Yes, the ending to GL was absolutely horrible. Even if you accept somehow that Parallax could be destroyed by the sun, you then have to accept that NOBODY tried it before. So the new guy in his first week on the job either has a horribly stupid idea that should never have worked but does for some utterly inexplicable reason and please don't think about it, OK, or none of the best and brightest in all the universe could come up with the brilliant idea the new guy had. Not buying it.
Other than that, I thought the movie was OK. Barely.

DC has a real problem in comparison to Marvel and it's directly linked to why the only good DC movies have been Batman movies. Oh and Superman II. It's power level. Not just the raw level of power the heroes possess, but how they rate in comparison to the villains. Batman is amazing, but he lacks true super powers and his villains can give him a real fight. Superman? Don't make me laugh. Not one incarnation of Lex Luthor is a serious challenge without giving him Kryptonite. And they picked the worst incarnation of Luthor ever for the movies. He's comic relief, not a villain. Heck, in the golden age and some silver age stories, Superman was smarter than Luthor, talk about an uneven playing field. Sure, Darkseid is able to challenge Superman easily, but how many non geeks have any idea who he is? But he's pretty much their only out other than Zod. Or some versions of Brainiac, but I'm not sure he counts as iconic either. Green Lantern has exactly one enemy worth mentioning, after Sinestro there's just a vast array of nobodies. Flash has the Rogues Gallery and oh lord are they lame. Not one of them can so much as threaten Flash without obvious plot contrivance. Only Zoom is any real danger to Flash and he's not normally considered a Rogue. Wonder Woman used to have this problem until they decided to use her ties to Greek myth and have her fight gods. It's not an insurmountable problem, they just have to dig past the familiar faces to get to DC villains that aren't utter losers. In comparison, Marvel has plenty of villains well matched to their opposing heroes. Sure, they have plenty of losers too, but for some reason they don't fall completely in love with them the way DC does.

Not to break up this discussion here, but I finally got around to seeing Looper.

What. The. Hell.

Did the ending of that suddenly remind anyone else of The Butterfly Effect? The whole consistency of the timeline kinda screwed with my head as well, especially considering things like the creation of The Rainmaker, and how that tied into the various timelines. On the other hand, the inventive use of past/future consequences really freaked me out when the first guy who escaped started losing stuff.

Overall, a 9/10, but damn. What an ending. I really hope there's a director's cut, as it is I can accept it but it somehow rubs me the wrong way when a main character ends up having to do that in a spur of the moment decision, no matter what it might say about what kind of person they are.

*Mild Spoilers*

I think the idea is pretty simple, all along the movie the main character made choices which always end up taking a toll on someone else and that makes him feel miserable. When you think about it, it is not a decision made in a spur of the moment since the protagonist has had all the movie to realize this and it only makes sense that the movie ends that way.

In a way, the idea is that he had bought all this on himself and at the end of the movie he was given the choice to change this.

Sure, they could have ended it in a couple other different ways but I guess that was the most shocking and selfless they could come up with.

The start of the first trailer for Deadpool needs to be Deadpool sitting in the first row of a theater, smoking a huge cigar, watching Wolverine, and yelling at the screen.

The hard part for the Deadpool movie is coming up with a way to portray White Box and Yellow Box.

It really is a shame that GL was such a bust in the movies. The upcoming Superman is going to set the pace for the Justice League movie. It can’t be worse than GL, right? I really hope that get it together. Marvel is killing them in the box office.

Well actually man-of-steel is the first super man movie I actually want to see with Christopher Nolan making it.

ON a note about super man movies.

I never liked any of them, Zod was the better pick for a bad guy. At least he is theoretically a match for superman. (Three of them actually)

That being said, I always hated Lex Luthor in those movies.
I love Gene Hackman, And he can actually be pretty intimidating (Watch the quick and the dead) But there Luthor was a joke, and clearly not that damn bright.

That being said, I acutally consider Superman Returns the best superman movie so far, because of..

KEVIN SPACEY! I seriously was intimidated by this version of Lex Luthor. Which was good, because wile the guy playing superman/the girl playing L.L. Did alright I also could not shake the thought that they should be playing Clark/LL going to there Senior Prom.

Seriously they both look like they are in there early 20's maybe.

Nolan has a producer credit, and he's apparently been very hands-off since Snyder was picked to be director, spending most of the time focusing on The Dark Knight Returns. I think Man of Steel looks interesting, at the very least, but I wouldn't give Nolan the credit if it does turn out good.

Sooooo worried about Zac Snyder having Superman. I know I've said that about 2132432324 times.

The LG paladin hero really doesn't need "THIS IS SPARTA" and 'let's have ANOTHER floating disembodied head for the kiddies' as an influence. Grrrr.

I'll admit that him taking on Zod would be cool; Superman really gets to have some epic smackdowns with some baddies Darkseid wouldn't be a first movie villain, but could be a later one. He's sort of a 'rally the Justice League' sort of fellow.

Again though...'emo man' isn't going to work. I'll reserve judgment for the film, of course, but I do hope they show respect for him.

And call me a big fan of Superman 1 and Superman 2. It was the 70's! No one would EVER take a comic book hero seriously, so they had to make parts of it more cartoonish. I'm ok with that because it ended up being two classic movies that were the "Beatles" of the superhero film genre. No Christopher Reeve in a cape? No Dark Knight. No Avengers.

Gotta love the classics for what they meant in their time Same reason you give a shout out to "Bringing Up Baby", "The Graduate", or Buddy Holly. Remember, some day people will look back at the Avengers, some snarky kid will bust on it, and you'll be the old codger saying 'Now now, son, you have NO respect for excellent films! GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!"

Don't get me wrong. I understand the importance and context of Superman and Superman II. But Superman rested entirely on the Superman/Lois relationship and the special effects. Luthor was almost more of an impediment to the movie than he was to Superman.

I hate the ending of Superman II Directors Cut. It was horrible.

The literally reused the footage from Superman 1 - spinning the earth to go back in time, and prevented the Phantom Zone gateway from breaking. HORRIBLE.