Is Man of Steel is a movie version of Final Fantasy 4

[FriskySwiss]

Now I know what you're thinking, "What are you drinking, Frisky?" The answer is, I honestly don't know, but I HAVE had time to compare the 2 very closely and here's the shocking results:

- Both protagonists are from a different world.
- Both protagonists are different from the world's population. (Superman is made a superhero by the Sun's rays, Cecil is made a Paladin because of his Luminarian purity)
- Both are "a bridge between two worlds"
- Both protagonists feel like they don't belong where they are at the beginning of their stories.
- Both fight antagonists who are threatening the population of the world they grew up on for reasons of populating the antagonist's race on said planet.
- Both antagonists are unapologetically evil, and even admit it.
- Both protagonists have extremely strong moral fibers.
- Both protagonists are allegory to heaven themes. (Superman's is Jesus, and Cecil's is an angel)
- Both protagonists master their powers within a day.
- Both protagonists have a love interest that can't seem to keep out of trouble.
- Both protagonists are the only ones capable of destroying the antagonist. (Humans can't harm Kryptonians, and only the power of a Paladin can beat Golbez/Zemus)
-Both heroes epically fail to stop the villains from doing harm.
- Both heroes are utterly bland and boring. (Save Cecil when he's having a crisis as a dark knight)
- Edward is like Jimmy Olsen except actually helpful.
- Both products have companions willing to sacrifice themselves (except they always end up living in FF4, and in MoS, the guy doing the sacrificing also kills everyone on board who isn't Lois Lane)

Of course, the plots aren't COMPLETELY like each other in the details (since Superman didn't have travelling buddies that were as strong as him, and Superman can actually fly on his own power), but the general idea is there. What do you think?

 

[Zontar]

- Both protagonists have extremely strong moral fibers.

This one is false. While Superman tends to have strong moral fiber, the one portrayed in Man of Steel does not.

For the whole comparison, there are plenty of plots which can use the same comparison since the ideas used in both are nothing new and are fairly general.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

- Both protagonists have extremely strong moral fibers.

This one is false. While Superman tends to have strong moral fiber, the one portrayed in Man of Steel does not.

For the whole comparison, there are plenty of plots which can use the same comparison since the ideas used in both are nothing new and are fairly general.

Is this because he kills you know who? Because he did the same in the original movie...

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Spoiler: Golbez ends up

redeeming himself. Zod does not.

Superman is also a soloist when it comes to heroic journeys. Cecil has the benefit of making (and losing) friends on his way through his story. Some of the themes do line up but this is to be expected. Media has been recycling 'out of this world' heroes for a long time now, Superman being one of the earlier ones from the last century.

 

[Timotei]

Is this because he kills you know who? Because he did the same in the original movie...

Spoiler: Response to above, and also spoilers to anyone still willing to see this schlock

It's because neither Jor-El, Kevin Costner nor the IHOP sign emphasized the meaning of life to Superman, it was more something he picked up himself. Had there been a scene where either Superman learns the meaning of not killing his enemies, or that he shows a strong aversion to killing Zod or his minions but is forced to do so, then it would have made sense.

The point about "moral fibers" is horribly incorrect too. Superman's dedication to protecting people seems very shallow and only arises at times where it's convenient for him. His fight with Zod probably killed more people and caused about as much damage as the stupid energy Macguffin did to Metroplis. Had he really cared, he'd have done what he did in Superman II or IV where he takes the fight to somewhere where nobody will be hurt. He also shows absolutely no hesitation when causing the genocide of the last remnants of the Kryptonian race.

The "unapologetically evil" thing doesn't work either. Zod isn't a bad guy like before where he was a power hungry warlord bent on conquering all that he sees for the fun of it and asking everyone to kneel. In Hack Snyder's adaptation, Zod is merely an unfortunate product of his birth, where his sole purpose in life it to take actions to insure the survival of the Krypton. He can't be like Superman and stop what he's doing because he wasn't born to live to the ideal that he can strive to choose his own destiny. Even though the film makes him out to be bad, I couldn't help but feel more sympathetic toward Zod simply because he is a character who has acted in the only way he knew how, and has now lost everything he had in life.

In conclusion, Man of Steel sucks harder than a Thai whore that just got handed a $100 bill. Good work, Hack Synder.

 

[Eddie the head]

- Both protagonists have extremely strong moral fibers.

This one is false. While Superman tends to have strong moral fiber, the one portrayed in Man of Steel does not.

For the whole comparison, there are plenty of plots which can use the same comparison since the ideas used in both are nothing new and are fairly general.

At this point Marvel could introduce Hyperion into there cinematic universe and he would likely be better revived then Superman in Man of Steel.

 

[McKitten]

Honestly, you made an argument that the protagonists are the same, not so much that the plots are. Do that same list for Peter Parker (Spider-Man) and Peter Parker (Spider-Man 2) and they're gonna look pretty damn identical. Doesn't mean the movies are the same.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Except Superman doesn't master his powers in a day. He gradually learns to use them over the course of that montage at the beginning of the movie. Also Zod wasn't apologetically evil. He honestly thought he was doing what was best for the Kryptonian people.

EDIT: Also Superman doesn't start off working for Zod and then goes though some kind of revelation and character transformation before fighting him.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

- Both protagonists have extremely strong moral fibers.

This one is false. While Superman tends to have strong moral fiber, the one portrayed in Man of Steel does not.

For the whole comparison, there are plenty of plots which can use the same comparison since the ideas used in both are nothing new and are fairly general.

Is this because he kills you know who? Because he did the same in the original movie...

That movie was awful too. But he didn't kill Zod in Superman 2, at least not in the Donner version.

I don't know about "the Donner version", in the theatrical cut he kills him and his two goons AFTER they've stopped being a threat (i.e. removed their powers) by pitching them into an abyss from which they never return and wouldn definitely not survive without their superhuman powers. He also kills Nuclear Man in Superman IV. So killing Zod in Man of Steel didn't really bother me. He truly was morally forced to do it. What would be more Superman-ish: let those folks die and keep on fighting it out, or rescue them by killing the bad guy? Didn't see a third way out.