Man of Steel. Nolan Superman Reboot.

Jonathan was telling Clark to think before he leaps. He knew his son would have to reveal himself eventually he just wanted it to be at a time when he was ready to deal with the blowback. I also don't get why Jonathan gets flak over this when Hippolyta is pretty much the same except doing even more to impede her daughter like outright lying about who she is.

And what right wing ideology? I swear it's like some people criticising this film just throw in buzz words without knowing what they mean like the number of times Clark killing Zod is referred to as murder.

edited 31st Dec '17 1:21:57 AM by windleopard

to be fair the whole "Being happy to be a farmer" is just him trygint to do the best which is dificult as Clark just explote and said he is not his father, he feel clark is destiny to something but he dosent know when or how and it kinda show.

What ideology?, I have seen a lot of reviews about his objectivsm but it sound weird most of the time and relies much in Superman not being the hopebring as is use to...and I kinda glad he isnt since most of the times is just a way to said "Superman is a god....and that is good."

It's not exactly objectivism...it is something even worse. For all its flaws objectivism at least acknowledges the need to reign in people so that they don't injure other people, and that the power to punish and reign criminals in should always be in the hand of the state, not the individual. But Man of Steel and Bv S goes one step further by absolving Superman of any responsibility for the people who might get hurt during his actions and any collateral damage.

If it did that, the people who were shown as suspicious of Superman would be depicted as outright villains or misguided extremists with a hidden agenda.

The movies acknowledge collateral damage as something that does happen and something Clark also needs to be aware of. That is not right wing ideology. There's more right wing propaganda in classic Superman stories.

edited 31st Dec '17 1:52:59 AM by windleopard

Is not more absolving that saying IT will happen, you cant have this "and someone pull a magical solution that suddenly make the good guy win without issue" that is further explain by Martha saying that in the end, is HIS election to save people, not something neither he or people own at all.

They are? Less so in Man of Steel (there everyone who is not on one page with Superman is portrayed as misguided and afraid of something people don't understand), but definitely in Bv S. I mean, who are the people accusing Superman in this movie? A woman who is paid off by Lex Luther. A guy who got his legs crushed and is used by Lex Luther. Lex Luther himself. And a Batman who is portrayed as misguided.

The senator is the only reasonable character who makes good points regarding Superman - and her arc is to see the error of her ways when she discovers Lex Luthor's scheme and then get blown up. And her reasonable argument with her. Instead of get Dream Daddy prattling about having killed a bunch of cows through his actions.

Why are you discussing Martha with me? I don't necessarily mind the Martha scene. She is a mother, after all, she wouldn't want this kind of pressure on her son. I don't agree with the notion, because humans have a responsibility to rescue life if possible, but it is a reasonable stance for someone in her position and it is overall consistent with her character to leave the choice to Clark.

edited 31st Dec '17 2:07:12 AM by Swanpride

" and her arc is to see the error of her ways when she discovers Lex Luthor's scheme and then get blown up. And her reasonable argument with her"

no kinda, she desire for acountability is sincere and that never change since she blow off Luthor actions over and over, the issue is that Luthor have rigged the whole deal from the start, the with guy in the wheel chair: he have issue against Super but the whole scenarios was rigged from the start.

"Why are you discussing Martha with me? "

Because it atach to the whole scene with Jonathan, while Jonathan said he make mistakes and that have consequences(even good thing he did in the moment) he have to deal with it, specialy sharing with the people he cares, Martha scene is the idea his his choices, not a responsability give by third people.

edited 31st Dec '17 2:13:28 AM by unknowing

Like who? The military is suspicious of him at first but approaches him with reasonable caution and never goes further than that and back off when thy realize he isn't their enemy. That's it. We don't have them plotting to kill Superman or hear any talk about how they hope Superman and Zod will wipe each other out. They're also allowed to actually be useful in fighting off the invasion as opposed to just being useless canon fodder for the Kryptonians.

She was accusing Superman of a crime he wasn't guilty of not something he actually did. And even then, she was doing that less for the money and more because she feared for her life.

Which makes him neither a villain nor an extremist with an agenda just someone who's angry. The worst thing he does is vandalize a statue.

Bruce and too a lesser extent Lex are understandably weary of Superman but there respective traumas with powerful people hinders their approaches to him. Finch doesn't instantly become a fan of Superman. She only sees Luthor for the snake he is. She still wants to reign Superman in but wants to do so legally and ethically. In any other superhero film, she'd have been revealed as a secret neo nazi. And she gets blown up not because the film disagrees with her but because Luthor wants her out of the way for stonewalling him (hey look government power actually being effective at something other than trampling civil rights in a superhero movie).

edited 31st Dec '17 2:38:30 AM by windleopard

"And she gets blown up not because the film disagrees with her but because Luthor wants her out of the way for stonewalling him (hey look government power actually being effective at something other than trampling civil rights in a superhero movie)."

Also because she was being to resonable and the movie can have that, just like civil war kill the resonable black men....

...wait a minute, a resonable minority try to...well, be resonable only to be blow up by white men so other white men can suffer.....

Yeah, I know is coincidences by damn it sound bad out loud.

Why is the standard defence for this to bring up Civil War? Even if I would agree with you concerning Civil War (which I don't, neither was Rhodey in any way reasonable, if anything his unquestionable obedient soldier outlook is kind of terrifying nor got he hurt because he was black, but because he happens to be Tony's best friend (to mirror Steve protecting his best friend), this had nothing to do with the quality of either Man of Steel or Batman vs Superman.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a long circle of repeating arguments. There have been multiple videos about the problems with Man of Steel....here are the most relevant ones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjogd-iUHsk

That is the one of renegate cut, who says that the concept is sound (and it is) but the execution isn't.

Kyle's take goes more for the philosophy behind Superman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIKYRZc9A1M

and has a great video about why we might have to question the current portrayal of heroes (not directly related to man of steel, but it is a great example for the trend he points out):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFysO2JunE

And than there is naturally moviebobs really that bad...but that is more related to Bv S, and he hasn't finished it yet.

“swear it's like some people criticising this film just throw in buzz words without knowing what they mean“

Because and for the millionth time, that’s exactly what it is .

You never see right wingers ‘praising’it for being objectivist or whatever now do you.

At the point where a guy makes a series of videos decrying a film that’s longer than the film itself, a year and a half after it came out he’s not a critic he’s just a ranting fanboy.

Uh, your second video completely contradicts your point. Kyle says flat out there is no problem with Snyder's Superman, it's just how we as a society see Superman now.

It's the whiny, ignorant cretins in the YT section who took to shitting on Snyder.

What has time to do with anything? I myself am usually not in the business reviewing recent movies because I prefer to wait a little bit so that it can sink in properly and I have a better idea of its rewatch value...ie Inside Out. I initially liked the movie, but I didn't love it per se...but it turned out so rewatchable, it is now my second favourite Pixar movie. On the flip side, I adore The Lion King when it got released, but with time (and maturity) I got a better sense for its various flaws.

I actually would say that reviews which are done long after the release tend to be better, because they are better prepared, better thought out and offer a better perspective.

Plus, moviebob also tends to be a big Snyder apologist.

Kyle doesn't say if it is good or bad at all, he just points out that this viewpoint exist, without making any judgement about it. Which is exactly why I picked his video, it provides a lot of food for thought without being a long rant about Man of Steel.

edited 31st Dec '17 4:44:46 AM by Swanpride

And I agree, it was a good video and thank you for linking it. It tackles something I was writing to a friend earlier about:

Whenever people talk about fascist themes in superhero works, it often comes back to Batman or maybe Punisher.

But why not Superman? Note: I'm not saying Superman is a fascist but there there is a trend I've noticed. Unlike Bruce and Frank, Supes is often depicted as a moral paragon. In fact, this is usually how he's "redeemed" in works like Kingdom Come, Superman: Red Son or that one Elseworlds where he's raised by Darkseid. (or so I've heard, never read that one) Despite being raised by Darkseid, despite being friends with Stalin, despite losing Lois, Superman will inevitably make "the right decision." You can drop Superman anywhere in space and time and subject him to all sorts of hardship but by god, he has a transcendental sense of morality that cannot be quashed. They literally spell this out in Kingdom Come.

I like what Jonathan in MOS tells Clark because: 1) Superman has no obligation to help anyone at any time, and 2) There is no "the right decision." The only thing that separates Superman from all of us is that he can benchpress a planet. That does not give him some super moral compass that will always right itself even if it's shaken up a bit. He is not an embodiment of virtue.

In this day and age, people believe heroes are forged, not born. The quintessential example is Spiderman whose first instinct when he got his powers ws to get rich and help his family. That's normal, healthy even. It took a massive trauma for him to become a superhero. He was not brought into this world with some supreme sense of ethics, they had to be instilled into him and then driven in with a painful loss.

That's how society views heroes and it's probably right.

edited 31st Dec '17 4:56:31 AM by Nikkolas

“Plus, moviebob also tends to be a big Snyder apologist.“

He’s had a hate boner for him the size of The Qutub Minar for years now.

I see you pr point but in works like Kingdom Come, and Red Son he’s redeemed by him acknowledging that despite his best intentions he’s not an ultimate authority and he needs to relinquish control.

You don't need trauma to become a hero. Plenty of real-life volunteers would risk their life to help people, why can't Superman be one of those?

He is also defending Sucker Punch of all movies and keeps praising Watchmen.

The idea that heroes are forged is really cynical. Just consider how many people choose a job which requires them to risk their live on a regular bases - firefighter for example. Or how many people become heroes simply because they decided to fight for their rights, under great risk for themselves. Just consider how many people decide to volunteer their time and expertise to non-profit organisations, or decide to take a worse paid job because they want to help.

Not everyone needs a wake-up call to do something for someone else. In fact, most people are pretty ready to share what they think they can afford to share.

Just consider the refugee crisis...yes, there are a lot of people who reacted badly. But the truth is that Germany couldn't have dealt with so many people at once if not for all the people deciding to help.

The actual difference is - or at least should be - that Superman can do more than a normal person. And sure, he could just not use his powers - but can we really defend him letting a school bus full of kids drown just to protect his secret? That is no a personal decision, that is "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (....no idea what it is in English, it the act of refusing to rescue a life in a situation in which you can help without risking your own life, and it is actually a crime in Germany.)

The question Man of Steel should ask is "should Superman try to operate in secret? And what happens when the world realizes that he exists?" and not "is it worth to allow a bus of children die for the sake of protecting a secret?"

The answer is no, btw. "Let them die" is NOT a good option. Not even maybe.

edited 31st Dec '17 6:33:31 AM by Swanpride

What you described here is what heroes being forged means. It's the idea that heroes are born that is cynical because it's stating that some people are just born into heroism as opposed to working to earn it.

You're right we can't. Which is why the movie never says he should.

It asks both questions with the latter merely being a component of the former theme. Clark doesn't want to sacrifice people to protect his secret but he isn't stupid enough to believe that exposure won't come with some blowback as we later on see in Bv S.

You ever read Marvel's Supreme Power? It stars a Superman analogue, Hyperion. He crash landed on Earth, was taken in by a kind farm family, and then the US government showed up, kidnapped him and raised him as alab experiment and then supersoldier.

It's a great read and what instantly came to mind when Jonathan tells Clark he was afraid the government would show up at their house after they found the spaceship.

If that woman hadn't been religious, if she had notified somebody about what he had done, what could the repercussions be? Clark's life holds value all its own but since you have determined his life has subordinate value to all these other kids, what of the worldly repercussions to this "secret" getting out? The "secret" here being that there are ALIENS and one of them lives here and is several times stronger than any human being. What would happen if this secret got out while he was still younger? Is the global upheaval of superhuman aliens living here less important than the lives of a couple dozen kids? Superman's existence being exposed is a Pandora's Box, a handful of dead kids is a tragedy but one without any lasting harm to the human race.

But honestly, I think all Pa Kent was trying to do was to tell Clark to THINK. Just because something is our first impulse does not make it moral or right. You have to think through your actions.

edited 31st Dec '17 6:54:53 AM by Nikkolas

And that right there sums up my main problem with the infamous "maybe" scene and what it does to Jonathan Kent's character: the discussion of what's worth Clark using his powers is definitely one worth having, but I feel like Snyder picked the wrong disaster to bring that discussion forth.

Arguing that maybe you shouldn't have saved a bus full of schoolchildren is, purely from an emotional perspective, an awful, awful thing to do, and that emotional attachment is a hard one to shake, especially when those kids were people Clark knew. It's kind of like arguing that maybe you shouldn't have saved that box full of puppies from a fire, no matter how well you argue the point and no matter what the repercussions may be, you're still the person saying that maybe those puppies should have been allowed to die, and that's going to leave a lingering bad taste in a lot of people's mouths even if they concede to the logical side of the argument.

Personally, I think it would have worked a lot better on a 1:1 ratio. Superman saves one life, one with no apparent connection to his own, but in doing so he risks blowing the lid off his powers. Then Pa Kent's argument can still be exactly the same, but avoid the unfortunate implications of being "that guy who said maybe you should have let those kids drown". And that's important, because since Superman's upbringing is so important to the person he becomes, and his parents are typically the source of his moral code, the more understandable the Kents are, the more understandable Superman becomes in turn, and the easier it becomes to accept what (I think) the scene was trying to go for: that for Superman, the answer to the question of "is saving one life worth giving up your own?" should always be "yes".

(Edit: Admittedly this is coming from the perspective that they were genuinely trying to build to the comics version of Superman from a "grounded, realistic" foundation, which I'm not sure I entirely believe is true or was a good idea to start with, but it's the one that makes the most sense if you want to have a lasting cinematic universe)

edited 31st Dec '17 7:05:07 AM by Khfan429

Pretty much, yeah. The question if and when Superman should act might be one worth having, even if it undermines the escapist element of the character. As is the question if he should act unilaterally (which is the theme they badly address in Bv S). But "if and when" goes right out of the window when the question is "should you save a bus full of children". And guess what I don't even mind John first being upset about it. But when Clark says "What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" the answer shouldn't be a "maybe", it should be something along the line of a defeated "I know....I know. Just try to be more careful the next time around." Or you built the whole discussion around an entirely different situation, maybe one in which Clark acted even though it might not have been necessary in this particular situation.

Same with Bv S. Not only is the whole Africa story entirely unnecessary and convoluted if you can built exactly the same discussion around what happened in Metropolis, but the way it is presented the game is rigged because Superman is framed from the get go. And then the whole discussion is literally blown up.

See, this is what annoys me so much about discussions surrounding Man of Steel. Most of the time it ends in the defender either saying "you don't get it" or "you are just too attached to your idea of Superman". But I do get it. I just don't think that it is in any way well-executed. And if you want to do such a radical different take on Superman, you better do it in a way that it means something in the end. Instead of just throwing in a neck snapping for no other reason than the director thinking that it is edgy.

Of all the threads in all the forums ya just had to necro this one ,huh Nikkolas...

Pretty much. A Superman that isn't ready to risk his life to save villains, let alone any random schmuck, is just-a-man-from-krypton. Superman is The Hero. The Hero never hesitates to do the right thing that is in front of him, and can be short-sighted and absolute about that to a fault. The Hero never leaves people behind. The Hero finds a way.

If you want a comicbook "superhero" with Superman-type powers but the morality of just-a-bloke, you're welcome to use the pleiad of Superman Captain Ersatz decons and recons.

edited 31st Dec '17 11:23:27 AM by TheHandle

And Clark never does hesitate to save people. At any point. He even saves Luthor.

" Why is the standard defence for this to bring up Civil War?"

Sorry about that, I didnt really bring civil war, just made a coment in how both movies the resonable person(finch and T`chaka) kickstart a resonable thing and get blow up after by the villian(Luthor and Zemo) and after than the entire thing goes to hell.

"Whenever people talk about fascist themes in superhero works, it often comes back to Batman or maybe Punisher. "

Which is even weirder is how batman is so malable about stuff: Nolan batman is pretty much superman-lite, brave and the bold is a A class hero while Sydner is one bad step to be crazy steve, Mean while Superman cant be other than the icon of paragon or people will decray he is not acting like Super, if anything I kinda like he is not Turing good in Injustice 2, it make the chararter interesting.

Also I think being forced means that being a superhero is a PERSONAL choice that is pursued for one calling, not some sort of extra responsability someone pull on you, the same is even apply in marvel with Captain describing his heroism as impulse to help.

" it should be something along the line of a defeated "I know....I know. Just try to be more careful the next time around." Or you built the whole discussion around an entirely different situation, maybe one in which Clark acted even though it might not have been necessary in this particular situation."

That is just dancing around the issue, what you are saying is "well...just do better and that it" because the elephant in the room is still there: should he help people, consequence of it be dammed?, Spiderman 2 ask the same question and hell, civil war kinda does too, is worth having.

Now I agree with in that Zack really goes for the most extreme example since it one that clash a lot with people expect for superman and let a bitter taste.

"ost of the time it ends in the defender either saying "you don't get it" or "you are just too attached to your idea of Superman". But I do get it. I just don't think that it is in any way well-executed."

Have you see much of the discussions? because I did and much of it really end with the idea of what superman should be or not and any other themes being pull on this, it was madness that poison any conversation.

And by the way, I dont disagree with the flaws of the movie, is it kinda sometimes go out of proportion or act like it didnt have any good points to counter or a just a given which is annoying as hell.