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.
Disagree. That's what insurance is for. That guy needed some comeuppance.
How is it any different than Clark beating up that dude at the end up Superman II.
Trashing the truck was an over-the-top version of keying somebody's car.
No-class, cowardly bullshit.
What would be worse? Property damage? Or beating the guy up? Property damage can be repaired. Breaking someone's bones could leave long lasting damage.
Trashing the truck was an over-the-top version of keying somebody's car.
No-class, cowardly bullshit.
What would be worse? Property damage? Or beating the guy up? Property damage can be repaired. Breaking someone's bones could leave long lasting damage.
Note to self. Never let @Planeis know where I park.
Trashing the truck was an over-the-top version of keying somebody's car.
No-class, cowardly bullshit.
What would be worse? Property damage? Or beating the guy up? Property damage can be repaired. Breaking someone's bones could leave long lasting damage.
Note to self. Never let @Planeis know where I park.
The only instances involving parking for me are when people park like total douche nozels. Like across three lines because they are overly concerned about their Volt or BMW. Then I have some pre-printed "You park like an asshole" cards I leave.
Anyway, my point is, in my experience, not nearly this much digital ink has been spread about Clark beating up the guy in Superman II at the end of the movie. In fact, I remember laughing about it as a child. Why didn't Superman use his words? The guy was literally no threat to him at that point. Sure, he pays the shop for the damage, but what about the guys injuries from being slid across the room and into a pinball machine? My back hurts just thinking about it.
It's played for laughs. If you don't think its funny, fine. Humor isn't universal. I just don't think its something we're supposed to wrap our heads around too tightly. What about the football Clark launches into outerspace at the beginning of Superman: The Movie. The school paid for that ya know. Now they're out money. What about Captain America stealing a brand new Chevy Silverado in The Winter Soldier, a truck that was later destroyed FYI. Or breaking into the Smithsonian and stealing his costume in the same movie?
Trashing the truck was an over-the-top version of keying somebody's car.
No-class, cowardly bullshit.
What would be worse? Property damage? Or beating the guy up? Property damage can be repaired. Breaking someone's bones could leave long lasting damage.
Note to self. Never let @Planeis know where I park.
The only instances involving parking for me are when people park like total douche nozels. Like across three lines because they are overly concerned about their Volt or BMW. Then I have some pre-printed "You park like an asshole" cards I leave.
Anyway, my point is, in my experience, not nearly this much digital ink has been spread about Clark beating up the guy in Superman II at the end of the movie. In fact, I remember laughing about it as a child. Why didn't Superman use his words? The guy was literally no threat to him at that point. Sure, he pays the shop for the damage, but what about the guys injuries from being slid across the room and into a pinball machine? My back hurts just thinking about it.
It's played for laughs. If you don't think its funny, fine. Humor isn't universal. I just don't think its something we're supposed to wrap our heads around too tightly. What about the football Clark launches into outerspace at the beginning of Superman: The Movie. The school paid for that ya know. Now they're out money. What about Captain America stealing a brand new Chevy Silverado in The Winter Soldier, a truck that was later destroyed FYI. Or breaking into the Smithsonian and stealing his costume in the same movie?
I agree.
And I would really like to know why so much "digital ink has been spread" about this, Man of Steel, when there are so many other similar situations in other movies?
And I would really like to know why so much "digital ink has been spread" about this, Man of Steel, when there are so many other similar situations in other movies?
Because it's fucking Superman, the goddamn gold standard of superhero behavior, that's why.
Because crappy movies like Man of Steel and the Donner/Lester movies diminish the character in order to pander to people who think the "Big Blue Boy Scout" is boring.
And I would really like to know why so much "digital ink has been spread" about this, Man of Steel, when there are so many other similar situations in other movies?
Because it's fucking Superman, the goddamn gold standard of superhero behavior, that's why.
Because crappy movies like Man of Steel and the Donner/Lester movies diminish the character in order to pander to people who think the "Big Blue Boy Scout" is boring.
Spidey has always been the gold standard for me.
Lately, I'd rank Cap up there. Truthfully, I don't think I've ever held Kent up there.
And, arguably, hasn't those movies influenced the general populace's perception of the character more then what came before 1978?
Its like 'card shark.' Even though its really 'card sharp', the general populace has known it as 'shark.' To some extent, perception is reality.
And I would really like to know why so much "digital ink has been spread" about this, Man of Steel, when there are so many other similar situations in other movies?
Because it's fucking Superman, the goddamn gold standard of superhero behavior, that's why.
Because crappy movies like Man of Steel and the Donner/Lester movies diminish the character in order to pander to people who think the "Big Blue Boy Scout" is boring.
Spidey has always been the gold standard for me.
Lately, I'd rank Cap up there. Truthfully, I don't think I've ever held Kent up there.
And, arguably, hasn't those movies influenced the general populace's perception of the character more then what came before 1978?
Its like 'card shark.' Even though its really 'card sharp', the general populace has known it as 'shark.' To some extent, perception is reality.
M
Your gold standard doesn't enter into it.
My gold standard doesn't enter into it.
The general populace sure as hell doesn't enter into it.*
Superman is the gold standard.
He has been since the get-go, no matter how much dross bad writers have added to the mix.
The Age of the Superhero began with Superman.
*Your "general populace" is my "lowest common denominator".
And I would really like to know why so much "digital ink has been spread" about this, Man of Steel, when there are so many other similar situations in other movies?
Because it's fucking Superman, the goddamn gold standard of superhero behavior, that's why.
Because crappy movies like Man of Steel and the Donner/Lester movies diminish the character in order to pander to people who think the "Big Blue Boy Scout" is boring.
Spidey has always been the gold standard for me.
Lately, I'd rank Cap up there. Truthfully, I don't think I've ever held Kent up there.
And, arguably, hasn't those movies influenced the general populace's perception of the character more then what came before 1978?
Its like 'card shark.' Even though its really 'card sharp', the general populace has known it as 'shark.' To some extent, perception is reality.
M
Your gold standard doesn't enter into it.
My gold standard doesn't enter into it.
The general populace sure as hell doesn't enter into it.*
Superman is the gold standard.
He has been since the get-go, no matter how much dross bad writers have added to the mix.
The Age of the Superhero began with Superman.
*Your "general populace" is my "lowest common denominator".
If that was the case, wouldn't there be more characters based in his mold? Just because the most common notion of the Age of The Superhero began with Kent doesn't equate him to the gold standard of behavior. There's characters before Kent that share similar traits.
The general populace might be YOUR lowest common denominator, but it's still a factor. A large one actually. Batman couldn't have survived without its weirder feel of the 50s orlighter feel of the 60s. Superman wouldn't have been able to survive by keeping with the original concept either.
Truthfully, though I completely disagree with it, I'm betting your average person seeing Batman as the gold standard.
And I would really like to know why so much "digital ink has been spread" about this, Man of Steel, when there are so many other similar situations in other movies?
Because it's fucking Superman, the goddamn gold standard of superhero behavior, that's why.
Because crappy movies like Man of Steel and the Donner/Lester movies diminish the character in order to pander to people who think the "Big Blue Boy Scout" is boring.
Spidey has always been the gold standard for me.
Lately, I'd rank Cap up there. Truthfully, I don't think I've ever held Kent up there.
And, arguably, hasn't those movies influenced the general populace's perception of the character more then what came before 1978?
Its like 'card shark.' Even though its really 'card sharp', the general populace has known it as 'shark.' To some extent, perception is reality.
M
Your gold standard doesn't enter into it.
My gold standard doesn't enter into it.
The general populace sure as hell doesn't enter into it.*
Superman is the gold standard.
He has been since the get-go, no matter how much dross bad writers have added to the mix.
The Age of the Superhero began with Superman.
*Your "general populace" is my "lowest common denominator".
Does the gold standard mean he has to be 100% perfect at all times? The greatest human beings who ever lived have had moments where they acted like total assholes. Every single one. The greatest diamond ever found has imperfections. The purest gold available has impurities. The greatest athletes in the entire world have weaknesses. The strongest buildings ever built fall down from time to time.
Does the gold standard mean he has to be 100% perfect at all times? The greatest human beings who ever lived have had moments where they acted like total assholes. Every single one. The greatest diamond ever found has imperfections. The purest gold available has impurities. The greatest athletes in the entire world have weaknesses. The strongest buildings ever built fall down from time to time.
And the smallest people spend their time looking for those weaknesses, rather than aspiring to perfection.
Does the gold standard mean he has to be 100% perfect at all times? The greatest human beings who ever lived have had moments where they acted like total assholes. Every single one. The greatest diamond ever found has imperfections. The purest gold available has impurities. The greatest athletes in the entire world have weaknesses. The strongest buildings ever built fall down from time to time.
And the smallest people spend their time looking for those weaknesses, rather than aspiring to perfection.
To aspire to perfection, you must first recognize & address your weaknesses.
Does the gold standard mean he has to be 100% perfect at all times? The greatest human beings who ever lived have had moments where they acted like total assholes. Every single one. The greatest diamond ever found has imperfections. The purest gold available has impurities. The greatest athletes in the entire world have weaknesses. The strongest buildings ever built fall down from time to time.
And the smallest people spend their time looking for those weaknesses, rather than aspiring to perfection.
To aspire to perfection, you must first recognize & address your weaknesses.
M
Recognize and address YOUR weaknesses, not use the weaknesses of others as an excuse not to aspire.
It's normally the character flaws that makes a character interesting. Reading/seeing how LeBron or Crosby are the best of the best (with honors) has always made me roll my eyes. Reading/seeing their inabilities in a certain facet of their respected games has interested me more.
Same with Brady. In this case, I'm a fan. I want him to do well, recognize his shortcomings, but enjoy seeing him prove he's still on top of his game.
You don't get tired of reading about how Batman can beat anyone?! Isn't it when he fails or shows weakness that you find the character more tolerable?
Does the gold standard mean he has to be 100% perfect at all times? The greatest human beings who ever lived have had moments where they acted like total assholes. Every single one. The greatest diamond ever found has imperfections. The purest gold available has impurities. The greatest athletes in the entire world have weaknesses. The strongest buildings ever built fall down from time to time.
And the smallest people spend their time looking for those weaknesses, rather than aspiring to perfection.
Only by identifying weaknesses do you know how truly perfect something is. If you never bother to find out how many impurities are in gold, you'd never know which is the most perfect. If you tell a story about Lebron James being traded to the Heat and winning two championships, sure it sounds good. But if you include the part where the entire world turned against him when he promised "not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven..." championships and then go on to explain how the Heat was within a few games of basically winning four strait....
What's more interesting, telling a story about a guy who won the Nobel Prize for economics because of a theory he started in college and leaving it at that? Or the story about that same guy overcoming mental illness?
And besides, which of us is "looking for those weaknesses"? Us or you? You've mentioned him stealing clothes numerous times since the movie first premiered. You could choose to write it off as a desperate guy needing to cover up his nakedness when he just swam ashore into who knows where, and assumed he made it up to the family later. Instead you've identified this as a character weakness and a crime. So who's looking for weaknesses?
And besides, which of us is "looking for those weaknesses"? Us or you? You've mentioned him stealing clothes numerous times since the movie first premiered. You could choose to write it off as a desperate guy needing to cover up his nakedness when he just swam ashore into who knows where, and assumed he made it up to the family later. Instead you've identified this as a character weakness and a crime. So who's looking for weaknesses?
I wasn't looking for them. The writer and director created those weaknesses and shoved them in my face.
And besides, which of us is "looking for those weaknesses"? Us or you? You've mentioned him stealing clothes numerous times since the movie first premiered. You could choose to write it off as a desperate guy needing to cover up his nakedness when he just swam ashore into who knows where, and assumed he made it up to the family later. Instead you've identified this as a character weakness and a crime. So who's looking for weaknesses?
I wasn't looking for them. The writer and director created those weaknesses and shoved them in my face.
So, you'd rather see a flawless, non-human, super man version of Kent for 120 minutes who only makes the right decisions, does nothing wrong, & inspires everyone with a smile from ear to ear?!
I actually believe Kent's weaknesses such as to magic & Kryptonite were established decades before Man of Steel. Shouldn't you actually be upset with those writers & artists? Nothing in MoS was really a new concept. A lot of it came from Byrne.
And I would really like to know why so much "digital ink been spread" about this, Man of Steel, when there are so many other similar situations in other movies?
Because it's fucking Superman, the goddamn gold standard of superhero behavior, that's why.
Because crappy movies like Man of Steel and the Donner/Lester movies diminish the character in order to pander to people who think the "Big Blue Boy Scout" is boring.
So I see that behaviour rubbed off on you with your crassness and blasphemy.
If you want Superman to be perfect, then I should be able to want all superheroes/heroes to be perfect. And then where would we be? Captain America should reimburse the owner of the Chevy Silverado and give back his suit to the Smithsonian.
And I would really like to know why so much "digital ink been spread" about this, Man of Steel, when there are so many other similar situations in other movies?
Because it's fucking Superman, the goddamn gold standard of superhero behavior, that's why.
Because crappy movies like Man of Steel and the Donner/Lester movies diminish the character in order to pander to people who think the "Big Blue Boy Scout" is boring.
If you want Superman to be perfect, then I should be able to want all superheroes/heroes to be perfect. And then where would we be? Captain America should reimburse the owner of the Chevy Silverado and give back his suit to the Smithsonian.
I wonder how many military personnel we injured when they stole Falcon's wings? What about all the legit SHIELD employees now out of work?
I just want to say that the other day while going back and reading this thread from the beginning that in my opinion this HAS to be the greatest CGS forum thread. Of all the the threads of all the forums. And I have to say its a lot of its due to it being about Superman. And there is still 2 years before the next movie with Superman in it.
If that was the case, wouldn't there be more characters based in his mold?
There would be if National/DC hadn't so aggressively protected their copyright. Captain Marvel and Wonder Man (the original, not the Marvel character) were both sued out of existence, and other publishers learned to be wary of not following in those footsteps.
If that was the case, wouldn't there be more characters based in his mold?
There would be if National/DC hadn't so aggressively protected their copyright. Captain Marvel and Wonder Man (the original, not the Marvel character) were both sued out of existence, and other publishers learned to be wary of not following in those footsteps.
Hasn't there been more done in the Batman mold, though?
If that was the case, wouldn't there be more characters based in his mold?
There would be if National/DC hadn't so aggressively protected their copyright. Captain Marvel and Wonder Man (the original, not the Marvel character) were both sued out of existence, and other publishers learned to be wary of not following in those footsteps.
Hasn't there been more done in the Batman mold, though?
M
If by “Batman mold” you mean “pulp hero mold,” sure. But Batman wasn't the first hero in that vein, and he didn't sell as well as Superman did in the Golden Age, so he wasn’t defended as aggressively. Superman was DC’s cash cow. Batman was only the gravy on top.
That a movie is "interpreted" is plain ridiculous. The movie is what it is. Watch the screen, listen to the dialogue. Sheesh, seriously guys. Sometimes a cape is just a cape..
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
"This summer . . . You'll believe that a man can sulk." ;)
Coming to this one late, but for what it is worth at the point:
-Wrecking car vs. Beating up the bully:
I think it comes down to two things. The first, most important, is tone. Sure, putting the two actions down on paper as facts and they might compare. But to me the two scenes *feel* different. The bully comeuppance in Donner/Lester feels lighter because the whole tone of the movie is lighter. In Snyder, it seems darker because the movie is.
Also, even if letting the bully punch you in your steel-this-time face is sneaky, at least you are doing it face to face. The thing with the truck was both vengeful and done out of sight. Those two things feel different. And I think that the tone problems and lack of hope-- attached to a LONGstanding character that we (at least those of us in the audience not meeting a "Superman" for the first time) can be expected to want some hope and aspiration from-- is simply put the main problem with MOS.
-Superman as the gold standard:
The simplest way to signify "superhero" is to put a red cape on something and add the prefix "Super-". Superman is the archetype. The genre creator. Other characters may make more at the box office. May have sold more merchandise and moved more paper. But Superman is what took all sorts of prior myths and some bits of sci-fi and pulp, and fused them into this new thing (or, at least, people felt it was new). And it exploded Into the culture, and has been one of the most recognizable icons ever since. It's always been Superman. Even if more people are reading and watching Batman. (And, hell, I like Batman better, but he straddles other genres. Even from the earliest days, Batman wasn't really a superhero strip.)
But that's us just turning every thread into a conversation about Batman again... ;)
Comments
How is it any different than Clark beating up that dude at the end up Superman II.
Anyway, my point is, in my experience, not nearly this much digital ink has been spread about Clark beating up the guy in Superman II at the end of the movie. In fact, I remember laughing about it as a child. Why didn't Superman use his words? The guy was literally no threat to him at that point. Sure, he pays the shop for the damage, but what about the guys injuries from being slid across the room and into a pinball machine? My back hurts just thinking about it.
It's played for laughs. If you don't think its funny, fine. Humor isn't universal. I just don't think its something we're supposed to wrap our heads around too tightly. What about the football Clark launches into outerspace at the beginning of Superman: The Movie. The school paid for that ya know. Now they're out money. What about Captain America stealing a brand new Chevy Silverado in The Winter Soldier, a truck that was later destroyed FYI. Or breaking into the Smithsonian and stealing his costume in the same movie?
And I would really like to know why so much "digital ink has been spread" about this, Man of Steel, when there are so many other similar situations in other movies?
Because crappy movies like Man of Steel and the Donner/Lester movies diminish the character in order to pander to people who think the "Big Blue Boy Scout" is boring.
Lately, I'd rank Cap up there. Truthfully, I don't think I've ever held Kent up there.
And, arguably, hasn't those movies influenced the general populace's perception of the character more then what came before 1978?
Its like 'card shark.' Even though its really 'card sharp', the general populace has known it as 'shark.' To some extent, perception is reality.
M
My gold standard doesn't enter into it.
The general populace sure as hell doesn't enter into it.*
Superman is the gold standard.
He has been since the get-go, no matter how much dross bad writers have added to the mix.
The Age of the Superhero began with Superman.
*Your "general populace" is my "lowest common denominator".
Standards are standard for a reason.
I'm not personally declaring Superman to be the Gold Standard, that happened long before I was born.
The general populace might be YOUR lowest common denominator, but it's still a factor. A large one actually. Batman couldn't have survived without its weirder feel of the 50s orlighter feel of the 60s. Superman wouldn't have been able to survive by keeping with the original concept either.
Truthfully, though I completely disagree with it, I'm betting your average person seeing Batman as the gold standard.
M
M
Same with Brady. In this case, I'm a fan. I want him to do well, recognize his shortcomings, but enjoy seeing him prove he's still on top of his game.
You don't get tired of reading about how Batman can beat anyone?! Isn't it when he fails or shows weakness that you find the character more tolerable?
M
What's more interesting, telling a story about a guy who won the Nobel Prize for economics because of a theory he started in college and leaving it at that? Or the story about that same guy overcoming mental illness?
And besides, which of us is "looking for those weaknesses"? Us or you? You've mentioned him stealing clothes numerous times since the movie first premiered. You could choose to write it off as a desperate guy needing to cover up his nakedness when he just swam ashore into who knows where, and assumed he made it up to the family later. Instead you've identified this as a character weakness and a crime. So who's looking for weaknesses?
I'm glad I'm not one of them.
I actually believe Kent's weaknesses such as to magic & Kryptonite were established decades before Man of Steel. Shouldn't you actually be upset with those writers & artists? Nothing in MoS was really a new concept. A lot of it came from Byrne.
M
If you want Superman to be perfect, then I should be able to want all superheroes/heroes to be perfect. And then where would we be? Captain America should reimburse the owner of the Chevy Silverado and give back his suit to the Smithsonian.
M
Considering one of the definitions of blasphemy is "irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred," I consider Man of Steel blasphemous.
For the record, "Goddamn" isn't really blasphemy.
"Damn God" is blasphemy.
M
-Wrecking car vs. Beating up the bully:
I think it comes down to two things. The first, most important, is tone. Sure, putting the two actions down on paper as facts and they might compare. But to me the two scenes *feel* different. The bully comeuppance in Donner/Lester feels lighter because the whole tone of the movie is lighter. In Snyder, it seems darker because the movie is.
Also, even if letting the bully punch you in your steel-this-time face is sneaky, at least you are doing it face to face. The thing with the truck was both vengeful and done out of sight. Those two things feel different. And I think that the tone problems and lack of hope-- attached to a LONGstanding character that we (at least those of us in the audience not meeting a "Superman" for the first time) can be expected to want some hope and aspiration from-- is simply put the main problem with MOS.
-Superman as the gold standard:
The simplest way to signify "superhero" is to put a red cape on something and add the prefix "Super-". Superman is the archetype. The genre creator. Other characters may make more at the box office. May have sold more merchandise and moved more paper. But Superman is what took all sorts of prior myths and some bits of sci-fi and pulp, and fused them into this new thing (or, at least, people felt it was new). And it exploded Into the culture, and has been one of the most recognizable icons ever since. It's always been Superman. Even if more people are reading and watching Batman. (And, hell, I like Batman better, but he straddles other genres. Even from the earliest days, Batman wasn't really a superhero strip.)
But that's us just turning every thread into a conversation about Batman again... ;)