Options
Episode 1440 Talkback: A Cornucopia of Comics Conversation 2013
Adam_Murdough
Posts: 506
It's our annual Thanksgiving Week gobble-gobble gabfest, and we welcome a special guest to the table, our old friend Scott Powers, to partake in a bounteous banquet of babble! Topics on the menu include the passing of Nick Cardy; the return of MST3K Turkey Day; the Bat-Kid of San Francisco; recently announced comic book cancellations and revivals; a marathon of 'Muddle the Murd' misfires; and a heaping helping of TV talk (with spoiler sauce!) covering 'Arrow,' 'The Walking Dead,' 'Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.,' and 'American Horror Story.' This one's got everything but the cranberry sauce! (1:39:47)
Listen here.
Listen here.
Comments
The lack of humor until Kent's reveal makes sense. Once he found his place in the world, it makes sense he'd be smiling more.
M
Paradise Island by way of "Xanadu"! :x
Also, that Nick Cardy Wonder Woman print is amazing!
For the rules >>> http://thecomicforums.com/discussion/comment/51121/#Comment_51121
Matthew
I also would not say I defend "it" anymore then someone who discusses to me why the 60s Batman TV series worked. It is a different interpretation that works for some, not all. If someone has an issue with the movie (and I know there are a bunch of people), I am not looking to defend it, just discuss it.
There has been enough talk about the movie, especially on the forums (trust me, I've been apart of almost all of them.) I would tell you to expect to see something different from Donner's movies (wasn't that a criticism of Superman Returns?!), expect to see a very different costume, expect to see a Kent who is an outcast trying to find his place in the world, and expect a disaster porn climax. If you are shackled by the version from 20 years ago and a "purest" then expect to be disappointed. If you are open to a new interpretation (like Morrison's All-Star Superman), then you will at least have a good movie watching experience.
M
M
Interestingly, most of the people I personally know who had problems with this scene are people who don't have kids of their own... not saying this is true across the board, but based on people I have talked with one-on-one in person about this, that's how it has broken down. All I really know is that if I were in Jonathan Kent's shoes and it comes down to trying to protect my son or him risking exposure and all the danger that comes with it, well...
I hope for your sake your kid's not on that bus.
M
I'm sorry - whatever you think of the rest of the film - that scene between Jonathan and young Clark is just poorly written. If it had been better written, then the tons of people like me who were bothered by it simply would not have been bothered; the idea of a man struggling to protect his son could've been presented lots of ways, with dialogue that wasn't so divisive. The great Kevin Costner can get as teary-eyed and choked up as he wants, but that doesn't mean I am going to swallow anything and everything he says as brilliant new Superman gospel. Especially when it comes across as sloppy, selfish, paranoid, and dangerous.
And as for the bigoted idea that childless people somehow can't grasp the concept of protecting a loved one quite like someone with children can? That's not only stupid, it's grossly insulting to childless people everywhere. It's like saying women can never fully understand "Breaking Bad," because women can never fully know what it's like to be a desperate father like Walter White. Hogwash. Bad writing is bad writing. And insulting people while trying to defend it only makes it worse.
Second, its a theory based on a small sample size. Assuming your outlook on life & situation won't change once you have a child is as much a fallacy as what you're accusing this theory to be.
Thirdly, Pa Kent had NO question Clark was indestructible, right? Sure he seems that way now, but there's never a question of his unknown, alien body growing out of it? I recall growing up seeing pain & injuries being short lived. Pull a muscle now...no issue by tonight. In my 30s, however, I'm finding that not to be the case.
For all Pa knew, by the age of 18, Clark's body has truly adapted to Earth & he's stripped of the powers. Now, he's no longer able to save the world like he has been, PLUS he's exposed to being locked away as an alien spending the rest of his life being examined. It's hardly selfish. Selfish would be Pa wanting Clark to only help him gain profit. This is protecting him.
(You lost me with "sloppy".)
HAVING great power doesn't mean you automatically are ready to use them. Its one of the reason I enjoyed Batman's attitude toward some of the other, younger & superpowered heroes.
Forth, is it bad writing or writing you don't agree with? There is a difference, trust me. Everytime I proclaim my distaste for the 60s Batman series or Batman's portrayal since Morrison (both of which I don't agree with), I get lambasted about it.
I enjoyed the writing of the majority of the movie. Sure there were changes I didn't like. Sure I would've liked to see some scenes go a different way, but the elements of the character are still there.
Do you really think if THIS scenario (an alien revealed among us with super powers) was a reality, society would instantly embrace him/her? The masses wouldn't fear him? The government wouldn't want to examine him? Isn't that part of what happened in the movie? Looks as though Pa's "paranoid & dangerous" mindset wasn't so.
In fact, that's something that always bothered me with Donner's movie. This guy has superpowers, saves a couple people and is instantly beloved. Really? I've read How To Serve Man. Saving/helping people doesn't lower my suspicions. If that makes me paranoid, then I'll wear that self-awareness with honor.
Quick question...after the Kryptonian ship started drilling into Metropolis, did everyone in the high rises definitely NOT evacuate? Those buildings Kent & Zod crashed though were all heavily populated with people at the time? That's a fact, right? I mean, in Avengers, I clearly recall a scene where Hulk is running through an office populated with people right before jumping through a window and onto the floating alien. I cannot say I recall an building Kent & Zod entered that had people within at the time besides Grand Station.
I do recall in Superman II, the fight had more exposition then, you know, fighting. Based on the hail maker/wild swings of Kent & the more procision fighting style of Zod, I don't see this Superman being capable of fighting off a more formidable foe a AND rescue people. He did seem to be trying to get out of populated areas, but Zod kept bringing them back.
Up until this movie, I never really cared for Superman, so I'm not certain about his full mythos. In all of the previous 1st encounters with Zod or Kryptonian villains, did Kent JUST start out (like in this movie) or had he fought superpowered foes prior?
Finally, I've said this before many times, if you think Pa's fathering based on that scene was shitty, then I'll wait for Child Services to arrive at my house. I would've provided the same thought-provoking advice. I want my children to think things through & not just jump in head first. Since Pa never said "Yes Clark, you should've let them die" or visibly scold Clark on his decision, I refuse to believe Pa thought Clark should've done nothing.
M
No one says Pa Kent always has to be a saint. Hell, in an early version they dropped Kal-El's ass off at an orphanage first. All to say: there is no one way to write any of these characters. And there most certainly isn't a 'right' way - that's only allowable if you're writing/directing the movie yourself. :)
Which is a pretty interesting idea, and I liked the way they paralleled he and Jor-El. I just wished they gave Pa a little more screen time and better text to make his argument with. But the idea is a good one.
And I also wish that Clark's decision to go public was made after a scene with Ma, to give her more to do, rather than that completely tepid and pandering scene with the priest.
EDIT- and before a conclusion is jumped to, I am not saying that there should not have been faith in the film. Rather, that the Kent's relationship to their faith had not been established in the movie. We had no idea what Clark's relationship to that priest was, and it didn't help that they cast a CW aged actor in the role that it wasn't like we could assume that this was someone Clark had the counsel of his whole life. Did the Kent's let the priests or ministers in their life into their big secret? We don't know. But what we do know at that point is Clark's relationship to Ma, so to me having him seek counsel from this out-of-nowhere young priest instead of her seemed the weaker choice.
And also felt like a shrewd marketing move, as WB marketed MofS directly to some churches and religious groups, encouraging them to have group outings to the film and discussions or sermons around it, so that scene felt like a pander to that program.
So if Clark's faith is an important part of his becoming Superman, great, but that would have needed to be established and built on earlier in the film for me. Then it would not have felt like a tossed-off pander.
M
Pa Kent was the more interesting villain- the one that would have prevented Superman from coming to be in the first place.
M
You have my blessing. Go in peace, and watch things that you will like more. ;)
M