If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Mary Sue)   Marvel Comics president Joe Quesada says he rooted for Zod all through Man of Steel   (themarysue.com) divider line 242
    More: Silly, Joe Quesada, marvel, Man of Steel, Marvel Entertainment, Inc., This Is Spinal Tap, Pa Kent, Jor-El, Krypton  
•       •       •

2223 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 30 Apr 2014 at 4:09 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



242 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-01 01:54:58 PM

Rwa2play: And farking up Clark's mind at the same time~! Think about it: you're watching your parent die right in front of you and s/he just told you to do nothing about it~!

That's not going to screw up his upbringing?! Really?!


Johnathan Kent was a Stoic in MoS, pure and simple. While I agree that the heart attack is a great take on it, I don't have a major issue with this.
 
2014-05-01 02:22:40 PM

PIP_the_TROLL: Rwa2play: And it would've been a great callback to "S:TM" where Clark couldn't save Pa after he suffered a heart attack.

Jonathan Kent dying of a heart attack is critical to the development of Superman for a very specific reason. A reason that stupidly dying in a tornado can't hope to replicate. The tornado thing is stupid enough on the face of it, and it totally misses the point.

Clark's father dying of a heart attack is crucial because it's so ordinary. It wasn't a meteor from space or a mugger in a dark alley - Clark could stop those. Johnathan Kent dies because he's weak and frail. Johnathan Kent dies because he's human.

And with all the gifts Clark has, he can do nothing to prevent it.

This creates a pivotal moment in the development of Clark Kent becoming Superman. It welds him to humanity like nothing else could possibly do. It creates in him a drive to protect humanity from its own frailty.

A stupid tornado doesn't do that.


THIS. Especially since with his super speed he could have easily saved Jonathan and NO ONE would have seen anything. Stupid scene was stupid.
 
2014-05-01 02:24:23 PM

chewielouie: THIS. Especially since with his super speed he could have easily saved Jonathan and NO ONE would have seen anything. Stupid scene was stupid.


We have zero evidence that that is true. He was surrounded by people, and would have had to brought Johnathan back there. We have no way to know how fast he could move at that point in his life.
 
2014-05-01 03:06:56 PM
I thought the movie was decent as I watched it. I got what Pa Kent was about. I liked the flashback story style. Thought the overall tone was great. Generally I could feel Nolan's influence on giving the story a real world grounding. Explaining how his powers developed and matured over time, showing him dealing with those changes. It worked.

BUT I was immediately snapped out of the movie when the new Kyptonians are equal to Kal in mere minutes of showing up.  Kal was shown to be their perfect genetic code holder, or Superman, and it took him FARKING YEARS to establish his abilities. That's what the movie showed us. The second they stopped playing by their own carefully crafted rules, that they shoved in my face for an hour, I just didn't give a shiat anymore.  All for the huge fight. Other than the neck snap (which while out of normal character, made sense in the movie presented) the rest of the movie was blur for me. It lost my interest.

/ So wanted to enjoy this
// Just couldn't
 
2014-05-01 03:16:40 PM
I just don't understand what the point of Pa Kent's death scene was supposed to be.
 
2014-05-01 03:18:08 PM

Clutch2013: Superman vs. Zod - what's your take (in case I've missed it)? I feel that all of these "move the battle elsewhere" comments wouldn't pan out, especially given how viciously insane Zod was at that point.


Zod would kill humans at the first available opportunity and wouldn't stop until he had that mountain of skulls the film foreshadows.

The problem is that MOS Zod is not traditional Zod. Traditional Zod is a run of the mill megalomaniac. MOS Zod is a hero.

I mean this in the Greek sense.

Zod is forged by Krypton's genetic god to be the protector of the Kryptonian ideal. The people only matter inasmuch as they are the manifestation of that ideal. Everything Zod does is ethically and morally correct from that perspective.

Kal-El is an abomination. He's born outside of the Codex. Outside of God's Plan as it were. To then vest in this abomination the essence of the Codex is sacrilege of the highest order.

Zod was always going to kill Kal-El, whether he'd given him the Codex or not. Killing Earth was punishment for Kal-El's very existence. Humanity had given this abomination shelter. It had given him succor. It had even turned him against his people.

Terraforming Earth wasn't only an expedient way to punish Kal-El, it was a ritual way of wiping away the stain of Kal-El's perversion and restoring the Kryptonian Ideal. From the perspective of Joe Krypton, if Zod had won it would have been as predictable and as right as Perseus slaying Medusa.

Superman could have and should have tried to move the fight of the city, but if he didn't kill Zod or find some other way to incapacitate him Zod was still going to kill every human he came across.
 
2014-05-01 03:21:21 PM

chewielouie: PIP_the_TROLL: Rwa2play: And it would've been a great callback to "S:TM" where Clark couldn't save Pa after he suffered a heart attack.

Jonathan Kent dying of a heart attack is critical to the development of Superman for a very specific reason. A reason that stupidly dying in a tornado can't hope to replicate. The tornado thing is stupid enough on the face of it, and it totally misses the point.

Clark's father dying of a heart attack is crucial because it's so ordinary. It wasn't a meteor from space or a mugger in a dark alley - Clark could stop those. Johnathan Kent dies because he's weak and frail. Johnathan Kent dies because he's human.

And with all the gifts Clark has, he can do nothing to prevent it.

This creates a pivotal moment in the development of Clark Kent becoming Superman. It welds him to humanity like nothing else could possibly do. It creates in him a drive to protect humanity from its own frailty.

A stupid tornado doesn't do that.

THIS. Especially since with his super speed he could have easily saved Jonathan and NO ONE would have seen anything. Stupid scene was stupid.


Even if people were to have seen it, the EMTs arriving post-tornado would've attributed it as "shock" and not believed it.  Since people react differently to a traumatic event that affects them directly.

Hebalo: We have zero evidence that that is true.


We also have zero evidence that it's not true.

He was surrounded by people, and would have had to brought Johnathan back there.

If he were conscious of what his dad said, he would've taken him someplace other than there.
 
2014-05-01 03:28:51 PM

MaxTigar: I thought the movie was decent as I watched it. I got what Pa Kent was about. I liked the flashback story style. Thought the overall tone was great. Generally I could feel Nolan's influence on giving the story a real world grounding. Explaining how his powers developed and matured over time, showing him dealing with those changes. It worked.

BUT I was immediately snapped out of the movie when the new Kyptonians are equal to Kal in mere minutes of showing up.  Kal was shown to be their perfect genetic code holder, or Superman, and it took him FARKING YEARS to establish his abilities. That's what the movie showed us. The second they stopped playing by their own carefully crafted rules, that they shoved in my face for an hour, I just didn't give a shiat anymore.  All for the huge fight. Other than the neck snap (which while out of normal character, made sense in the movie presented) the rest of the movie was blur for me. It lost my interest.


That goes to my point of suspending your belief towards a movie.  If a writer follows their logic throughout the movie, no problem.  The minute you jump out of it because "OMG, BIG FIGHT SCENE NEEDED!" you screw up your own internal logic and the movie goes to hell for you.
 
2014-05-01 03:45:34 PM

PIP_the_TROLL: This creates a pivotal moment in the development of Clark Kent becoming Superman.


In the original movie!  This is never an issue in the comics.

That was something, a line, a sentence they created FOR the movie.

As much as I enjoyed the original, people have to stop referring to it as Superman canon!

/Don't get me wrong, I agree the tornado was stupid.  And I agree they changed Pa Kent from every iteration in the comics (In my opinion the Costner Pa Kent was cowardly) and I didn't like it.  But the "With all my powers, I couldn't save him" is purely a Donner invention drama
 
2014-05-01 03:58:35 PM

PIP_the_TROLL: Clutch2013: Superman vs. Zod - what's your take (in case I've missed it)? I feel that all of these "move the battle elsewhere" comments wouldn't pan out, especially given how viciously insane Zod was at that point.

Zod would kill humans at the first available opportunity and wouldn't stop until he had that mountain of skulls the film foreshadows.

The problem is that MOS Zod is not traditional Zod. Traditional Zod is a run of the mill megalomaniac. MOS Zod is a hero.

I mean this in the Greek sense.

Zod is forged by Krypton's genetic god to be the protector of the Kryptonian ideal. The people only matter inasmuch as they are the manifestation of that ideal. Everything Zod does is ethically and morally correct from that perspective.

Kal-El is an abomination. He's born outside of the Codex. Outside of God's Plan as it were. To then vest in this abomination the essence of the Codex is sacrilege of the highest order.

Zod was always going to kill Kal-El, whether he'd given him the Codex or not. Killing Earth was punishment for Kal-El's very existence. Humanity had given this abomination shelter. It had given him succor. It had even turned him against his people.

Terraforming Earth wasn't only an expedient way to punish Kal-El, it was a ritual way of wiping away the stain of Kal-El's perversion and restoring the Kryptonian Ideal. From the perspective of Joe Krypton, if Zod had won it would have been as predictable and as right as Perseus slaying Medusa.

Superman could have and should have tried to move the fight of the city, but if he didn't kill Zod or find some other way to incapacitate him Zod was still going to kill every human he came across.


This is my only point of contention.  Everything else is spot on - one of the things I liked about Man of Steel was that it made Zod rather sympathetic and almost (almost) an anti-hero of sorts, up until the point he snaps.

Back to the point of contention - and I have to go back and look at the final fight for specifics - but at one point, through either his own machinations or just dumb luck, Superman does get Zod out of Metropolis and into space, achieving that goal.  Zod's immediate response is to throw him into the LexCorp (or Wayne Enterprises) satellite and send both himself and Superman crashing back to Metropolis.  Honestly, that scene alone should have illustrated just how much of a non-option moving the fight out became with each passing second.  And I think there were other points in the fight where he didn't even get that far - he'd go to stop him and end up getting punted through something as a result.
 
2014-05-01 04:07:36 PM

Clutch2013: Zod's immediate response is to throw him into the LexCorp (or Wayne Enterprises) satellite and send both himself and Superman crashing back to Metropolis. Honestly, that scene alone should have illustrated just how much of a non-option moving the fight out became with each passing second


I'll need to diverge from you slightly here. Yes, you're right that Superman didn't have control of Zod during that fight, but what he did have was Zod's attention.

Zod was a clear and present threat to the humans - but he wasn't an immediate one. His focus was on Kal-El. While he may not have been able to force Zod out of Metropolis, he almost certainly could have lured him out.

The circumstances of why they stayed in the city do make sense within the context of the movie, I'm just saying that even within that context there was still an alternative.
 
2014-05-01 04:16:41 PM
www.simplyrecipes.com
 
2014-05-01 04:25:39 PM

PIP_the_TROLL: Clutch2013: Zod's immediate response is to throw him into the LexCorp (or Wayne Enterprises) satellite and send both himself and Superman crashing back to Metropolis. Honestly, that scene alone should have illustrated just how much of a non-option moving the fight out became with each passing second

I'll need to diverge from you slightly here. Yes, you're right that Superman didn't have control of Zod during that fight, but what he did have was Zod's attention.

Zod was a clear and present threat to the humans - but he wasn't an immediate one. His focus was on Kal-El. While he may not have been able to force Zod out of Metropolis, he almost certainly could have lured him out.

The circumstances of why they stayed in the city do make sense within the context of the movie, I'm just saying that even within that context there was still an alternative.


OK, I'll accept that.  But going back to what you said earlier may provide a reason as to why he didn't take that alternative - that it was likely that realization that Zod would not stop until he had inflicted as much loss of life as he could.  For Superman, maybe that plan B was a losing proposition or no proposition at all.  The movie doesn't explicitly address this, either as an oversight (maybe) or because the writers assumed we, the audience, would have been smart or informed enough to come to that conclusion anyway.
 
2014-05-01 04:31:41 PM

PIP_the_TROLL: No Line For Beer: I too rooted for Zod.  But that's because Superman is a horrible character with huge development limitations that be written around by a only  a few very, very, good writers. All that's left is to write villains that hopefully bring more to the table than a target on their backs.  Otherwise, as someone referenced up-thread, Superman's just punching cardboard.

I always take offense at the first, especially when it's addressed by the second.

Superman is not a bad character. He just can't be written well by people who don't understand him. Joan Osbourne got to the core of who Superman a long time ago. "What if God were one of us?"

Now Superman isn't God, but the analogy works well enough. He's absolutely a being of near god-like abilities. What would a character like that living the life of a mortal do with those abilities? Why would he do what he does?

You're right that it takes an exceptional writer to do Superman well. He's not at all an easy character. But that's not the same as saying he's a bad one. He's just not constructed out of cliched conflicts like most characters. As such, he doesn't write himself as so many characters do.

Like so many people, you analyze Superman based on what he does. You reduce him to titillation and wish fulfillment value like Batman or Wolverine. That's why people think complex characters like Aquaman are boring while one-note characters like Iron Man are exciting.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that preference. I just want you to realize your reasoning is flawed.

Superman is fundamentally a transcendent being, so his problems are transcendent problems. Mundane villains with mundane motives are beneath the scope of the character. How many stories are there about Hercules beating up pickpockets? Superman getting foiled by some clown in facepaint or flamboyant serial killer is patently ridiculous. Superman's opponent is always "The Big Picture". His struggles are titanic - either against the world or agai ...


I stand by my opinion.  Superman as created, is a two-dimensional cardboard character.  In the same vein, that 80's cartoon villains are evil simply because the heroes need someone to overcome, Superman was sold as a simple good to fight the real, complicated evils that existed in the world.  He's a walking dues ex machnica by design.  I've little doubt if Jerry Siegel had any inclination that we would be discussing the character 75+ years later, he'd have provided a little more room for growth but he didn't.  But the stories were about overcoming facism and communism and corruption.  They were always about the people/ideals he was fighting against and for.  They weren't about Superman.

All the characteristics you that list, only go to serve my point.  They've been added over the years by a few very talented writers.  Part of the problem is the one that you mention, you can't fall on the anti-hero cliches.   But the largest part is that writing for Superman is like writing for zombies.

Neither Aquaman nor Iron Man is boring, btw.
 
2014-05-01 04:36:12 PM

Decillion: PIP_the_TROLL: Rwa2play: And it would've been a great callback to "S:TM" where Clark couldn't save Pa after he suffered a heart attack.

Jonathan Kent dying of a heart attack is critical to the development of Superman for a very specific reason. A reason that stupidly dying in a tornado can't hope to replicate. The tornado thing is stupid enough on the face of it, and it totally misses the point.

Clark's father dying of a heart attack is crucial because it's so ordinary. It wasn't a meteor from space or a mugger in a dark alley - Clark could stop those. Johnathan Kent dies because he's weak and frail. Johnathan Kent dies because he's human.

And with all the gifts Clark has, he can do nothing to prevent it.

This creates a pivotal moment in the development of Clark Kent becoming Superman. It welds him to humanity like nothing else could possibly do. It creates in him a drive to protect humanity from its own frailty.

A stupid tornado doesn't do that.

Well, damn. We all knew it felt wrong and argued for months but this is the best breakdown so far.

You sir, are god damn right.


why do you think Pip is our resident Supermanologist?
 
2014-05-01 04:42:10 PM

Clutch2013: OK, I'll accept that. But going back to what you said earlier may provide a reason as to why he didn't take that alternative - that it was likely that realization that Zod would not stop until he had inflicted as much loss of life as he could. For Superman, maybe that plan B was a losing proposition or no proposition at all. The movie doesn't explicitly address this, either as an oversight (maybe) or because the writers assumed we, the audience, would have been smart or informed enough to come to that conclusion anyway.


I think that the reason is much simpler than that because who we're talking about is Superman.

I think the reason was that right up until that last second where he decided to snap Zod's neck,Superman was still trying to save Zod from himself. One could almost imagine Superman hyperventilating, awash in full panic attack at the prospect of killing Zod.

And I'm going to give you a very roundabout reason why I think that.

Recall, if you may, the riots in London a year or two ago. Went on for what... a week... ten days? Something like that.

I live in the Cayman Islands, a British colony. I work with a guy from Denver. He asked me after it was resolved why it had taken the police in Britain so long to respond effectively. He pointed out, rightly so, that if the same thing had happened in New York or LA, the response would have been quicker and much stronger.

What I explained to him was that England isn't the United States. England is a very orderly society in a very old fashioned sort of way. So much so that they did experiments where they had a few people line up in front of a random door only to see pedestrians line up behind them without a clue why they were doing it. As our hero points out in Hitchiker's Guide, the English queue very well.

Propriety is very much a strong part of English cultural DNA even in this day and age.

So what i pointed out to my Coloradan friend was that in the early days of this riot, the average Englishman was paralyzed by his sense of propriety. They looked at what was happening and were literally dumbstruck. The way the people were acting was so outside the norm that they didn't know how to respond. "Any minute now these people are going to notice how they're reacting, feel embarrassed and stop." - that's what everybody thought.

Superman often falls victim to this sort of propriety. He sees in people an image of their better nature and has a great deal of trouble dispensing with that image when faced with a darker reality. It isn't naivete, per se. It's more like an emotional blindness.

So all the while that Zod is causing devastation, perhaps Superman was screaming in his own mind, "I can save him. I can save him."
 
2014-05-01 05:16:03 PM
Confabulat: Gawain: Me, I tend to believe that the fog indicates some kind of cryogenic stasis field.

What in the movie lead you to believe that, rather than just the more obvious conclusion that he dumped them to their deaths? I can't imagine having to make up an alternate version of what I saw on screen.


Yes, I shouldn't have thrown that in there, I don't know what I was thinking, this being the Internet and all.  Allow me to rephrase, and to reiterate the actually  relevant parts that you are studiously ignoring.

They fell to an unspecified fate, that is the pure fact that we are both starting from.   I believe it was a non-lethal fate, and I base that on the fact that Superman showed nothing but reverence for life throughout the movie.  To have him (and Lois, for that matter, as she drops Ursa) suddenly murder people in cold blood while smiling genially would be such an extreme reversal of character that honestly (and I do mean that, honestly) it never even crossed my mind.

So, for the third time:  I'm curious what it is you see in the movie that makes you believe that it is the "more obvious conclusion that he dumped them to their deaths".  Because I don't see that as obvious at all.  If you can, please answer this time without evading or trying to redirect the conversation.
 
2014-05-01 05:19:44 PM

buntz: Gawain: Superman spent the whole movie (and the one before) showing that he values life.

Except the trucker whom he let break his hand punching him, spun him to sickness, humiliated him by sticking his ass on a the counter in a plate of mashed potatoes and then threw him into a pinball machine (possibly causing back problems and at the very least lacerations from the broken glass, but this part is of course speculation)


You own speculations aside, I fail to see the connection between a slapstick cartoon violence sequence (this is a superhero movie, after all), and cold-blooded murder.  If you think those two things are equivalent, or even closely related, then I think I see the source of our dispute.
 
2014-05-01 05:25:06 PM

Gawain: If you think those two things are equivalent, or even closely related


I'm not saying they're equal, I'm just saying it's an example of Superman being a major dick
 
2014-05-01 05:51:17 PM

Confabulat: I just don't understand what the point of Pa Kent's death scene was supposed to be.


I thought it was to completely cement the idea that it was better for Clark to hide his powers than to risk being a target by people who might fear him if they knew he was an alien, and that Pa Kent felt it was worth sacrificing himself to keep to keep Clark safe rather than expose that secret.  I agree with the assessment that all this does is make him feel like less human though, and regardless of the reasoning it's not like Clark is all that careful about keeping his powers on the down low which makes Pa Kent's sacrifice look even more ridiculous.

Most amusing part of the whole movie however.
 
2014-05-01 06:14:50 PM

Lumbar Puncture: Confabulat: I just don't understand what the point of Pa Kent's death scene was supposed to be.

I thought it was to completely cement the idea that it was better for Clark to hide his powers than to risk being a target by people who might fear him if they knew he was an alien, and that Pa Kent felt it was worth sacrificing himself to keep to keep Clark safe rather than expose that secret.  I agree with the assessment that all this does is make him feel like less human though, and regardless of the reasoning it's not like Clark is all that careful about keeping his powers on the down low which makes Pa Kent's sacrifice look even more ridiculous.

Most amusing part of the whole movie however.


Pa's death is why superman goes by superman and not Clark. Even when surrendering himself to humanity, he didn't give away his identity because he still believed what pa said about being seen as different and scared of, and "standing in front of the human race".

Pa's wisdom is why Clark has a secret identity, and changes it throughout the movie after he displays his powers
 
2014-05-01 06:25:00 PM
Oh, I forgot my only other gripe with the movie!

Zod goes to Smallville, to the Kent Farm and destroys the house looking for the ship/codex.

You mean to tell me no one said "Hey!  Those aliens went to the Kent Farm and .... now that you mention it, that Superman fellow looks JUST like Clark Kent!"

I know, accept the premise that no one ever recognizes him.  And for the most part I do.  But I don't recall the fight ever being brought to Kent's front door before!
 
2014-05-01 07:58:13 PM

buntz: Oh, I forgot my only other gripe with the movie!

Zod goes to Smallville, to the Kent Farm and destroys the house looking for the ship/codex.

You mean to tell me no one said "Hey!  Those aliens went to the Kent Farm and .... now that you mention it, that Superman fellow looks JUST like Clark Kent!"

I know, accept the premise that no one ever recognizes him.  And for the most part I do.  But I don't recall the fight ever being brought to Kent's front door before!


I'm waiting for BvS to see where they go with it.  I doubt in this universe his secret stays secret for very long when others start looking (particularly Bruce and Lex)
 
2014-05-01 08:08:29 PM

buntz: Gawain: If you think those two things are equivalent, or even closely related

I'm not saying they're equal, I'm just saying it's an example of Superman being a major dick


No argument there at all.  Superman should not bully people, even other bullies.  He's supposed to lead and inspire by being better than those types of people, not by stooping to their level.
 
2014-05-01 08:55:53 PM

PIP_the_TROLL: Superman often falls victim to this sort of propriety. He sees in people an image of their better nature and has a great deal of trouble dispensing with that image when faced with a darker reality. It isn't naivete, per se. It's more like an emotional blindness.

So all the while that Zod is causing devastation, perhaps Superman was screaming in his own mind, "I can save him. I can save him."


I think he was enamored with the idea of finding some of his people and he'd been clinging to some romantic idea of who they were based on the image of Jor-El. He really wanted them to be better than they were and right up until the end was struggling to reconcile this with the reality of who and what Zod was before coming to the realization they weren't like his father and never would be. He couldn't save them, couldn't reunite with them, wasn't going to get the chance to live among them and so he did what he had to.
 
2014-05-01 08:58:20 PM

Clutch2013: I feel that all of these "move the battle elsewhere" comments wouldn't pan out, especially given how viciously insane Zod was at that point.


During the entire fight he was simply reacting. He didn't attempt to control the battle at all. I think they should have at least attempted to show Superman trying to actively mitigate the damage even if it was ultimately futile because that's the kind of person Superman is.
 
2014-05-01 09:49:22 PM

Gawain: So, for the third time:  I'm curious what it is you see in the movie that makes you believe that it is the "more obvious conclusion that he dumped them to their deaths".  Because I don't see that as obvious at all.  If you can, please answer this time without evading or trying to redirect the conversation


I don't think I'm evading you. My little boy self assumed they were killed. Back in the 70s and 80s, heroes in movies killed people all the time. With guns even. How many people did Indiana Jones kill? Han Solo? Batman?

In short, I assumed they were dead because they were tossed in a seemingly bottomless pit with no powers. If there was a bottom surely they broke apart upon impact. And if it was a crazy force field or something, how would Lois Lane know? She hated that biatch and I was as happy as Lois to watch her die.

It's really the only way the movie ever appeared to me. Why would I have invented a new scene in my mind to explain that away? Made sense. Those guys were evil and deserved to die.
 
2014-05-01 09:50:21 PM

MechaPyx: Clutch2013: I feel that all of these "move the battle elsewhere" comments wouldn't pan out, especially given how viciously insane Zod was at that point.

During the entire fight he was simply reacting. He didn't attempt to control the battle at all. I think they should have at least attempted to show Superman trying to actively mitigate the damage even if it was ultimately futile because that's the kind of person Superman is.


Superman did that throughout the Smallville fight whenever he got a breather, and then ended up getting pummeled for it.

Zod relentlessly beat the ever living shiat out of Superman until he got the upper hand in the station.  Right before the space scene you see him pounded through a building and being completely disoriented,
 
2014-05-01 10:11:07 PM

PIP_the_TROLL: So what i pointed out to my Coloradan friend was that in the early days of this riot, the average Englishman was paralyzed by his sense of propriety. They looked at what was happening and were literally dumbstruck. The way the people were acting was so outside the norm that they didn't know how to respond. "Any minute now these people are going to notice how they're reacting, feel embarrassed and stop." - that's what everybody thought.


That explains the civilian population, but what about the police? One would think they would have a much different response due to training.
 
2014-05-01 10:54:40 PM

Confabulat: Gawain: So, for the third time:  I'm curious what it is you see in the movie that makes you believe that it is the "more obvious conclusion that he dumped them to their deaths".  Because I don't see that as obvious at all.  If you can, please answer this time without evading or trying to redirect the conversation

I don't think I'm evading you. My little boy self assumed they were killed. Back in the 70s and 80s, heroes in movies killed people all the time. With guns even. How many people did Indiana Jones kill? Han Solo? Batman?


In short, I assumed they were dead because they were tossed in a seemingly bottomless pit with no powers. If there was a bottom surely they broke apart upon impact. And if it was a crazy force field or something, how would Lois Lane know? She hated that biatch and I was as happy as Lois to watch her die.

It's really the only way the movie ever appeared to me. Why would I have invented a new scene in my mind to explain that away? Made sense. Those guys were evil and deserved to die.

I think you're still evading me, because I never asked about your little boy self, I'm asking you now with a (presumably) fully functional adult brain capable of considering the movie on its own terms and inferring author/director intent.

Also, you list a bunch of other action movie heroes, but you're only making my point.  In their respective movies those characters killed quite often - for them to then kill the bad guy at the end of the movie is not at all out of character.  That is not the case in Superman II.  He goes out of his way to preserve life at all turns.  And if killing bad guys was his style, he could have wasted Lex Luthor at any time literally just by looking at him.

Engaging your brain and examining the scene now, in the context of the movie that it appears in, do you really think the intent of the writers and director is that Superman just suddenly became a cold-blooded killer for no reason, in his moment of victory?  That doesn't seem at all out of character and out of tone with the rest of the movie to you?
 
2014-05-01 11:29:06 PM

Gawain: Confabulat: Gawain: So, for the third time:  I'm curious what it is you see in the movie that makes you believe that it is the "more obvious conclusion that he dumped them to their deaths".  Because I don't see that as obvious at all.  If you can, please answer this time without evading or trying to redirect the conversation

I don't think I'm evading you. My little boy self assumed they were killed. Back in the 70s and 80s, heroes in movies killed people all the time. With guns even. How many people did Indiana Jones kill? Han Solo? Batman?

In short, I assumed they were dead because they were tossed in a seemingly bottomless pit with no powers. If there was a bottom surely they broke apart upon impact. And if it was a crazy force field or something, how would Lois Lane know? She hated that biatch and I was as happy as Lois to watch her die.

It's really the only way the movie ever appeared to me. Why would I have invented a new scene in my mind to explain that away? Made sense. Those guys were evil and deserved to die.

I think you're still evading me, because I never asked about your little boy self, I'm asking you now with a (presumably) fully functional adult brain capable of considering the movie on its own terms and inferring author/director intent.

Also, you list a bunch of other action movie heroes, but you're only making my point.  In their respective movies those characters killed quite often - for them to then kill the bad guy at the end of the movie is not at all out of character.  That is not the case in Superman II.  He goes out of his way to preserve life at all turns.  And if killing bad guys was his style, he could have wasted Lex Luthor at any time literally just by looking at him.

Engaging your brain and examining the scene now, in the context of the movie that it appears in, do you really think the intent of the writers and director is that Superman just suddenly became a cold-blooded killer for no reason, in his moment of victory?  That doesn ...


If he cared so much about life he wouldn't just casually throw them down a farking pit in the first place.  And Lois clearly doesn't know whats down there, which makes even less sense that shes like YAY EVERYONE IN THE PIT!
 
2014-05-01 11:29:15 PM

Gawain: Confabulat: Gawain: So, for the third time:  I'm curious what it is you see in the movie that makes you believe that it is the "more obvious conclusion that he dumped them to their deaths".  Because I don't see that as obvious at all.  If you can, please answer this time without evading or trying to redirect the conversation

I don't think I'm evading you. My little boy self assumed they were killed. Back in the 70s and 80s, heroes in movies killed people all the time. With guns even. How many people did Indiana Jones kill? Han Solo? Batman?

In short, I assumed they were dead because they were tossed in a seemingly bottomless pit with no powers. If there was a bottom surely they broke apart upon impact. And if it was a crazy force field or something, how would Lois Lane know? She hated that biatch and I was as happy as Lois to watch her die.

It's really the only way the movie ever appeared to me. Why would I have invented a new scene in my mind to explain that away? Made sense. Those guys were evil and deserved to die.

I think you're still evading me, because I never asked about your little boy self, I'm asking you now with a (presumably) fully functional adult brain capable of considering the movie on its own terms and inferring author/director intent.

Also, you list a bunch of other action movie heroes, but you're only making my point.  In their respective movies those characters killed quite often - for them to then kill the bad guy at the end of the movie is not at all out of character.  That is not the case in Superman II.  He goes out of his way to preserve life at all turns.  And if killing bad guys was his style, he could have wasted Lex Luthor at any time literally just by looking at him.

Engaging your brain and examining the scene now, in the context of the movie that it appears in, do you really think the intent of the writers and director is that Superman just suddenly became a cold-blooded killer for no reason, in his moment of victory?  That doesn ...


Absolutely. Did Lois Lane know about some mysterious force field? Even if Superman knew, I doubt he had time to tell her. That makes her a killer-by-intent anyway.

But still. The movie, as presented (I don't care about deleted scenes, they are not in the movie and don't get to count) shows Superman apparently letting three people fall to their deaths.

I do not think I have some minority opinion on this.
 
2014-05-01 11:49:30 PM
Lois didn't know wtf was down there and she was just following his lead. She wouldn't have cared whether they died or what. But Lois isn't the hero. She's mortal and defending her own life. She's laughing and happy because she's just relieved to be alive and have it all over with. Not the same thing as Superman killing depowered foes.

Before I knew of any deleted scene I just figured he had them imprisoned because in the comics they always show he has live specimens of different species from all over the universe kept in his weird zoo down there. It explains why he only took Luthor to jail. These guys aren't human, they're too dangerous for earth jail. The risk of their powers coming back is too great. He can keep a closer eye on them there, probably intends to put them back in the zone. ...This thread, it never ends.

/It just keeps going. It feels like days. I can't believe it's not over yet.
//What is things Fafai said while watching Man of Steel?
///Correct.
 
2014-05-02 12:22:16 AM

Confabulat: Absolutely. Did Lois Lane know about some mysterious force field? Even if Superman knew, I doubt he had time to tell her. That makes her a killer-by-intent anyway.But still. The movie, as presented (I don't care about deleted scenes, they are not in the movie and don't get to count) shows Superman apparently letting three people fall to their deaths.I do not think I have some minority opinion on this.


You do. Not for a minute did I think in 1981 that they died.

Neither did Bryan Singer who planned to have Zod advise Superman against Metallo in his version of Man Of Steel.
 
2014-05-02 12:37:02 AM

peterthx: Bryan Singer who planned to have Zod advise Superman against Metallo in his version of Man Of Steel.


We would've had a Metallo before Brainiac in a movie? That's weird.
 
2014-05-02 12:46:06 AM

Fafai: peterthx: Bryan Singer who planned to have Zod advise Superman against Metallo in his version of Man Of Steel.

We would've had a Metallo before Brainiac in a movie? That's weird.


I meant Brainiac (oops). Both Metallo & Braniac were planned to be the villains of that film.
 
2014-05-02 01:02:17 AM

peterthx: Fafai: peterthx: Bryan Singer who planned to have Zod advise Superman against Metallo in his version of Man Of Steel.

We would've had a Metallo before Brainiac in a movie? That's weird.

I meant Brainiac (oops). Both Metallo & Braniac were planned to be the villains of that film.


I take it this was to be the sequel to Superman Returns before it was released and critically panned? As cool as Brainiac would be, we didn't really need 6 movies all in the same continuity with the characters inexplicably getting younger and younger. Hell, we didn't need 3.

/riding this thread to the very end
 
2014-05-02 01:10:38 AM

Fafai: Lois didn't know wtf was down there and she was just following his lead. She wouldn't have cared whether they died or what. But Lois isn't the hero. She's mortal and defending her own life. She's laughing and happy because she's just relieved to be alive and have it all over with. Not the same thing as Superman killing depowered foes.

Before I knew of any deleted scene I just figured he had them imprisoned because in the comics they always show he has live specimens of different species from all over the universe kept in his weird zoo down there. It explains why he only took Luthor to jail. These guys aren't human, they're too dangerous for earth jail. The risk of their powers coming back is too great. He can keep a closer eye on them there, probably intends to put them back in the zone. ...This thread, it never ends.

/It just keeps going. It feels like days. I can't believe it's not over yet.
//What is things Fafai said while watching Man of Steel?
///Correct.


Wow your argument gets worse and worse, just stop trying.

So you're now arguing that clearly superman had secret containment facilities in the pits that had never been established in the movie universe, and then use the deleted scenes as justification for their survival...the ones where they are walking around the argument clearly not even in kryptonian jail that you assumed they were in.

And them getting their powers back argument is bullshiat because Jor-el repeatedly states it's permanent (except for his secret crystal that allows him to change his mind of course)
 
2014-05-02 01:39:17 AM

hammer85: So you're now arguing that clearly


"I figured" = "clearly"

Remember, I've been saying from the beginning it's ambiguous and open to interpretation. Between us, the only one claiming any clarity about it is you. So my 'bullshiat argument' according to you is that we don't know what happened because it happened off screen (but personally I think this). And the non-bullshiat argument I guess would be that we do know what happened off screen and that something is murder and it doesn't matter what anyone else says including the filmmakers.

hammer85: then use the deleted scenes as justification for their survival...the ones where they are walking around the argument clearly not even in kryptonian jail


Sigh...

Fafai: Before I knew of any deleted scene...


And this here is the funniest thing in the thread yet because of the sheer projection going on:

hammer85: your argument gets worse and worse, just stop trying

 
2014-05-02 01:54:44 AM
All this weird historical revisionism about a 32 year old film.. seems more appropriate for InfoWars.
 
2014-05-02 02:03:40 AM

Alphax: All this weird historical revisionism about a 32 year old film.. seems more appropriate for InfoWars.


Not many people were discussing this before last summer. It's not really about a 32 year old film.
 
2014-05-02 02:06:31 AM
Walking around the argument? Get a grip dude. You look like more and more of a frothing fanboy with every post you make.
 
Displayed 42 of 242 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report