Surprise. How lovely that Marvel has managed to sweep under the rug all of their director shuffling for this movie. I'd be much more excited for Ant Man if it was the movie it COULD'VE been under Wright, not the generic insert Marvel formula we're going to get. But sure - whatever makes you'all not "hate" DC right? HAHA
Do studios normally promote a director switch when promoting their movies? Maybe I'm out of the loop.
Surprise. How lovely that Marvel has managed to sweep under the rug all of their director shuffling for this movie. I'd be much more excited for Ant Man if it was the movie it COULD'VE been under Wright, not the generic insert Marvel formula we're going to get. But sure - whatever makes you'all not "hate" DC right?
From what I understand, Edgar Wright resisted including any of the expected connective tissue to the rest of the MCU in his story. The entire tale was tongue in cheek with no regard to take itself seriously on any level. Ultimately, that isn't what Marvel wanted going forward and they parted ways.
With their latest hit (Avengers 2) director, Joss Whedon, explicitly referencing the Wright script just a week or so ago, I wouldn't exactly say that Marvel is sweeping it under the rug that they changed directors, but your mileage may vary. I'd actually expect DC fans would prefer the serious 'generic insert' formula, based on what I've seen from Zac Snyder.
zing!
Just because someone is a DC fan doesn't mean they are a fan of DC's movie directions. I actually get that Marvel had disagreements with Wright, but they replaced him with someone who has 0 good movies to his credit and hasn't even released one in 8 years, so I'd say they replaced him with a shill.
Also, I'm not sure why you hire Wright and then don't respect his creative choices. You wouldn't tell Picasso to make the faces straight.
If you've decided to tie everything together, wouldn't you want Picasso's faces to fall in line with the rest of your artwork? Maybe he had freedom before, but as the theme of the room became apparent, as the one paying the bills, you should be able to dictate how you want the product to look...or hire a new artist.
"You don't owe the world anything" ?!!??!?!!?!?!?!?!?
is Ma Kent trying to raise Zod or Superman???!?!??!
Does Kent owe the world anything?
M
No, but with great power comes great something, something.
I actually saw Kent less as owing the world & more doing it because it's a way to "lead them".
M
I always saw as simply “doing the right thing.”
I might have at one point, but I've become too jaded over the years. The "right thing" is subjective in this day & age...and there are a plethora of Monday morning quarterbacks to pick your "right thing" apart.
"You don't owe the world anything" ?!!??!?!!?!?!?!?!?
is Ma Kent trying to raise Zod or Superman???!?!??!
Does Kent owe the world anything?
M
No, but with great power comes great something, something.
I actually saw Kent less as owing the world & more doing it because it's a way to "lead them".
M
I always saw as simply “doing the right thing.”
I might have at one point, but I've become too jaded over the years. The "right thing" is subjective in this day & age...and there are a plethora of Monday morning quarterbacks to pick your "right thing" apart.
M
No, it's pretty simple. When someone's in trouble, help them as best you can. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Just basic human decency, but because he has superpowers, performed on a grander level.
Surprise. How lovely that Marvel has managed to sweep under the rug all of their director shuffling for this movie. I'd be much more excited for Ant Man if it was the movie it COULD'VE been under Wright, not the generic insert Marvel formula we're going to get. But sure - whatever makes you'all not "hate" DC right? HAHA
Do studios normally promote a director switch when promoting their movies? Maybe I'm out of the loop.
Surprise. How lovely that Marvel has managed to sweep under the rug all of their director shuffling for this movie. I'd be much more excited for Ant Man if it was the movie it COULD'VE been under Wright, not the generic insert Marvel formula we're going to get. But sure - whatever makes you'all not "hate" DC right?
From what I understand, Edgar Wright resisted including any of the expected connective tissue to the rest of the MCU in his story. The entire tale was tongue in cheek with no regard to take itself seriously on any level. Ultimately, that isn't what Marvel wanted going forward and they parted ways.
With their latest hit (Avengers 2) director, Joss Whedon, explicitly referencing the Wright script just a week or so ago, I wouldn't exactly say that Marvel is sweeping it under the rug that they changed directors, but your mileage may vary. I'd actually expect DC fans would prefer the serious 'generic insert' formula, based on what I've seen from Zac Snyder.
zing!
Just because someone is a DC fan doesn't mean they are a fan of DC's movie directions. I actually get that Marvel had disagreements with Wright, but they replaced him with someone who has 0 good movies to his credit and hasn't even released one in 8 years, so I'd say they replaced him with a shill.
Also, I'm not sure why you hire Wright and then don't respect his creative choices. You wouldn't tell Picasso to make the faces straight.
If you've decided to tie everything together, wouldn't you want Picasso's faces to fall in line with the rest of your artwork? Maybe he had freedom before, but as the theme of the room became apparent, as the one paying the bills, you should be able to dictate how you want the product to look...or hire a new artist.
"You don't owe the world anything" ?!!??!?!!?!?!?!?!?
is Ma Kent trying to raise Zod or Superman???!?!??!
Does Kent owe the world anything?
M
No, but with great power comes great something, something.
I actually saw Kent less as owing the world & more doing it because it's a way to "lead them".
M
I always saw as simply “doing the right thing.”
I might have at one point, but I've become too jaded over the years. The "right thing" is subjective in this day & age...and there are a plethora of Monday morning quarterbacks to pick your "right thing" apart.
M
No, it's pretty simple. When someone's in trouble, help them as best you can. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Just basic human decency, but because he has superpowers, performed on a grander level.
I'm not certain Presidents, firefighters, police officers, & EMTs would agree with doing the right thing is "pretty simple".
"You don't owe the world anything" ?!!??!?!!?!?!?!?!?
is Ma Kent trying to raise Zod or Superman???!?!??!
Does Kent owe the world anything?
M
No, but with great power comes great something, something.
I actually saw Kent less as owing the world & more doing it because it's a way to "lead them".
M
I always saw as simply “doing the right thing.”
I might have at one point, but I've become too jaded over the years. The "right thing" is subjective in this day & age...and there are a plethora of Monday morning quarterbacks to pick your "right thing" apart.
M
No, it's pretty simple. When someone's in trouble, help them as best you can. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Just basic human decency, but because he has superpowers, performed on a grander level.
I'm not certain Presidents, firefighters, police officers, & EMTs would agree with doing the right thing is "pretty simple".
"You don't owe the world anything" ?!!??!?!!?!?!?!?!?
is Ma Kent trying to raise Zod or Superman???!?!??!
Does Kent owe the world anything?
M
No, but with great power comes great something, something.
I actually saw Kent less as owing the world & more doing it because it's a way to "lead them".
M
I always saw as simply “doing the right thing.”
I might have at one point, but I've become too jaded over the years. The "right thing" is subjective in this day & age...and there are a plethora of Monday morning quarterbacks to pick your "right thing" apart.
M
No, it's pretty simple. When someone's in trouble, help them as best you can. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Just basic human decency, but because he has superpowers, performed on a grander level.
I'm not certain Presidents, firefighters, police officers, & EMTs would agree with doing the right thing is "pretty simple".
M
Matt.
I've stated multiple times I've become jaded. The Matt of 20yrs ago wanted nothing more then to be special & a hero. The Matt of today wants neither. I wouldn't want that burden, nor the criticism for doing what I thought was the "right thing" in the moment.
i always thought the Kent's upbringing was what made Clark Kent Superman and not Evilman... maybe I am focusing too much on the "you don't owe them anything" part...
seems like io9 writer agrees with me... i guess Snyder wants to make Lois the reason Clark Kent is superman and not because of the Kents...
As Lois reminds Clark that he still means something to people, we see stranded civilians in a flood waiting to be saved—having painted a giant version of Superman’s emblem to try and grab the Man of Steel’s attention. In direct contrast to Lois’ message that that Superman still matters to people, Martha Kent offers an alternative point of view:
People hate what they don’t understand. Be their hero, Clark. Be their angel, be their monument, be anything they need you to be. Or be none of it. You don’t owe this world a thing. You never did.
Presumably Clark chose Lois’ advice over Ma Kent’s, as the aforementioned dialogue plays over a short montage of Superman doing pretty much all of those things—saving people and being treated like a God, as well as saving the Roscosmos rocket from the first trailer:
I know it seems old-fashioned these days, but my take was always that the Kents instilled in Clark the notion of "truth, justice, and the American way."
The filmmakers can change that if they like, but it seems to negate the whole reason for him landing in a small mid-western town in the first place. It would be like the next Spider-Man film having Uncle Ben tell Peter that "with great power comes a lot of headaches, so make sure to cover your own ass at all times."
i always thought the Kent's upbringing was what made Clark Kent Superman and not Evilman... maybe I am focusing too much on the "you don't owe them anything" part...
seems like io9 writer agrees with me... i guess Snyder wants to make Lois the reason Clark Kent is superman and not because of the Kents...
As Lois reminds Clark that he still means something to people, we see stranded civilians in a flood waiting to be saved—having painted a giant version of Superman’s emblem to try and grab the Man of Steel’s attention. In direct contrast to Lois’ message that that Superman still matters to people, Martha Kent offers an alternative point of view:
People hate what they don’t understand. Be their hero, Clark. Be their angel, be their monument, be anything they need you to be. Or be none of it. You don’t owe this world a thing. You never did.
Presumably Clark chose Lois’ advice over Ma Kent’s, as the aforementioned dialogue plays over a short montage of Superman doing pretty much all of those things—saving people and being treated like a God, as well as saving the Roscosmos rocket from the first trailer:
Or, does Martha mean "you don't owe them anything...don't feel the burden of being something because you feel a debt to them"?
When Moses reportedly led the Jews, was that because he "owed it to them"?
When Jesus reportedly died for our sins, was that because he "owed it to us"?
Both biblical figures are part of the Kent template. Neither owed the people they led & saved anything.
i always thought the Kent's upbringing was what made Clark Kent Superman and not Evilman... maybe I am focusing too much on the "you don't owe them anything" part...
It's been argued that Snyder's take on the Man of Steel changed the Kents’ demeanor from warm and optimistic to cold and cynical, and the entire film suffered for it. Superman's earthly father was a harsh man, trying to suppress Clark’s growing abilities instead of encouraging them. Pa Kent is paranoid and cynical about the world around him, wanting to hide Clark out of fear of what the world would think of him if he ever was exposed. Even scolding him for saving a bus filled with children.
The traditional, home-grown, positive morals of Superman were replaced with bitterness and angst. Superman’s origin now involves the regret of standing by as a father figure is killed. It's like some weird hybrid origin of Batman and Spider-Man!
In 1978's Superman: The Movie there was a poignant scene where Pa Kent is dying of a heart attack and Clark suddenly realizes that even with all of his great power, he can't save everyone. In Man of Steel, Pa Kent freakishly dies in a tornado, refusing to let Clark save him to protect his secret identity. So Clark is forced to watch his father needlessly die and then travels the world carrying this dark secret, loaded with regret and confused morals. This is the through line for the entire movie and I believe it suffered because of it and many audiences couldn't connect.
Zack Snyder has said that he has a 3 hour cut of Man of Steel, Perhaps there was some dramatic breathing room left on the cutting-room floor that would have improved the experience for me, but the disaster porn and Pa Kent's moral compass are likely embedded.
As for now, it is what it is, and this is the film-world Superman we have today. Get used to it.
i always thought the Kent's upbringing was what made Clark Kent Superman and not Evilman... maybe I am focusing too much on the "you don't owe them anything" part...
It's been argued that Snyder's take on the Man of Steel changed the Kents’ demeanor from warm and optimistic to cold and cynical, and the entire film suffered for it. Superman's earthly father was a harsh man, trying to suppress Clark’s growing abilities instead of encouraging them. Pa Kent is paranoid and cynical about the world around him, wanting to hide Clark out of fear of what the world would think of him if he ever was exposed. Even scolding him for saving a bus filled with children.
The traditional, home-grown, positive morals of Superman were replaced with bitterness and angst. Superman’s origin now involves the regret of standing by as a father figure is killed. It's like some weird hybrid origin of Batman and Spider-Man!
In 1978's Superman: The Movie there was a poignant scene where Pa Kent is dying of a heart attack and Clark suddenly realizes that even with all of his great power, he can't save everyone. In Man of Steel, Pa Kent freakishly dies in a tornado, refusing to let Clark save him to protect his secret identity. So Clark is forced to watch his father needlessly die and then travels the world carrying this dark secret, loaded with regret and confused morals. This is the through line for the entire movie and I believe it suffered because of it and many audiences couldn't connect.
Zack Snyder has said that he has a 3 hour cut of Man of Steel, Perhaps there was some dramatic breathing room left on the cutting-room floor that would have improved the experience for me, but the disaster porn and Pa Kent's moral compass are likely embedded.
As for now, it is what it is, and this is the film-world Superman we have today. Get used to it.
I disagree. We never saw him stymie Clark's growth of his powers. We only saw him want Clark to conceal his abilities. He also never scolded or told Clark not to save those kids; common misconceptions.
Clark asked "what should I have done? Let them die?" Pa response "I don't know. Maybe." How's that scolding? Pa then went on to give Clark caution about the world. Again not scolding. After a bully picked on Clark, Pa asked him "how did that make you feel?" Clark admitted he wanted to fight the bully. Any chance that's a way of illustrating to Clark why he shouldn't use his powers to be a bully?
Was Kent trying to find himself the same as having confused morals? He sure seemed to be using his powers during that timespan. It's how Lane found him.
The comparisons to the 1978 movie also feel worn out. If the world of 2015 was still the world of 1978, it'd be a solid point. These characters have evolved & reflected the current state of the world, not the era they were originally conceived. Was Pa's moral compass gone, or is it in line with our moral compass of today?
I have no love for the last 1/3rd of the movie & it's disaster porn. I'll defend the wall until the next movie on the first 2/3rds.
"You don't owe the world anything" ?!!??!?!!?!?!?!?!?
is Ma Kent trying to raise Zod or Superman???!?!??!
Does Kent owe the world anything?
M
No, but with great power comes great something, something.
I actually saw Kent less as owing the world & more doing it because it's a way to "lead them".
M
I always saw as simply “doing the right thing.”
I might have at one point, but I've become too jaded over the years. The "right thing" is subjective in this day & age...and there are a plethora of Monday morning quarterbacks to pick your "right thing" apart.
M
No, it's pretty simple. When someone's in trouble, help them as best you can. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Just basic human decency, but because he has superpowers, performed on a grander level.
I'm not certain Presidents, firefighters, police officers, & EMTs would agree with doing the right thing is "pretty simple".
M
The basic concepts only become complicated when filtered through specific rules and conditions. We're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about “doing the right thing” in terms of Superman, a character who has existed in various forms for nearly 80 years. You're applying that to Superman as written within the context of modern comic book storytelling. It's not comparing apples to oranges, but rather apples to Granny Smith apples.
I'm talking about Superman at his deepest, most basic core. The basic character traits that make the character Superman and that can be applied to any Superman story, be it a Super Friends cartoon, a Golden Age Superman story, a children’s Superman book, or a modern Superman comic. You're talking about Superman set in a specific type of world that has preconceived guidelines. In storytelling terms, you've already written the bible for the world in which this core Superman lives, and you're analyzing the character “doing the right thing” through that specific lens.
Basically, I'm looking at the character as “What would Superman do?” while you’re looking at him as “What would Superman do within this set of circumstances?” “Doing the right thing” is only subjective once you apply the concept to a world's established rules. I could do the same thing with your preferred basic concept of Superman “leading them.” If Kal-El landed in Nazi Germany and was raised under Hitler's sway, that resulting Superman’s idea of “leading them” would be very different than that of the Superman we are used to.
That said, personally, I don't think “leading them” belongs at the core of Superman. I don't see Superman as proactive, but rather as reactive. If he sees an injustice, he works to correct it, not with the expectation or hope that others will follow in his wake, but simply because he has the power to do so. That’s not to say that “leading them” couldn't be used as a story device. In fact, it has been used to various degrees of success. I just don't see it at the heart of the character.
"You don't owe the world anything" ?!!??!?!!?!?!?!?!?
is Ma Kent trying to raise Zod or Superman???!?!??!
Does Kent owe the world anything?
M
No, but with great power comes great something, something.
I actually saw Kent less as owing the world & more doing it because it's a way to "lead them".
M
I always saw as simply “doing the right thing.”
I might have at one point, but I've become too jaded over the years. The "right thing" is subjective in this day & age...and there are a plethora of Monday morning quarterbacks to pick your "right thing" apart.
M
No, it's pretty simple. When someone's in trouble, help them as best you can. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Just basic human decency, but because he has superpowers, performed on a grander level.
I'm not certain Presidents, firefighters, police officers, & EMTs would agree with doing the right thing is "pretty simple".
M
The basic concepts only become complicated when filtered through specific rules and conditions. We're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about “doing the right thing” in terms of Superman, a character who has existed in various forms for nearly 80 years. You're applying that to Superman as written within the context of modern comic book storytelling. It's not comparing apples to oranges, but rather apples to Granny Smith apples.
I'm talking about Superman at his deepest, most basic core. The basic character traits that make the character Superman and that can be applied to any Superman story, be it a Super Friends cartoon, a Golden Age Superman story, a children’s Superman book, or a modern Superman comic. You're talking about Superman set in a specific type of world that has preconceived guidelines. In storytelling terms, you've already written the bible for the world in which this core Superman lives, and you're analyzing the character “doing the right thing” through that specific lens.
Basically, I'm looking at the character as “What would Superman do?” while you’re looking at him as “What would Superman do within this set of circumstances?” “Doing the right thing” is only subjective once you apply the concept to a world's established rules. I could do the same thing with your preferred basic concept of Superman “leading them.” If Kal-El landed in Nazi Germany and was raised under Hitler's sway, that resulting Superman’s idea of “leading them” would be very different than that of the Superman we are used to.
That said, personally, I don't think “leading them” belongs at the core of Superman. I don't see Superman as proactive, but rather as reactive. If he sees an injustice, he works to correct it, not with the expectation or hope that others will follow in his wake, but simply because he has the power to do so. That’s not to say that “leading them” couldn't be used as a story device. In fact, it has been used to various degrees of success. I just don't see it at the heart of the character.
That's why I don't connect with Kent. I see "right" filtered through those guidelines.
It's hard for me to understand people not looking to be led by a being with god-like abilities. Someone stated Jor-El was more Pa Kent in MoS then Pa Kent. Jor-El stated he should lead them.
That's why I don't connect with Kent. I see "right" filtered through those guidelines.
And I imagine that's why you have a fairly specific Batman you connect with as well, you're seeing that character through certain guidelines as well. Whereas I can enjoy Batman ’66 and the Brave and the Bold cartoon just as much as I do the O’Neil/Adams Batman or the “Year One” Batman, Batman has to fit into a certain type of world for you to enjoy the character.
It's hard for me to understand people not looking to be led by a being with god-like abilities. M
Two things: First, there is a difference between being a leader and being looked to as a leader. One does not necessitate the other.
Two, humans can be downright jealous and resentful. Not to mention afraid, suspicious, arrogant, and dogmatic. There are a multitude of reasons people would not look to be led by someone with god-like powers.
That's why I don't connect with Kent. I see "right" filtered through those guidelines.
And I imagine that's why you have a fairly specific Batman you connect with as well, you're seeing that character through certain guidelines as well. Whereas I can enjoy Batman ’66 and the Brave and the Bold cartoon just as much as I do the O’Neil/Adams Batman or the “Year One” Batman, Batman has to fit into a certain type of world for you to enjoy the character.
It's hard for me to understand people not looking to be led by a being with god-like abilities. M
Two things: First, there is a difference between being a leader and being looked to as a leader. One does not necessitate the other.
Two, humans can be downright jealous and resentful. Not to mention afraid, suspicious, arrogant, and dogmatic. There are a multitude of reasons people would not look to be led by someone with god-like powers.
I see Superman's role that of a defender of earth, not a leader of it. Read the excellent Elseworlds story Red Son to better understand the difference.
I disagree. We never saw him stymie Clark's growth of his powers. We only saw him want Clark to conceal his abilities. He also never scolded or told Clark not to save those kids; common misconceptions.
Clark asked "what should I have done? Let them die?" Pa response "I don't know. Maybe." How's that scolding? Pa then went on to give Clark caution about the world. Again not scolding. After a bully picked on Clark, Pa asked him "how did that make you feel?" Clark admitted he wanted to fight the bully. Any chance that's a way of illustrating to Clark why he shouldn't use his powers to be a bully?
Was Kent trying to find himself the same as having confused morals? He sure seemed to be using his powers during that timespan. It's how Lane found him.
The comparisons to the 1978 movie also feel worn out. If the world of 2015 was still the world of 1978, it'd be a solid point. These characters have evolved & reflected the current state of the world, not the era they were originally conceived. Was Pa's moral compass gone, or is it in line with our moral compass of today?
I have no love for the last 1/3rd of the movie & it's disaster porn. I'll defend the wall until the next movie on the first 2/3rds.
M
There seems to be a general consensus that the way Kevin Costner delivered the “maybe” sounded a lot like an implied “yes.” So here we see a Jonathan Kent that is such a cold, calculating utilitarian that he would allow a schoolbus full of children to drown and even sacrifice his own life (tornado) for the probability of Clark saving future lives.
In 2015 I am sure that a segment of the audience applauds Pa Kent's utilitarian calculations, but there was such a controversy over the way the Kent's have been portrayed I would guess more of the audience did not applaud the portrayal.
As for Clark's confused morals... I would submit that using his powers to destroy a jerk's half-million dollar semi-truck over a spilt beer is an act of a manchild with very confused values and morals, yes. Sticks & stones? The very act seems petulant, prideful, and not even equitable in an "eye for an eye" fashion.
It certainly would only be the "right thing to do" if you were a bully or a spoiled brat.
I disagree. We never saw him stymie Clark's growth of his powers. We only saw him want Clark to conceal his abilities. He also never scolded or told Clark not to save those kids; common misconceptions.
Clark asked "what should I have done? Let them die?" Pa response "I don't know. Maybe." How's that scolding? Pa then went on to give Clark caution about the world. Again not scolding. After a bully picked on Clark, Pa asked him "how did that make you feel?" Clark admitted he wanted to fight the bully. Any chance that's a way of illustrating to Clark why he shouldn't use his powers to be a bully?
Was Kent trying to find himself the same as having confused morals? He sure seemed to be using his powers during that timespan. It's how Lane found him.
The comparisons to the 1978 movie also feel worn out. If the world of 2015 was still the world of 1978, it'd be a solid point. These characters have evolved & reflected the current state of the world, not the era they were originally conceived. Was Pa's moral compass gone, or is it in line with our moral compass of today?
I have no love for the last 1/3rd of the movie & it's disaster porn. I'll defend the wall until the next movie on the first 2/3rds.
M
There seems to be a general consensus that the way Kevin Costner delivered the “maybe” sounded a lot like an implied “yes.” So here we see a Jonathan Kent that is such a cold, calculating utilitarian that he would allow a schoolbus full of children to drown and even sacrifice his own life (tornado) for the probability of Clark saving future lives.
In 2015 I am sure that a segment of the audience applauds Pa Kent's utilitarian calculations, but there was such a controversy over the way the Kent's have been portrayed I would guess more of the audience did not applaud the portrayal.
As for Clark's confused morals... I would submit that using his powers to destroy a jerk's half-million dollar semi-truck over a spilt beer is an act of a manchild with very confused values and morals, yes. Sticks & stones? The very act seems petulant, prideful, and not even equitable in an "eye for an eye" fashion.
It certainly would only be the "right thing to do" if you were a bully or a spoiled brat.
An implied "yes" instead of being a man who didn't have an answer? It was preceded by "I don't know." Since he wasn't the Pa of old and state "No, Clark. You don't let anyone die...ever" it's been seen as him telling Clark to let people die.
Was his sacrifice just to protect Kent's secret...or also to teach him about letting go. Maybe even realizing Pa wanted to protect Clark by keeping him close instead of be in the world. Plus, Pa died as a result of saving a dog & helping people...is that a confusing moral compass?
Who were complaining about the Kents? Comic book fans & those who hold the 1978 movie as a gold standard? There a whole new generation (Pete touch on this) that did complain. It's the world they know, not knew.
So, there's a difference between destroying an expensive truck as oppose to beating up a trucker then leaving cash for the business owner with "I've, ah, been working out"?!
So, there's a difference between destroying an expensive truck as oppose to beating up a trucker then leaving cash for the business owner with "I've, ah, been working out"?!
So, there's a difference between destroying an expensive truck as oppose to beating up a trucker then leaving cash for the business owner with "I've, ah, been working out"?!
M
Yes.
So if you're picking on me, I go to get you back, there's a difference in revenge from me "roughing you up" & my going all Carrie Underwood on your vehicle?!
So the fact he paid the owner for the damages, despite "roughing up" the trucker is better then destroying the personal property (without touching) the trucker?
I'm sure the trucker in the second clip with the crippled hand would agree.
Yes. All Supes did was stop a bully by embarrassing him and making him dizzy and placing his butt in some food and onto a pinball machine, then he paid for the damages. The bully only got hurt when he tried to gut check Supes.
What Man of Steel's Kent did was destroy a man's property in secret and hurt his livelihood and damage public property and possibly the cafe's property in the process while possibly frightening the entire town bewildered by what actually happened. In a way it's even creepier than Singer's version of "Peeping Tom Superman" in Superman Returns.
Comments
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
seems like io9 writer agrees with me... i guess Snyder wants to make Lois the reason Clark Kent is superman and not because of the Kents...
http://io9.com/lets-break-down-all-the-secrets-in-batman-v-supermans-1717576234
As Lois reminds Clark that he still means something to people, we see stranded civilians in a flood waiting to be saved—having painted a giant version of Superman’s emblem to try and grab the Man of Steel’s attention. In direct contrast to Lois’ message that that Superman still matters to people, Martha Kent offers an alternative point of view:
People hate what they don’t understand. Be their hero, Clark. Be their angel, be their monument, be anything they need you to be. Or be none of it. You don’t owe this world a thing. You never did.
Presumably Clark chose Lois’ advice over Ma Kent’s, as the aforementioned dialogue plays over a short montage of Superman doing pretty much all of those things—saving people and being treated like a God, as well as saving the Roscosmos rocket from the first trailer:
The filmmakers can change that if they like, but it seems to negate the whole reason for him landing in a small mid-western town in the first place. It would be like the next Spider-Man film having Uncle Ben tell Peter that "with great power comes a lot of headaches, so make sure to cover your own ass at all times."
When Moses reportedly led the Jews, was that because he "owed it to them"?
When Jesus reportedly died for our sins, was that because he "owed it to us"?
Both biblical figures are part of the Kent template. Neither owed the people they led & saved anything.
M
The traditional, home-grown, positive morals of Superman were replaced with bitterness and angst. Superman’s origin now involves the regret of standing by as a father figure is killed. It's like some weird hybrid origin of Batman and Spider-Man!
In 1978's Superman: The Movie there was a poignant scene where Pa Kent is dying of a heart attack and Clark suddenly realizes that even with all of his great power, he can't save everyone. In Man of Steel, Pa Kent freakishly dies in a tornado, refusing to let Clark save him to protect his secret identity. So Clark is forced to watch his father needlessly die and then travels the world carrying this dark secret, loaded with regret and confused morals. This is the through line for the entire movie and I believe it suffered because of it and many audiences couldn't connect.
Zack Snyder has said that he has a 3 hour cut of Man of Steel, Perhaps there was some dramatic breathing room left on the cutting-room floor that would have improved the experience for me, but the disaster porn and Pa Kent's moral compass are likely embedded.
As for now, it is what it is, and this is the film-world Superman we have today. Get used to it.
Clark asked "what should I have done? Let them die?" Pa response "I don't know. Maybe." How's that scolding? Pa then went on to give Clark caution about the world. Again not scolding. After a bully picked on Clark, Pa asked him "how did that make you feel?" Clark admitted he wanted to fight the bully. Any chance that's a way of illustrating to Clark why he shouldn't use his powers to be a bully?
Was Kent trying to find himself the same as having confused morals? He sure seemed to be using his powers during that timespan. It's how Lane found him.
The comparisons to the 1978 movie also feel worn out. If the world of 2015 was still the world of 1978, it'd be a solid point. These characters have evolved & reflected the current state of the world, not the era they were originally conceived. Was Pa's moral compass gone, or is it in line with our moral compass of today?
I have no love for the last 1/3rd of the movie & it's disaster porn. I'll defend the wall until the next movie on the first 2/3rds.
M
I'm talking about Superman at his deepest, most basic core. The basic character traits that make the character Superman and that can be applied to any Superman story, be it a Super Friends cartoon, a Golden Age Superman story, a children’s Superman book, or a modern Superman comic. You're talking about Superman set in a specific type of world that has preconceived guidelines. In storytelling terms, you've already written the bible for the world in which this core Superman lives, and you're analyzing the character “doing the right thing” through that specific lens.
Basically, I'm looking at the character as “What would Superman do?” while you’re looking at him as “What would Superman do within this set of circumstances?” “Doing the right thing” is only subjective once you apply the concept to a world's established rules. I could do the same thing with your preferred basic concept of Superman “leading them.” If Kal-El landed in Nazi Germany and was raised under Hitler's sway, that resulting Superman’s idea of “leading them” would be very different than that of the Superman we are used to.
That said, personally, I don't think “leading them” belongs at the core of Superman. I don't see Superman as proactive, but rather as reactive. If he sees an injustice, he works to correct it, not with the expectation or hope that others will follow in his wake, but simply because he has the power to do so. That’s not to say that “leading them” couldn't be used as a story device. In fact, it has been used to various degrees of success. I just don't see it at the heart of the character.
It's hard for me to understand people not looking to be led by a being with god-like abilities. Someone stated Jor-El was more Pa Kent in MoS then Pa Kent. Jor-El stated he should lead them.
And one man's savior is another man's destroyer.
M
Two things: First, there is a difference between being a leader and being looked to as a leader. One does not necessitate the other.
Two, humans can be downright jealous and resentful. Not to mention afraid, suspicious, arrogant, and dogmatic. There are a multitude of reasons people would not look to be led by someone with god-like powers.
In 2015 I am sure that a segment of the audience applauds Pa Kent's utilitarian calculations, but there was such a controversy over the way the Kent's have been portrayed I would guess more of the audience did not applaud the portrayal.
As for Clark's confused morals... I would submit that using his powers to destroy a jerk's half-million dollar semi-truck over a spilt beer is an act of a manchild with very confused values and morals, yes. Sticks & stones? The very act seems petulant, prideful, and not even equitable in an "eye for an eye" fashion.
It certainly would only be the "right thing to do" if you were a bully or a spoiled brat.
Was his sacrifice just to protect Kent's secret...or also to teach him about letting go. Maybe even realizing Pa wanted to protect Clark by keeping him close instead of be in the world. Plus, Pa died as a result of saving a dog & helping people...is that a confusing moral compass?
Who were complaining about the Kents? Comic book fans & those who hold the 1978 movie as a gold standard? There a whole new generation (Pete touch on this) that did complain. It's the world they know, not knew.
So, there's a difference between destroying an expensive truck as oppose to beating up a trucker then leaving cash for the business owner with "I've, ah, been working out"?!
M
and I wouldn't exactly call this "beating a guy up." Maybe "roughing him up" and he paid the owner for the damages.
M
I'm sure the trucker in the second clip with the crippled hand would agree.
M
What Man of Steel's Kent did was destroy a man's property in secret and hurt his livelihood and damage public property and possibly the cafe's property in the process while possibly frightening the entire town bewildered by what actually happened. In a way it's even creepier than Singer's version of "Peeping Tom Superman" in Superman Returns.
Jesus take the wheel :)