Finally actually watched MoS today. I kinda liked it. I thought I'd be put off by the controversial elements of the movie, but at least the Pa Kent stuff seemed organic to the story and totally overblown online. The Zod death was lazy writing but not egregious to the character.
One question? How are we supposed to believe that Clark could possibly maintain a secret identity? The entire US government knows he's from Smallville, it took Lois 5 minutes to track him down when no one was looking for him and that's because so many people were already so close to the truth that it's impossible someone like Pete Ross couldn't put 2+2 together. Or another journalist, it's not like there wouldn't be interest in the story.
I recall watching something with Goyer where he commented Kent's abilities was the town's secret. Since he helped the townspeople over the years, they basically kept Kent's secret.
I had that same thought. At the very least they know he's from the area. Shouldn't be too hard to out some analysts on the case and look at everyone in the state under the age of 40.
But he wasn't allowed to help them, and after the bus incident we are to assume he didn't. Also they had no problem telling Lois a week earlier. Also that wasn't in the movie. If Goyer wanted it in there it should have been in there. I just can't imagine someone with the resources of Lex Luthor not figuring it out in like 15-20 minutes. And the ol' "no one thinks he has a secret identity " excuse doesn't hold up because everyone knows he was raised in Kansas in secret, because Zod told every person on the planet he's been here since he was a baby and Supes told the government he was from Kansas. Also they presumably retrieved his spaceship from his mothers house, since they drove it to the base.
Smallville's deadbeat town drunk would be on the Today Show the day after MoS talking about how they were on the football team together and how everyone knows the old bus story.
And while we're at it, in this day and age with the death of print journalism he gets a job at the Planet easy-peasy. He's a 33 year old man who is apparently a drifter because he has to keep his work history a secret otherwise it would also lead to his being Superman working at one if the most prestigious news organizations on the planet.You think they could have thrown in a line about Clark being a good writer, like during the argument in the car with Jonathon, "if you aren't going to be a farmer then what?" "I don't know, a writer maybe?". Now it looks like he's stalking his girlfriend
I recall watching something with Goyer where he commented Kent's abilities was the town's secret. Since he helped the townspeople over the years, they basically kept Kent's secret.
M
Right.
Like that would survive the destruction of the entire freaking town.
But he wasn't allowed to help them, and after the bus incident we are to assume he didn't. Also they had no problem telling Lois a week earlier. Also that wasn't in the movie. If Goyer wanted it in there it should have been in there. I just can't imagine someone with the resources of Lex Luthor not figuring it out in like 15-20 minutes. And the ol' "no one thinks he has a secret identity " excuse doesn't hold up because everyone knows he was raised in Kansas in secret, because Zod told every person on the planet he's been here since he was a baby and Supes told the government he was from Kansas. Also they presumably retrieved his spaceship from his mothers house, since they drove it to the base.
Smallville's deadbeat town drunk would be on the Today Show the day after MoS talking about how they were on the football team together and how everyone knows the old bus story.
You mean like wearing those glasses for a disguise?
But he wasn't allowed to help them, and after the bus incident we are to assume he didn't. Also they had no problem telling Lois a week earlier. Also that wasn't in the movie. If Goyer wanted it in there it should have been in there. I just can't imagine someone with the resources of Lex Luthor not figuring it out in like 15-20 minutes. And the ol' "no one thinks he has a secret identity " excuse doesn't hold up because everyone knows he was raised in Kansas in secret, because Zod told every person on the planet he's been here since he was a baby and Supes told the government he was from Kansas. Also they presumably retrieved his spaceship from his mothers house, since they drove it to the base.
Smallville's deadbeat town drunk would be on the Today Show the day after MoS talking about how they were on the football team together and how everyone knows the old bus story.
You mean like wearing those glasses for a disguise?
But he wasn't allowed to help them, and after the bus incident we are to assume he didn't. Also they had no problem telling Lois a week earlier. Also that wasn't in the movie. If Goyer wanted it in there it should have been in there. I just can't imagine someone with the resources of Lex Luthor not figuring it out in like 15-20 minutes. And the ol' "no one thinks he has a secret identity " excuse doesn't hold up because everyone knows he was raised in Kansas in secret, because Zod told every person on the planet he's been here since he was a baby and Supes told the government he was from Kansas. Also they presumably retrieved his spaceship from his mothers house, since they drove it to the base.
Smallville's deadbeat town drunk would be on the Today Show the day after MoS talking about how they were on the football team together and how everyone knows the old bus story.
No, after the bus incident, Kent was posed the questions to have him think about when & how to use his powers. How many people did Kent help in the TV series 'Smallville'? How many of those people kept the secret?
You could make the same complaint about any comic book hero in today's age. Parker went running down the street ripping his shirt open to stop the Goblin's parade attack.
Think about those two terrorists at the Boston Marathon bombing. Law enforcement agencies used nearby surveillance footage & attendees' photos to identify them.
In Spider-man 2, any one of those passengers on the train could've caught a photo of the maskless Spider-man.
But he wasn't allowed to help them, and after the bus incident we are to assume he didn't. Also they had no problem telling Lois a week earlier. Also that wasn't in the movie. If Goyer wanted it in there it should have been in there. I just can't imagine someone with the resources of Lex Luthor not figuring it out in like 15-20 minutes. And the ol' "no one thinks he has a secret identity " excuse doesn't hold up because everyone knows he was raised in Kansas in secret, because Zod told every person on the planet he's been here since he was a baby and Supes told the government he was from Kansas. Also they presumably retrieved his spaceship from his mothers house, since they drove it to the base.
Smallville's deadbeat town drunk would be on the Today Show the day after MoS talking about how they were on the football team together and how everyone knows the old bus story.
No, after the bus incident, Kent was posed the questions to have him think about when & how to use his powers. How many people did Kent help in the TV series 'Smallville'? How many of those people kept the secret?
You could make the same complaint about any comic book hero in today's age. Parker went running down the street ripping his shirt open to stop the Goblin's parade attack.
Think about those two terrorists at the Boston Marathon bombing. Law enforcement agencies used nearby surveillance footage & attendees' photos to identify them.
In Spider-man 2, any one of those passengers on the train could've caught a photo of the maskless Spider-man.
M
I would, and do make that complaint about every secret identity in comics movies and television. I don't think in the modern world they are remotely plausible. But I think in this particular movie they have shown multiple weak spots in his secret that makes it seem even more unlikely that it would hold up for even 24 hours.
As for the Pa Kent conversation, I agree with you that it was to make Clark think about how and when to use his powers, but that Clark decided to listen to his father and not use them until much later in life. By "allowed" I meant more by his personal code which was informed father's beliefs.
I only saw pa kent as a paranoid fearful man with no faith in his fellow man. He didn't want his son to help people or expose himself because it would lead to his personal destruction or that of the world/society as we know it. The while thing was just more propaganda about how horrible people are. And that theme was repeated and reinforced throughout the movie. Pa kent never offered any exceptions or directions. If he had, then most the problems people had with these points in the movie would be gone. A couple tweaks could've turned everything around to ok. Instead It was poorly written and handled. He said "you've gotta keep this part of you a secret". Not, I know or understand but... I'm proud of you but... And it was delivered with anger and frustration. Not with compassion or concern as I saw it based on the writing and performance. Pa kent was burdened by Clark's gifts. He wanted Clark hidden away in a bubble. The closest they got to a decent Clark and pa scene with a decent message was at the garage when Clark was being picked on. Everything that needed to be said and that they wanted to say could be expressed concisely and beautifully as in the original superman movie between pa and Clark. That simple single scene had no politics, was more deftly written and contained more heart and connection to all the themes of the character and that world than the entire mos film. Pa kent is a simple man. Not a small man. No secret identity is possible in mos. as far as the world knows or can show, is Clark kent I assume graduated smallville high then went to work on the family farm or disappeared almost completely. No apparent work history. No apparent further education. Certainly nothing that could warrant a reporters position at the daily planet a year or two after coming to town. Of course they were probably pretty desperate seeing as how most their staff just died. Maybe they lowered standards?
I only saw pa kent as a paranoid fearful man with no faith in his fellow man. He didn't want his son to help people or expose himself because it would lead to his personal destruction or that of the world/society as we know it. The while thing was just more propaganda about how horrible people are. And that theme was repeated and reinforced throughout the movie. Pa kent never offered any exceptions or directions. If he had, then most the problems people had with these points in the movie would be gone. A couple tweaks could've turned everything around to ok. Instead It was poorly written and handled. He said "you've gotta keep this part of you a secret". Not, I know or understand but... I'm proud of you but... And it was delivered with anger and frustration. Not with compassion or concern as I saw it based on the writing and performance. Pa kent was burdened by Clark's gifts. He wanted Clark hidden away in a bubble. The closest they got to a decent Clark and pa scene with a decent message was at the garage when Clark was being picked on. Everything that needed to be said and that they wanted to say could be expressed concisely and beautifully as in the original superman movie between pa and Clark. That simple single scene had no politics, was more deftly written and contained more heart and connection to all the themes of the character and that world than the entire mos film. Pa kent is a simple man. Not a small man. No secret identity is possible in mos. as far as the world knows or can show, is Clark kent I assume graduated smallville high then went to work on the family farm or disappeared almost completely. No apparent work history. No apparent further education. Certainly nothing that could warrant a reporters position at the daily planet a year or two after coming to town. Of course they were probably pretty desperate seeing as how most their staff just died. Maybe they lowered standards?
The cut of Man of Steel that I saw must have been a different one from yours.
I DO know if you want to compare movies, the 1978 movie had people just accept this strange alien with open arms after rescuing some reporter & holding a helicopter.
Also, after leaving the farm, he spent a long time in the Fortress of Solitude before going right to Metropolis & the Daily Planet. I guess he didn't need further education either...just typing skills!
It's okay to prefer the golly-gosh interpretation of the character. I got what they were doing with Man of Steel & found it to be the interesting interpretation yet.
I only saw pa kent as a paranoid fearful man with no faith in his fellow man. He didn't want his son to help people or expose himself because it would lead to his personal destruction or that of the world/society as we know it. The while thing was just more propaganda about how horrible people are. And that theme was repeated and reinforced throughout the movie. Pa kent never offered any exceptions or directions. If he had, then most the problems people had with these points in the movie would be gone. A couple tweaks could've turned everything around to ok. Instead It was poorly written and handled. He said "you've gotta keep this part of you a secret". Not, I know or understand but... I'm proud of you but... And it was delivered with anger and frustration. Not with compassion or concern as I saw it based on the writing and performance. Pa kent was burdened by Clark's gifts. He wanted Clark hidden away in a bubble. The closest they got to a decent Clark and pa scene with a decent message was at the garage when Clark was being picked on. Everything that needed to be said and that they wanted to say could be expressed concisely and beautifully as in the original superman movie between pa and Clark. That simple single scene had no politics, was more deftly written and contained more heart and connection to all the themes of the character and that world than the entire mos film. Pa kent is a simple man. Not a small man.
I didn't interpret Pa Kent like that at all. It seemed like he was concerned with Clark's future and his potential impact on the entire world. I don't think it's paranoid to expect the worst out of humanity when they are presented with a challenge to their way of life. And their conversation tonally felt like the exact kind of conversation a father and son would have about a tricky moral grey area at that age. Pa Kent wanted his son to do great things but he didn't want them crushed into the dirt by fear and ignorance.
I only saw pa kent as a paranoid fearful man with no faith in his fellow man. He didn't want his son to help people or expose himself because it would lead to his personal destruction or that of the world/society as we know it. The while thing was just more propaganda about how horrible people are. And that theme was repeated and reinforced throughout the movie. Pa kent never offered any exceptions or directions. If he had, then most the problems people had with these points in the movie would be gone. A couple tweaks could've turned everything around to ok. Instead It was poorly written and handled. He said "you've gotta keep this part of you a secret". Not, I know or understand but... I'm proud of you but... And it was delivered with anger and frustration. Not with compassion or concern as I saw it based on the writing and performance. Pa kent was burdened by Clark's gifts. He wanted Clark hidden away in a bubble. The closest they got to a decent Clark and pa scene with a decent message was at the garage when Clark was being picked on. Everything that needed to be said and that they wanted to say could be expressed concisely and beautifully as in the original superman movie between pa and Clark. That simple single scene had no politics, was more deftly written and contained more heart and connection to all the themes of the character and that world than the entire mos film. Pa kent is a simple man. Not a small man.
I didn't interpret Pa Kent like that at all. It seemed like he was concerned with Clark's future and his potential impact on the entire world. I don't think it's paranoid to expect the worst out of humanity when they are presented with a challenge to their way of life. And their conversation tonally felt like the exact kind of conversation a father and son would have about a tricky moral grey area at that age. Pa Kent wanted his son to do great things but he didn't want them crushed into the dirt by fear and ignorance.
I know people who dislike the movie immediately use thy scene a a reasoning. Truthfully, it's exactly how I would've discussed I with Clark. Its the same way I'll parent my daughter. I'm not going to tell her what's the choice she should make. I want her to think about the possible answers & outcomes. Especially those times that I don't have the answers.
I tell my wife that I'll walk the path she chooses with her, but I cannot tell her what path to take.
Personally, I find concepts like an old money trust fund kid having enough drive and self discipline to transform himself into a peak physical and mental specimen capable of being a one-man engine of justice at least as hard to believe as flying men, magic wish fulfilling rings and secret identities (which have had a history of working).
Much like any science fiction movie, I go to comic book movies prepared to suspend reality. Likewise when I read a comic.
Personally, I find concepts like an old money trust fund kid having enough drive and self discipline to transform himself into a peak physical and mental specimen capable of being a one-man engine of justice at least as hard to believe as flying men, magic wish fulfilling rings and secret identities (which have had a history of working).
Much like any science fiction movie, I go to comic book movies prepared to suspend reality. Likewise when I read a comic.
That's the way I prefer to approach superhero films as well.
But when the screenwriters & director make such a point of injecting "realism" into the film, then all the ramifications of that "reality" need to be addressed.
For some reason (28 pages & counting) I keep thinking about this damn movie far more than I want to.
Although I didn't like "Jor-El: Badass Revolutionary", the point the film really lost me was when Clark fucked up the jerk's truck.
That was a cowardly, irresponsible act. He had now way of knowing who was gonna suffer as a result of his snit. Who actually owned the truck? The trailer? The cargo?
Although I still consider the neck-breaking to be a monumentally lazy bit of screenwriting, this was worse.
For some reason (28 pages & counting) I keep thinking about this damn movie far more than I want to.
Although I didn't like "Jor-El: Badass Revolutionary", the point the film really lost me was when Clark fucked up the jerk's truck.
That was a cowardly, irresponsible act. He had now way of knowing who was gonna suffer as a result of his snit. Who actually owned the truck? The trailer? The cargo?
Although I still consider the neck-breaking to be a monumentally lazy bit of screenwriting, this was worse.
Its weird, I have been thinking similar concerns about any boaters on the Potomac that got flipped or killed when the HeliCarrier crashed. All those out of worker administrative personnel at the SHIELD building when it was destroyed. Think about Stark's neighbors who had devalued property because of his 'parties.' Think about the students who missed out on studying when the military attacked Banner on campus.
Think about the lawsuit that trucker could've filed against the elderly couple who owned that truck stop where Kent beat up that trucker for 'taking his favorite seat.' Sure Kent gave money for the damages, but that probably won't cover the lawsuit. Plus, whatever the trucker was transporting wouldn't have gotten there in time.
For some reason (28 pages & counting) I keep thinking about this damn movie far more than I want to.
Although I didn't like "Jor-El: Badass Revolutionary", the point the film really lost me was when Clark fucked up the jerk's truck.
That was a cowardly, irresponsible act. He had now way of knowing who was gonna suffer as a result of his snit. Who actually owned the truck? The trailer? The cargo?
Although I still consider the neck-breaking to be a monumentally lazy bit of screenwriting, this was worse.
Its weird, I have been thinking similar concerns about any boaters on the Potomac that got flipped or killed when the HeliCarrier crashed. All those out of worker administrative personnel at the SHIELD building when it was destroyed. Think about Stark's neighbors who had devalued property because of his 'parties.' Think about the students who missed out on studying when the military attacked Banner on campus.
Think about the lawsuit that trucker could've filed against the elderly couple who owned that truck stop where Kent beat up that trucker for 'taking his favorite seat.' Sure Kent gave money for the damages, but that probably won't cover the lawsuit. Plus, whatever the trucker was transporting wouldn't have gotten there in time.
These heroes are so irresponsible!
M
Oh come on.
Taking down the helicarriers was completely justifiable and necessary. (Unlike the Zod scenario, the need for immediate action was clearly established by the script.)
The destruction of Stark's house was an act of terrorism.
The military's attack on Banner on the campus was clearly misguided, and heads would have rolled in the chain of command.
Clark's trashing of the truck was simply a deliberate, criminal act of vandalism committed out of petty spite. Worse bullying than the driver had demonstrated.
For some reason (28 pages & counting) I keep thinking about this damn movie far more than I want to.
Although I didn't like "Jor-El: Badass Revolutionary", the point the film really lost me was when Clark fucked up the jerk's truck.
That was a cowardly, irresponsible act. He had now way of knowing who was gonna suffer as a result of his snit. Who actually owned the truck? The trailer? The cargo?
Although I still consider the neck-breaking to be a monumentally lazy bit of screenwriting, this was worse.
Its weird, I have been thinking similar concerns about any boaters on the Potomac that got flipped or killed when the HeliCarrier crashed. All those out of worker administrative personnel at the SHIELD building when it was destroyed. Think about Stark's neighbors who had devalued property because of his 'parties.' Think about the students who missed out on studying when the military attacked Banner on campus.
Think about the lawsuit that trucker could've filed against the elderly couple who owned that truck stop where Kent beat up that trucker for 'taking his favorite seat.' Sure Kent gave money for the damages, but that probably won't cover the lawsuit. Plus, whatever the trucker was transporting wouldn't have gotten there in time.
These heroes are so irresponsible!
M
Oh come on.
Taking down the helicarriers was completely justifiable and necessary. (Unlike the Zod scenario, the need for immediate action was clearly established by the script.)
The destruction of Stark's house was an act of terrorism.
The military's attack on Banner on the campus was clearly misguided, and heads would have rolled in the chain of command.
Clark's trashing of the truck was simply a deliberate, criminal act of vandalism committed out of petty spite. Worse bullying than the driver had demonstrated.
Didn't Stark throw down the gauntlet for the attack? How about when he got drunk at his party & fought Rhodey?
I'd say Kent beating up that trucker near the end of Superman II was no better then what you're talking about in Man of Steel. Did the man's health, forthcoming lawsuit, delay of his shipment with the consequences of that was thought during your prior viewings. What about when Kent killed Zod & smirked when Lois punched Ursa causing her fall to death being an issue for you?
Didn't Stark throw down the gauntlet for the attack? How about when he got drunk at his party & fought Rhodey?
I'd say Kent beating up that trucker near the end of Superman II was no better then what you're talking about in Man of Steel. Did the man's health, forthcoming lawsuit, delay of his shipment with the consequences of that was thought during your prior viewings. What about when Kent killed Zod & smirked when Lois punched Ursa causing her fall to death being an issue for you?
M
My throwing down a gauntlet is not a crime. Picking it up and smacking me with it is.
Certainly Stark was an idiot trashing his house in a drunken fight. nobody else's property was damaged, though.
Using the Donner/Lester/Whoever films is not a defense. They sucked, too.
Didn't Stark throw down the gauntlet for the attack? How about when he got drunk at his party & fought Rhodey?
I'd say Kent beating up that trucker near the end of Superman II was no better then what you're talking about in Man of Steel. Did the man's health, forthcoming lawsuit, delay of his shipment with the consequences of that was thought during your prior viewings. What about when Kent killed Zod & smirked when Lois punched Ursa causing her fall to death being an issue for you?
M
My throwing down a gauntlet is not a crime. Picking it up and smacking me with it is.
Certainly Stark was an idiot trashing his house in a drunken fight. nobody else's property was damaged, though.
Using the Donner/Lester/Whoever films is not a defense. They sucked, too.
Daring someone to come after you isn't a crime...but it's just as irresponsible.
No, as far as we know there was no property damage to neighboring addresses, but that doesn't mean Stark has made the area undesirable to live. Someone trying to see their home might have to undersell because of Stark.
Sometimes when you're railing Man of Steel about the same kind of things previously done, I miss your references to those prior movies. I'll just have to read closer next time.
Sometimes when you're railing Man of Steel about the same kind of things previously done, I miss your references to those prior movies. I'll just have to read closer next time.
M
I'm trying not to judge Man of Steel by anything but itself.
As portrayed in the film, Clark Kent: lonely wanderer, is a coward and a criminal.
As a viewer, I'm supposed to feel empathy for the character, but his actions make that impossible for me to do.
Sometimes when you're railing Man of Steel about the same kind of things previously done, I miss your references to those prior movies. I'll just have to read closer next time.
M
I'm trying not to judge Man of Steel by anything but itself.
As portrayed in the film, Clark Kent: lonely wanderer, is a coward and a criminal.
As a viewer, I'm supposed to feel empathy for the character, but his actions make that impossible for me to do.
Any time you work outside of the law, you're a criminal. I never heard you voice this issue before. If you have that feeling, why feel empathy for ANY superhero?
Sometimes when you're railing Man of Steel about the same kind of things previously done, I miss your references to those prior movies. I'll just have to read closer next time.
M
I'm trying not to judge Man of Steel by anything but itself.
As portrayed in the film, Clark Kent: lonely wanderer, is a coward and a criminal.
As a viewer, I'm supposed to feel empathy for the character, but his actions make that impossible for me to do.
Any time you work outside of the law, you're a criminal. I never heard you voice this issue before. If you have that feeling, why feel empathy for ANY superhero?
M
Please tell me you see the difference between fighting crime and vandalizing the property of someone who was mean to you.
I know you love playing Devil's Advocate, but I notice that rather than trying to defend Clark's despicable behavior, you keep shifting away from my actual point.
That scene was clearly intended to show Clark giving a bully his comeuppance in a humorous manner, similar to Superman II, in an effort to show that Clark doesn't like bullies. It wasn't even because the guy was mean to him, it was how he was treating the woman that caused clark to act. We know Clark can take it from a bully without fighting back because we see him do it in that garage scene with his dad. If the scene fails (which I agree it's probably the worst scene in the movie) it's because the movie is humorless, and the reaction far outweighed the action. It came off more Hancock than Superman and that's the fault of the director for being incapable of seeing that it is an inappropriate out of character moment. But I think it's a pretty extreme interpretation to call it cowardly.
Instead of confronting the asshole and showing him the consequences of his behavior, he slunk off and wrecked the guy's truck while nobody was looking.
In what way is the asshole gonna associate the unreal treatment of his rig with his behavior inside the diner?
It's a total crap scene. It shows Clark as a petulant creep, rather than a hero in the making.
I was already leaning against the character in the previous scene when he stole clothes. The truck incident then confirmed my dislike. And he never did anything through the rest of the film to make me like him. He was a tool. He never inspired admiration, let alone "hope."
Sometimes when you're railing Man of Steel about the same kind of things previously done, I miss your references to those prior movies. I'll just have to read closer next time.
M
I'm trying not to judge Man of Steel by anything but itself.
As portrayed in the film, Clark Kent: lonely wanderer, is a coward and a criminal.
As a viewer, I'm supposed to feel empathy for the character, but his actions make that impossible for me to do.
Any time you work outside of the law, you're a criminal. I never heard you voice this issue before. If you have that feeling, why feel empathy for ANY superhero?
M
Please tell me you see the difference between fighting crime and vandalizing the property of someone who was mean to you.
I know you love playing Devil's Advocate, but I notice that rather than trying to defend Clark's despicable behavior, you keep shifting away from my actual point.
Technically, both break the law, i.e. both are criminal actions.
As someone who was bullied growing up, Bully Justice is always great. As someone who realizes with great power comes responsibility, it shouldn't have happened. Using your powers to get 'the girl' or get back at a bully is never justified. Its like how there's a difference between vengeance & justice; one satisfies yourself.
Man of Steel & Superman II (and III) aren't the first time we've seen this.
I always prefer to see a bully get his/her comeuppance by their own hand. Now, if I can manipulate things behind the scenes...
That scene was clearly intended to show Clark giving a bully his comeuppance in a humorous manner, similar to Superman II, in an effort to show that Clark doesn't like bullies. It wasn't even because the guy was mean to him, it was how he was treating the woman that caused clark to act. We know Clark can take it from a bully without fighting back because we see him do it in that garage scene with his dad. If the scene fails (which I agree it's probably the worst scene in the movie) it's because the movie is humorless, and the reaction far outweighed the action. It came off more Hancock than Superman and that's the fault of the director for being incapable of seeing that it is an inappropriate out of character moment. But I think it's a pretty extreme interpretation to call it cowardly.
Does the movie need to have humor (which I'd argue is in the movie) to be good? How many times have we've seen the benefits of being Kent? Before this movie even was conceived, I wanted to see the other side of being Kent. The outcast, the alienated feeling, the uncertainty of how he fit into the world. In short, the burden of being Superman. This movie conveyed exactly why I'd never want to be Kent.
That scene was clearly intended to show Clark giving a bully his comeuppance in a humorous manner, similar to Superman II, in an effort to show that Clark doesn't like bullies. It wasn't even because the guy was mean to him, it was how he was treating the woman that caused clark to act. We know Clark can take it from a bully without fighting back because we see him do it in that garage scene with his dad. If the scene fails (which I agree it's probably the worst scene in the movie) it's because the movie is humorless, and the reaction far outweighed the action. It came off more Hancock than Superman and that's the fault of the director for being incapable of seeing that it is an inappropriate out of character moment. But I think it's a pretty extreme interpretation to call it cowardly.
Does the movie need to have humor (which I'd argue is in the movie) to be good? How many times have we've seen the benefits of being Kent? Before this movie even was conceived, I wanted to see the other side of being Kent. The outcast, the alienated feeling, the uncertainty of how he fit into the world. In short, the burden of being Superman. This movie conveyed exactly why I'd never want to be Kent.
M
The movie doesn't need humor to be good, but that scene does need it to work. It's a bad scene that should have ended up on the cutting room floor.
Comments
M
Smallville's deadbeat town drunk would be on the Today Show the day after MoS talking about how they were on the football team together and how everyone knows the old bus story.
Like that would survive the destruction of the entire freaking town.
M
M
You could make the same complaint about any comic book hero in today's age. Parker went running down the street ripping his shirt open to stop the Goblin's parade attack.
Think about those two terrorists at the Boston Marathon bombing. Law enforcement agencies used nearby surveillance footage & attendees' photos to identify them.
In Spider-man 2, any one of those passengers on the train could've caught a photo of the maskless Spider-man.
M
I would, and do make that complaint about every secret identity in comics movies and television. I don't think in the modern world they are remotely plausible. But I think in this particular movie they have shown multiple weak spots in his secret that makes it seem even more unlikely that it would hold up for even 24 hours.
As for the Pa Kent conversation, I agree with you that it was to make Clark think about how and when to use his powers, but that Clark decided to listen to his father and not use them until much later in life. By "allowed" I meant more by his personal code which was informed father's beliefs.
No secret identity is possible in mos. as far as the world knows or can show, is Clark kent I assume graduated smallville high then went to work on the family farm or disappeared almost completely. No apparent work history. No apparent further education. Certainly nothing that could warrant a reporters position at the daily planet a year or two after coming to town. Of course they were probably pretty desperate seeing as how most their staff just died. Maybe they lowered standards?
I DO know if you want to compare movies, the 1978 movie had people just accept this strange alien with open arms after rescuing some reporter & holding a helicopter.
Also, after leaving the farm, he spent a long time in the Fortress of Solitude before going right to Metropolis & the Daily Planet. I guess he didn't need further education either...just typing skills!
It's okay to prefer the golly-gosh interpretation of the character. I got what they were doing with Man of Steel & found it to be the interesting interpretation yet.
M
I tell my wife that I'll walk the path she chooses with her, but I cannot tell her what path to take.
M
Much like any science fiction movie, I go to comic book movies prepared to suspend reality. Likewise when I read a comic.
But when the screenwriters & director make such a point of injecting "realism" into the film, then all the ramifications of that "reality" need to be addressed.
Although I didn't like "Jor-El: Badass Revolutionary", the point the film really lost me was when Clark fucked up the jerk's truck.
That was a cowardly, irresponsible act. He had now way of knowing who was gonna suffer as a result of his snit. Who actually owned the truck? The trailer? The cargo?
Although I still consider the neck-breaking to be a monumentally lazy bit of screenwriting, this was worse.
Think about the lawsuit that trucker could've filed against the elderly couple who owned that truck stop where Kent beat up that trucker for 'taking his favorite seat.' Sure Kent gave money for the damages, but that probably won't cover the lawsuit. Plus, whatever the trucker was transporting wouldn't have gotten there in time.
These heroes are so irresponsible!
M
Taking down the helicarriers was completely justifiable and necessary. (Unlike the Zod scenario, the need for immediate action was clearly established by the script.)
The destruction of Stark's house was an act of terrorism.
The military's attack on Banner on the campus was clearly misguided, and heads would have rolled in the chain of command.
Clark's trashing of the truck was simply a deliberate, criminal act of vandalism committed out of petty spite. Worse bullying than the driver had demonstrated.
I'd say Kent beating up that trucker near the end of Superman II was no better then what you're talking about in Man of Steel. Did the man's health, forthcoming lawsuit, delay of his shipment with the consequences of that was thought during your prior viewings. What about when Kent killed Zod & smirked when Lois punched Ursa causing her fall to death being an issue for you?
M
Certainly Stark was an idiot trashing his house in a drunken fight. nobody else's property was damaged, though.
Using the Donner/Lester/Whoever films is not a defense. They sucked, too.
No, as far as we know there was no property damage to neighboring addresses, but that doesn't mean Stark has made the area undesirable to live. Someone trying to see their home might have to undersell because of Stark.
Sometimes when you're railing Man of Steel about the same kind of things previously done, I miss your references to those prior movies. I'll just have to read closer next time.
M
As portrayed in the film, Clark Kent: lonely wanderer, is a coward and a criminal.
As a viewer, I'm supposed to feel empathy for the character, but his actions make that impossible for me to do.
M
I know you love playing Devil's Advocate, but I notice that rather than trying to defend Clark's despicable behavior, you keep shifting away from my actual point.
Instead of confronting the asshole and showing him the consequences of his behavior, he slunk off and wrecked the guy's truck while nobody was looking.
In what way is the asshole gonna associate the unreal treatment of his rig with his behavior inside the diner?
It's a total crap scene. It shows Clark as a petulant creep, rather than a hero in the making.
I was already leaning against the character in the previous scene when he stole clothes. The truck incident then confirmed my dislike. And he never did anything through the rest of the film to make me like him. He was a tool. He never inspired admiration, let alone "hope."
No-class, cowardly bullshit.
As someone who was bullied growing up, Bully Justice is always great. As someone who realizes with great power comes responsibility, it shouldn't have happened. Using your powers to get 'the girl' or get back at a bully is never justified. Its like how there's a difference between vengeance & justice; one satisfies yourself.
Man of Steel & Superman II (and III) aren't the first time we've seen this.
I always prefer to see a bully get his/her comeuppance by their own hand. Now, if I can manipulate things behind the scenes...
M
M