Amph "If You Seek His Monument, Look Around You" - The Man of Steel and Announced Sequel Thread

You must be talking about the Richard Donner film. Clark could've used his (demonstrated on-screen) powers to outrun a locomotive, and probably an ambulance - to carry his father in his arms to the nearest hospital in the hope of doing something rather than just sitting there and crying over his body, which is what he and Martha did in the original.

 

I was so happy when I saw there were 4-5 more pages of discussion. Then I read them. I'm going to drink this bleach now.

 

Can we watch?

Sent from my Samsung Mega Astromech Droid

 

The important thing is that you believe that?

 

No, but I expect Slowlols to make a fan trailer about it at some point.

 

"And what do you believe in, huh? What do you believe in?!"

"I believe that whatever doesn't kill you makes you...stranger."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

And sorry dp, but he pegged you good there.

It doesn't matter though, in the end, over-analyzing bad writing on both movies is a fruitless endeavor. Because that's all we've been doing here: performing a needlessly prolonged autopsy on the predicaments a revered (or beloved even) hero faced by upon being written into a corner repeatedly by the screenplay of a year old movie.

We all know we would've written different scenarios in which Clark would've saved Jonath@n somehow without blowing his cover, stop Zod without snapping his neck, or save the day without the needless destruction in both Smallville and Metropolis. But we didn't. A production team backed by the company that owns the character somehow found no fault with the decisions taken in regards to the story presented in the film you and others loathe so much. Decisions that perhaps also reflect the current DC mindset that turned their superhero universe into a critical mass of 1990's Wildstorm comics jerks. But I digress.

I think I said it before but I believe your issues with the film perhaps cloud your judgement a bit too much in regards to the good arguments presented in this thread throughout the year. Me, I had my own issues but repeated viewings tempered at least some of them. In the end, it's a different version of a decades old story about a character that has been at many points through his 75 year old existence many things, even a bit of an arrogant douche during his first appearances if memory serves. My 40+ year old self can be entertained by it at some points whereas the sacred 1978 Donner version I may have loved as a kid now makes me cringe with its goofiness and cheesiness.

In the end, it's a story about an alien that puts on tights, flies around, punches bad guys, causes collateral damage in the process (as he's always done) and more or less saves the day. Not exactly something to work oneself over too much, right?

 

But I don't view it that way? Generally, I had assumed the implication was that Jonathan was already dead by the time Clark got there (it certainly didn't seem like Martha saw him instataneously). Either way, something that Clark didn't see and couldn't prevent seems less moronic than something that Clark watched and could have prevented.

hehehe...

But see, here's the thing... that also, again, describes Hancock. What differentiates Hancock from Superman? There's a REASON that the mythos of Superman is enduring over multiple scores of years and Hancock is... not. And a lot of it comes from the morality, the innate goodness, the willingness to find alternatives to killing the bad guys... basically the "Big Blue Boyscout.

 

Well...I kinda liked Hancock. But then, probably (or perhaps definitely) so did Jabba-wocky, so perhaps my tastes are questionable as well.

However, I don't think that MoS Clark Kent wasn't a moral, good person. And before you start, yeah, trucker guy got what he deserved. Chris Reeve Clark Kent would've probably done the same. Sometimes you should mind who exactly you pour a beer over or throw a bear can at. He was lucky the consequences weren't more drastic.

 

Don't tell Jabba-wocky but I liked Hancock too...

 

To me it's more telling/curious the lengths you will go to deny MoS any credit for making the exact same point as the Donner film. Do you really think that Clark was just sad when he said "All those things I can do... all those powers... and I couldn't even save him?"

No. Clark learned that day that he cannot do everything, and that sacrifice is a key element of the human condition. MoS learned the same thing; had he saved Jonathan, his secret would have been exposed for all to see. Martha and Jonathan's life would be over and people would, as feared, come for Clark. Clark, being a teenager, would react how to attempts to subdue him?

Both instances give an identical lesson to Clark - you're not going to be able to do everything, and that's life.

Only one film was an ostensible childhood icon for you; the other was not a retread of that so it will never be as good in your eyes.

 

The original Superman movie was anything but ponderous. It had no pretensions to being anything but a fun romp. That was sort of a problem with it, but after having seen what happens when you try to imbue Superman with all sorts of Messiah parallels and such, I'm up for another romp.

 

The Donner Superman never lies. It's effectively a fairy tale.

 

It's the same way with "Batman" and "Batman Begins". I like both. No shame in that.

​

In "Man Of Steel" #1, Clark spent years using his powers without being seen until one day, he had to do it in public because no matter how fast he flew, he would still be seen by everyone present. It was at that point that he had to create a dual identity. The same applies here. Notice in "Smallville", everyone had to be conveniently knocked out to avoid seeing Clark use his powers. You could make a drinking game out of it, when you sat down to watch an entire season at once. Superman is fast, but he's not Flash fast. ​

​

That's a fallacy. Not every seventeen year old is rebellious. I sure as hell wasn't and I know that quite a few of my classmates weren't either. ​

​

Uh, Superman's life has always been tragic. His ******* home planet blew up after he was born. There's no way in hell that's not tragic. The original death of Pa Kent in the Golden Age was the result of a heart attack and Clark couldn't stop it. In the Silver Age, the Kents died because Clark dug up a treasure chest that still had a deadly virus that killed them and he couldn't stop it, a fact that he would blame himself for, for years. In "Brainiac", Brainiac fires a missile at the Kent farm which causes Jonathan to have a second and fatal heart attack, because Clark had to go out to find Brainiac to get the truth about Kandor and Krypton's destruction. In Superman #84, Clark and Lois went to Paris as part of Clark's celebration at being alive, meanwhile, because he did that, Adam Morgan was kidnapped and killed by the Toyman.

The Golden Age Superman was known for tossing bullies around and scaring the crap out of them. Some of that carried over to the Post Crisis Superman and in the DCnU.

 

Yeah, the Christ parallels were extremely heavy-handed. WTH was up with that? One fictional messiah isn't better than the other in this case. A needless ploy to create controversy just for controversy's sake, IMO.

 

I for one am glad they brought that Golden Age Superman back in the new comics (to somewhat mixed results depending who writes him). That was something that was missing the past however many years.

 

Rogue, what was your take on The Dark Knight?

Apologies if it's been discussed already.

 

He lies about his identity!

 

Yeah, that liar does NOT need corrective lenses.

 

I still want to know how the hell he shaved off his beard in MoS.

 

Heat vision.

Sent from my Samsung Mega Astromech Droid

 

I assumed that too, but I can't see Nolan and Snyder's Superman doing that.

 

He is never asked about his identity. He lies about it when he's Clark. He says with a straight face to Lois: "I never lie". He has no reason to make such a claim. The man prioritises to save the town of Miss 'henchwoman complicit in his attempted murder' Tessmacher, because she makes him swear on it, over California, where, if I'm not mistaken, he knows Lois is on an assignment.

Even in Superman 2, when he deceives the Kryptonians into being depowered, he tells the truth. He says what the machine does, and they make him enter. He just doesn't mention that it has two settings.

 

Luthor, you poisonous snake!

 

Deception, not lying. He tells the truth. Just not the complete truth. They didn't ask "So, by any chance, does it have alternate settings?", so he doesn't need to mention it.

 

It wasn't for controversy. Many traits of Superman's origin is similar to Christ, though also to other people like Moses. It's kinda hard to not have that.

Why? That's the only way it can come off unless a magic razor blade is used. Kryptonians under a yellow sun must use their heat vision reflected off a metallic surface to burn the hair off their face or top of their head. Kryptonians without their powers can trim their hair the normal way.

Clark is still lying even when he's Superman. Lois asks him what his name is and he says, "What, like Ralph? No." Which is a lie. His birth name is Kal-El and he already knows that by the time of the interview. She doesn't find that out until the second film. He also responds to Clark Kent, which was his real name until Jor-El told him the truth. So, yes, he is lying. The minute he starts covering up that he has two separate identities, he's lying to everyone including Lois. That was the point in "All Star Superman", when Lois calls him out on his lying to her and the paranoia that sets in because of the chemicals.

Lying by omission is still a lie. Deception is a lie because you are deceiving someone into thinking what is true is in reality a falsity. There's a reason he is know as Superdick.