violence, so hopefully you can understand where I’m coming from.
Nah, I get it. I wouldn’t have gotten to season 2 if I had watched season 1 before season 2 was already out. Season 1 ended on the WORST POSSIBLE down note that they could, and I think they did that intentionally.
Minor spoilers: it’s not like they ended season 2 on a good note, just that Nolan and Markus do finally find a common ground against Nolan’s objectives.
Maybe, maybe not. The Boys was written from 2006-2012 in comicbook form, and they followed all storylines almost exactly as written. The ending of The Boys was predetermined because they were adapting an already written story that they didn’t want to change.
Invincible was written over the timeframe of 2003-2014 in comicbook form. They have already ignored major plot points to make Invincible a bit more palatable to a wider audience. I suspect that they will end it in much the same way the original ended, with Nolan and Markus being the undisputed protectors of Earth, but not having any real power on Earth, via actual laws and standings.
I think that’s kind of the main issue with any character that has Superman-level powers, they’re so OP that it sort of limits what you can do to keep the story interesting. You basically have:
Try to make the powers irrelevant and embroil them in a complicated psychological/moral issue (great if it works but difficult to pull off and not especially visually interesting for a superhero movie.)
Create an enemy with the same power level as them (then you just basically have two invincible characters bouncing off each other and smashing everything around them (visually interesting but essentially no stakes.)
Have them lose their powers in some convoluted way and then get them back at the climax of the movie to do an ass-kicking scene (which seems to be the default.)
I think it’s the same problem that The Boys TV show had - at first there was kind of a tension about them just being normal people and Homelander being so powerful that he could hear their heartbeats from half a mile away and level the entire city they were hiding in if he knew they were there, but the longer it went on the more preposterous it got that he hadn’t just squished them yet. Especially when the show has them meet face-to-face multiple times and he either lets them go because reasons or they escape somehow.
Except the dog was poisoned and sad. It wasn’t “awww doggie” it was “awww sad doggie.” Also Supergirl didn’t have her powers for like 3/4ths of the movie (due to her character’s own stupidity). Like they couldn’t write a decent story if she had powers.
and she recovered from the poison with yellow sun power, but the dog couldn’t?
Maybe this would have been better written with ChapGPT.
Yes! That was plot hole that frustrated me early on.
They said that moving Krypto would accelerate the poison so he would have died before they got to a yellow sun.
Yeah that’s pretty nonsense though. Superman can literally die for days/weeks and come back to life with the sun’s power. Krypto should be able to also.
Comic lore need not apply to films. I think it’s fair for Kara to assume that dead is dead.
23-year-old with abandonment and self-worth issues behaves less than reasonably, more at 11.
It’s a general complaint I have about some of the mainstream attempts at Superman. “We’ve got to make him/her weaker.” Is a common theme that has been done way too many times. Because in these people’s minds, there is nothing interesting that can happen if Superman/Supergirl actually has their powers and wins. The drama, for these non-Superman fans writing the script, is in the hero losing their powers. They don’t actually understand what’s appealing about Superman in the first place.
I know what you’re talking about but here it’s rooted in actual character development. Nobody took her powers away, she wasn’t taking care of herself, was reckless, and suffered the consequences. Sure at some point there was Kryptonite involved but even that could’ve been avoided if she had been more level-headed and less self-destructive.
I would like to see a situation that cannot be solved by strength alone. It feels like lazy writing to take that strength away. Kryptonite as a plot device is kinda old. But if you use it for a few seconds here or there, like Superman (2025) that’s great. What I definitely do not want is a movie about Superman without his powers. Powerless for a situation? Yes! Powerless for 75% of the movie? No!
Good, because this movie isn’t about either Superman without his powers or Supergirl without her powers. It’s about a very young adult sabotaging herself because of her pain and overcoming her self-imposed restrictions to save others.
I mean I agree with them. There’s nothing interesting about a character who’s invincible and can do almost anything with ease. I always found Superman painfully boring.
I think the issue was more DC’s power scaling issues. It’s kinda hard to write a compelling story for Superman or Batman at their peak, because they are, for the most part, invincible and flawless according to DC. I suspect that her not having the ability to access her powers for 3/4 of the movie was an effort to make her seem like a Marvel superhero with flaws and relatability. Unfortunately, DC doesn’t know how to do that, as Marvel doesn’t even know how to do that consistently. Power creep is a real problem if you can’t just magic away the hero’s basic invulnerability.
This is one of the issues that Invincible tackled quite nicely at least until the end of season 2. I haven’t gotten around to watching season 3.
It also kind of made the villains seem a bit daft. The rule seemed to be red sun = no powers, green sun = kills her, yellow sun = super powers and the main villain seemed to be pretty powerful no matter where he was, and they establish early on that there are lots of red sun planets where people live, so literally just hide out anywhere without a yellow sun and you’re 100% safe?
Couldn’t get past season 1 of Invincible. You won’t like what I thought about it. But I’m a Superman fan who doesn’t like excessive violence, so hopefully you can understand where I’m coming from.
Nah, I get it. I wouldn’t have gotten to season 2 if I had watched season 1 before season 2 was already out. Season 1 ended on the WORST POSSIBLE down note that they could, and I think they did that intentionally.
Minor spoilers: it’s not like they ended season 2 on a good note, just that Nolan and Markus do finally find a common ground against Nolan’s objectives.
It won’t end in a satisfying way. They never do. Game of Thrones or The Boys or any violence-focused show. Terrible endings, all of them.
EDIT: Breaking Bad did okay by killing everyone, including an unrealistic machine gun in the trunk.
Maybe, maybe not. The Boys was written from 2006-2012 in comicbook form, and they followed all storylines almost exactly as written. The ending of The Boys was predetermined because they were adapting an already written story that they didn’t want to change.
Invincible was written over the timeframe of 2003-2014 in comicbook form. They have already ignored major plot points to make Invincible a bit more palatable to a wider audience. I suspect that they will end it in much the same way the original ended, with Nolan and Markus being the undisputed protectors of Earth, but not having any real power on Earth, via actual laws and standings.
Apparently the machine gun thing actually works. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=06t_KP7y8Ao
I think that’s kind of the main issue with any character that has Superman-level powers, they’re so OP that it sort of limits what you can do to keep the story interesting. You basically have:
Try to make the powers irrelevant and embroil them in a complicated psychological/moral issue (great if it works but difficult to pull off and not especially visually interesting for a superhero movie.)
Create an enemy with the same power level as them (then you just basically have two invincible characters bouncing off each other and smashing everything around them (visually interesting but essentially no stakes.)
Have them lose their powers in some convoluted way and then get them back at the climax of the movie to do an ass-kicking scene (which seems to be the default.)
I think it’s the same problem that The Boys TV show had - at first there was kind of a tension about them just being normal people and Homelander being so powerful that he could hear their heartbeats from half a mile away and level the entire city they were hiding in if he knew they were there, but the longer it went on the more preposterous it got that he hadn’t just squished them yet. Especially when the show has them meet face-to-face multiple times and he either lets them go because reasons or they escape somehow.