- Location
- My parent's basement
Not really
Only G98, Heisei and Shin
The Showa G, all the Millenium, Legendary and Anime were only awakened by the tests
FusionVerse - Combining All The Stories
- Thread starter 5elementsage
- Start date
- Storybuilding
Not really
Only G98, Heisei and Shin
The Showa G, all the Millenium, Legendary and Anime were only awakened by the tests
- Location
- England
You could always use the Sentry. The guy is as powerful as Superman but has severe mental issues. Perhaps he killed Superman, then felt so guilty he used his powers to change everyone's memory (including himself) that he killed Superman, and instead blamed Doomsday. [EDIT: Or maybe Godzilla]
I don't agree with that, but I want to hear your argument where/how his actual death should take place. Given he cannot die of old age.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
On the first part, I agree with Jcog. We don't HAVE to stick with canon, and CAN adapt. However, my choice as the originator of this project is to adhere to original canon as closely as possible. Mutated animal Godzilla variants are a diminishing and borderline mockery of the character, which the most inspired Japanese writers see as an unstoppable force, a cosmic power, an unshakable idea. Not just a beastie. That's why there will always be a Godzilla. That's why some versions of Godzilla have been so powerful they can regenerate from a single cell. That's why one version grew so vast...well...
He's a mountain. A mountain of death. The only RIGHT way to characterize Godzilla is to show just how mighty he is, how he stands above the nature he represents, but dwells within it, abides by it. He's not just a creature, he's a concept just like Darkseid's true form. But instead of tyranny, the fearful power of Nature.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The Mutation origin still works better for a Godzilla-Superman conflict
1. All Star Superman would be how I'd Kill off Superman
2. Superman's death should never be the result of a Fight Scene because such a fight scene could only end in one of two ways. Either Superman is killed by the being he's fighting, in which case Evil wins, or Superman dies killing his enemy, in which case His last moments are him going against everything he stands for.
If Godzilla is going to stand for nature, then there is no point in having a Godzilla vs. Superman conflict. That conflict doesn't work as a Man vs. Nature event.
The conflict only works if Godzilla's is the result of human action. If that is the case, then the conflict represents Humanities inner turmoil. The mutual kill in their first battle represents how giving into one's worst impulses can lead to self destruction, and Godzilla's eventual turn to being a heroic figure represents the idea that Humanities best qualities can over come it's worst. It's a coherent thematic through line that is not present if Godzilla is an awakened being
- Location
- USA
I'm against the implementation of Sentry in Fusionverse, at least unaltered, because he's supposed to be the Wrath of God. Capital G, Judeo-Christian. That's a big no-no for what we're doing. Let me look at him though, and see how he stacks up. Also, this is all moot if Superman has access to the Sword of Superman. Moot. It's basically his "I win" button.
I also disagree that Superman has to be "temporarily dead," as that totally robs the Death of Superman of its momentum. Its value. If you're going to do an event called the Death of Superman, kill Superman for good. If you're not going to kill him, why bother? Death should only ever be implemented in a fiction of ideals, or arguably any fiction at all, if it has a significant meaning.
Example: The hero dies to show they have completed their journey or mission.
Counter-Example: Gandalf "died" to illustrate that no one could fight a Balrog and win. Not without dramatic sacrifice. He then returned because Maiar are conceptual angel beings and cutting down their elderly wizard body means very little to them. Drifting in his peaceful concept-angel state, his master sent him back to aid mankind again, transformed by the experience. He changed permanently to show evidence of the COST of fighting a Balrog.
Another CE: The death of millions. It's so immense that it's hard to picture the value of each life. You can show individual stories, but never a million of them. Never millions. What the portrayal of this does for a narrative is create an unfathomable loss that cannot be ignored. The death of a man, that's murder. The death of ten thousand men, that's War.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The actual story of Death of Superman is terrible way to kill off Superman though. His death in that story HAS no meaning whatsoever.
- Location
- England
1) Superman doesn't die in All star Superman though. He secludes himself in the sun.
2) Or 3, Superman's death is so heroic the villain repents their ways, turning from a force of evil to a force of good. Or 4, because Superman was able to last so long other heroes were finally able to break through and defeat the bad guy, but not fast enough to save Superman. Or 5, evil wins but so what? Good can't win every fight, they can only endevor to do better next time, and not make the sacrifice be in vain.
Life is not binary, there are many many ways for a scene to end if one character dies. You just need to be open to a bit of imagination.
- Location
- USA
All Star Superman doesn't result in his death, though. He becomes a solar consciousness being that keeps the sun working. He then emerges as Superman One Million. So no, that story's not what you think it is.
Yes, if ANY hero is killed, then "Evil wins." That's how narrative fiction works. Unless you take the opportunity to evolve as a writer and produce something with a more complex illustration of morality. As I explained above, Superman stands for specific mores, not just a vague depiction of "Good." If you want to go by the simplified axiom, he stands for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." Or as I more accurately described it, doing and saying the right thing, seeing that those who do not receive the proper punishment for their crimes, and promoting the freedom of mankind, so that the species down to every last human being can live without the reign of tyranny. Whether that be by other humans or by any non-human race. That's why Darkseid is such a compelling villain for Superman: he does and says what he wants, goes unpunished as the ruler and god of Apokolips, and exists as a conceptual personification of Tyranny itself. He will never be in line with Superman's morality, so they will always be in conflict. So if a story must have a villain kill a hero, the writer must use that to show the character of the villain. Are they really just "Evil?" Or are they doing what they do for a reason? What is the nature of evil? What will the villain do now that the hero is dead? What will the people that hero defended, represented, do now that he's dead?
That is where a Son of Superman would make an excellent introduction, in my opinion.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
1. It's death for all intents and purposes though.
2. And none of those are appropriate ways for Superman's life to end
1. That's why Superman shouldn't be killed.
2. And the fact that none of that happens in the Death of Superman story is why it is a terrible way for Superman to permanently die. Doomsday has zero character in that story
- Location
- My parent's basement
Honestly, I think going this way is the best solution to keep a Godzilla that stands with Nature fighting against Supes
Gaia's Vengeance - TV Tropes
Gaia's Vengeance - TV Tropes
- Location
- USA
Beat me to it as usual, CB!
That's the difference between Batman and Superman. Batman sees himself as this incorruptible idea that can't be killed. But if Bruce Wayne dies, who takes up the mantle? Will they do it the same way he did? Will they act for the same reasons? That's why his "sons" fought over who would be Batman, they each had a different portrayal of what that would be. Contrast that to the many "Supermen" emerging after the Death of Superman. You've got Cyborg Superman, who's a villain. The Eradicator, who is arguably a villain. Superboy, trying to do right by Superman's image. And Steel, who wants to preserve Superman's legacy through his own actions and superhero career.
Your point 4 reminds me of Lord of the Rings, since I brought up Gandalf already. When they learned that Frodo was already in Mordor, and might have already lost, the Fellowship had to decide how they should act next. They either win or lose, depending on how Frodo does, and there's nothing they can do to control that outcome. But what they could do is stand and fight the armies of evil, as heroes should. Maybe then, with that last show of defiance, they will draw the Eye of Sauron from his prey.
As to your point 5, that is how you and I differ in perspective from Jcog. We see Good as something that can win or lose just like Evil, as that is the pragmatic truth. Jcog views it as more of an empirical archetype: that a story must work by Good triumphing over Evil.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
No, that doesn't work. Because the message of that story is that Nature is evil and humanity has to stop it.
That's the core issue with having Godzilla as an agent of Nature fight Superman. Unless Red Kryptonite is involved, Superman is always going to be the hero of that conflict, there is no scenario one can conceive of that will make Superman not the hero.
No all stories have to work like that, but Superman stories do.
- Location
- USA
This is not a valid answer to our posts. What is why he shouldn't be killed? You're not addressing anything I said about literature and the structure of a moral code. You just want Superman to fight evil and always win in the end, and never truly die. That is incompatible with what we are trying to do.
More to the point, you're missing what we are discussing. My fellow collaborators are arguing for the implementation of a succession of Supermen. One dies, another arises, and so on. There is no point in there being a new Superman if the old one is indefatigable. We have seen this as necessary because Silver Age Superman is irreconcilable with the more modern depiction. So the question is no longer "Should Superman be killed?" but "How should it happen?"
- Location
- My parent's basement
¿...?
I'm sorry, but do you even know that morally grey conflicts exist?
Superman wouldn't be fighting for Evil, true
But neither would be Godzilla
- Location
- USA
That is an entirely inaccurate view of the trope. "Gaia's Vengeance" is not at all about Nature being evil. It's about how humanity has finally screwed up so bad that Nature as a sentient force is trying to remove us from the picture. Because WE hurt Nature. Because Humans are in the wrong.
"There is no scenario," huh? I beg to differ. Superman is a being from another planet who lives here as a force of justice and law enforcement parallel to human governance, but not as an official. He can never truly be an agent for the reasons shown in the movie Hancock. He can fly from star to star, he can lift the unliftable, move the immovable. His level of power triumphs over any obstacle put in his way. So if he should ever decide that the human governments are acting against the human interest, he will act in direct conflict with those governments. If he ever decides that humans are too self-destructive, he will use his almighty power to fix that problem, to put us in a position where we cannot threaten ourselves. Just like any AI programmed to act in humanity's best interests, Superman will not always do what we want him to. He will do what HE wants, and no one can stop him.
- Location
- England
Feels a bit post apocalyptical if I'm honest. Not against it, I personally think we could combine this with the spirit world also going crazy at the same time, cause of the nonsense Bleach villains and Death Note characters etc are upto.
Aha, we got the sage on side for the sons idea! Now how do you feel about my idea that the Son of Superman being the modern version, the one whose sometimes a bit more mopey and subdued version we see in some modern portrayals?
1. What's your point? Heroes die all the time. And this is a world with like 200 different afterlives, just cause a character is dead doesn't mean they can't have an impact on the story. Maybe Goku and him hang out in heaven whenever Goku dies and waits to get dragon balled back.
2. Again a subjective opinion, not a fact, you need to defend your viewpoints, or you won't convince any of us.
3. I thought you wanted Superman to die, you said as much so that we could have the Legacy thing. What happned?
4. We are just taking the name of the event, and probably the time period, we aren't going to use Doomsday. I think we are leaning towards Godzilla or Sentry.
Was that confirmed? I thought that was a theory or hyperbole, and his power just came from a serum that connected to an unnamed cosmic force. At least that's what wikipedia says.
I mean he destroyed the United Nations in Kingdom Come, and basically took over the world in the Injustice series.
Besides we are removing plot armor, so people can fail. It brings up an interesting question-can Superman still be seen as a Superman if he ever fails?
- Location
- My parent's basement
The whole point of Godzilla as Gaia's Avenger vs Superman is that they're both right
That Superman is as much justificated to believe that Humanity can improve and become better and stuff and as such fight for them as Godzilla is for thinking that we're egotistical verming that are draining the life out of the planet.
That Superman is as much justificated to believe that Humanity can improve and become better and stuff and as such fight for them as Godzilla is for thinking that we're egotistical verming that are draining the life out of the planet.
- Location
- USA
Yes, I'm in favor of the son being the modern post-Crisis/post-Flashpoint version. I also misread and thought you were talking about the Spectre. The Sentry has nothing to do with God, and I'll look into him too.
- Location
- USA
Absolutely THIS. It's what I said before. Godzilla would be drawn to Superman because Godzilla is naturally compelled to oppose disruptions of nature's balance. Superman would fight Godzilla because he sees Godzilla as a threat to mankind. They're both right, neither of them are necessarily wrong, etc.
- Location
- England
Hmm, I still think the fight should be caused by something. Maybe someone starts a war, maybe with Atlantis, maybe with Wakanda, maybe with everybody. America is involved, so when Godzilla and nature gets riled up, Superman shows up, then all of nature shows up, then superheroes show up, then the villains back home party, it's a big mess.
I don't know, first draft idea, we're just throwing bad ideas at the dart board, seeing what sticks.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Okay, since there seems to be some confusion. When I say "Death of Superman", I am not talking about Superman dying in general, I am talking about the story called Death of Superman, where he fights Doomsday. Superman dying and having successors is perfectly fine, but it should not be an adaptation of Death of Superman because that story is a terrible way to kill off Superman. The Death of Superman story could only ever work if Superman does not actually die.
The reason All Star Superman is the best model to use for Superman's death is because in that story, his Death is one that reinforces the character's core theme.
Morally Grey Conflicts can exist, but Superman vs. Godzilla should not be one of them. That is a situation Superman is unambiguously in the right
You need to read more closely. I am not saying that the tropes is about Nature being evil. I am saying that if a Storyprotrays Nature as being in opposition to Superman, then Nature is evil in that story.
No, conquering the world is grossly out of character for Superman.
1. Dying and Being Killed are different thing
2. Superman dying being a victory for Evil will always be a bad story
3. Again, dying and being killed are different things.
4. It's the same issue. The Death of Superman storyline just isn't set up to be an effective send off of the character
Trying to right that conflict so that they're both in the right is a foolish endeavor, and it is unnecessary. It's okay for Godzilla to be a bad guy for that story
And what I am telling you if that if Nature considered Superman to be a disruption, then Nature is evil. Superman is the quintessential. No one will read that and think that Nature has point.
Especially since there is literally nothing unnatural about Superman. Nature isn't limited to the Earth
You don't need to over complicate it. Godzilla is pissed off at humanity for hurting it, so he attacks. Superman is a superhero, so he defends.
- Location
- USA
What you're describing sounds like a new Crisis event. Hehehe. Also, I've read up on Sentry and Spectre. Yes, they both could take Silver Age Superman if plot armor was removed. Sentry's connection to the Big Man is only speculative from what I've found, so he's more usable without much editing.
- Location
- My parent's basement
...Except he's not a bad guy because he's 100% justified on what he does?
Like, we're fucking up the planet, I doubt anyone except the idiots says otherwise.
And in this setting, the planet and Nature have a way to fight back with Godzilla.
From humanity's and maybe Superman's perspectiva? Yeah, Godzilla may be evil
But from the objective and unpartial morality, Godzilla's doing nothing but defend the planets he lives on from entities that are fucking it up and annihilating it's biosphere
That's not villainous, at all
- Location
- England
Didn't Superman's home planet get destroyed because his people were mining the core too heavily, or something like that? So when Godzilla says "you are messing with the planet" Superman should realise "oh shit, he's right, if we don't stop, Earth will end up like Krypton". So in that case Nature isn't wrong when opposing Superman.
Oh really? Niiiice. If we make it a crisis event, maybe this war/crisis/event takes it's toll on Superman, hence why he's weak enough to be killed permanently.
The story could be about how Superman tries to do everything by himself, save the world from itself by himself. And that's how his enemies beat him, by him over exerting himself through the solo endevour while they get him from all sides. Godzilla fight, Luthor Kryptonite weapons, nature taking the tolls, angry spirit warriors, then finally an uppercut by Sentry.
Heck, let's throw in All Star, and say the war causes him to have sun cancer like the comic as he absorbs too much to try and get the power to keep fighting/saving lives.
So when Superman dies, he passes a lesson to the next Superman years later: "Even if you are Superman, you can't save the world by yourself."
Because in Fusionverse, it's ok if Clark Kent dies. Superman will live on, through his legacy, through those who are inspired by his actions to be the next heroes. In that way, evil can never truly win. Because there will always be someone willing to wear the symbol of Hope.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It's not about in-universe perspectives, it's about out of universe perspectives. Out of Universe, we know that Superman is 100 percent a hero. If Godzilla is targeting Superman specifically, then we will see him as a villain for targeting someone we know is a good guy. If Nature is opposed to Superman, the people out of universe will see Nature as the villain.
By contrast, if Godzilla is simply lashing out and Humanity and that draws Superman into the conflict, it is possible for us to sympathize with Godzilla because the story isn't expecting us to see the quintessential Good guy as a bad guy.
Except Superman is not messing with the planet in any way. He is just saving people's lives