|
X-O posted:He fades away into a tornado while Clark looks on yards away. Pa Kent dying is nothing new to the story of Superman. Having him run to the car after a dog while Clark is right there is just stupid. It's good.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
X-O posted:That's not a problem with Rotten Tomatoes, that's a problem with people. I mean, to be fair, Rotten Tomatoes itself attaches quality measurements to its aggregations by calling them either rotten or fresh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
site posted:The dog made it back but costner just stands there and dies without even trying Haven't seen it in a while, but I think he got his shoe stuck on some gum so he had to just stand around until he got sucked into a tornado
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
teagone posted:You can see Clark turn around and witness the destruction it caused. It distracts him, to where one might assume he's thinking to himself "Well poo poo, that was a big explosion. I probably should have caught that and not flew over it. gently caress, now the building might collapse. I messed up." Something to that effect, and while he's mulling over the poor choice he made, Zod sucker punches him. It's Clark's first day on the job in Man of Steel as a superhero who had only just begun to grasp his strength; he's bound to make mistakes. That's my rationale regarding that instance among others in the film that most people criticize. I think he might have learned that lesson already during the destruction of downtown Smallville. Guess this Superman is just a bit slow on the uptake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
X-O posted:I think he might have learned that lesson already during the destruction of downtown Smallville. Guess this Superman is just a bit slow on the uptake. He did grow up on a farm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
teagone posted:He did grow up on a farm. Yeah, again I like the movie. It's just one of the weird parts of the movie that stood out to me as dumb. For instance I have no problem that he killed Zod at the end, I just think the situation was a bit contrived with the heat vision and the family backed into a corner and felt like that could have come up with a better situation for Clark to be in where he was desperate enough to do that. In that case it wasn't the plot point that bothered me but more I wish they had come up with a better situation for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
X-O posted:I think he might have learned that lesson already during the destruction of downtown Smallville. Guess this Superman is just a bit slow on the uptake. He was a little distracted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
I feel like having Zod's death be an accident by Superman getting too carried away with his strength would have been more interesting, coupled with all the destruction. Make him realize that he needs to stay in control or horrible things can easily happen. Instead we got Superman snapping Zod's neck because Snyder thought he needed to kill somebody to realize that killing is bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
I always thought it was pretty clear that Zod was going to kill people until Superman stopped him, forcing him to kill Zod and compromise his basic principles. People always talk about that scene like Superman snaps his neck for fun, without any context to the scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I always thought it was pretty clear that Zod was going to kill people until Superman stopped him, forcing him to kill Zod and compromise his basic principles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Does he compromise his basic principles though? The movie never establishes Superman's views on killing beforehand, and it doesn't dwell on the ramifications afterwards. The lightest, jokiest scenes in the film are a few minutes after Zod's death. Clark inherently wants to save people in Man of Steel. This is established in his opening scene on the oil rig, and questioned in the scene between Pa Kent and Clark after the bus incident. There was no saving Zod, and Clark had to go against what he had been trying to do all his life in order to save everyone else, hence the struggle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
According to Snyder, at least in 2013, it was an explanation where his code against killing people came from in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
teagone posted:Clark inherently wants to save people in Man of Steel. This is established in his opening scene on the oil rig, and questioned in the scene between Pa Kent and Clark after the bus incident. There was no saving Zod, and Clark had to go against what he had been trying to do all his life in order to save everyone else, hence the struggle. "Clark wants to save people" is established "Clark wants to save even wrong or bad people" is not. We're never given any serious indication that Clark wants to save everyone or that he has a genuine problem with the idea of killing. (Most people do but a well-made movie makes sure to establish these things if they're a major part of a character. MoS assumes the viewer already knows Superman feels that way because other versions of Superman do.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
teagone posted:Clark inherently wants to save people in Man of Steel. This is established in his opening scene on the oil rig, and questioned in the scene between Pa Kent and Clark after the bus incident. There was no saving Zod, and Clark had to go against what he had been trying to do all his life in order to save everyone else, hence the struggle. None of this is told dramatically at all. Also I'm super sick of the "Superman's first day" defense ImpAtom posted:"Clark wants to save people" is established "Clark wants to save even wrong or bad people" is not. We're never given any serious indication that Clark wants to save everyone or that he has a genuine problem with the idea of killing. (Most people do but a well-made movie makes sure to establish these things if they're a major part of a character. MoS assumes the viewer already knows Superman feels that way because other versions of Superman do.) It's exactly this, the movie's coasting on your familiarity with Superman because the version it presents is fundamentally empty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:"Clark wants to save people" is established "Clark wants to save even wrong or bad people" is not. He saved the bully who called him "dicksplash" from drowning. That was pretty explicit in showing that Clark will go out of his way to try and save someone who you or even he might think wouldn't deserve to be saved. He also doesn't vaporize the bully who pulled him out of the car and was egging him on to fight. Clark wanted to crush him, but he knew he'd probably kill him. Arist posted:Also I'm super sick of the "Superman's first day" defense Is it not a valid defense though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
teagone posted:He saved the bully who called him "dicksplash" from drowning. That was pretty explicit in showing that Clark will go out of his way to try and save someone who you or even he might think wouldn't deserve to be saved. He also doesn't vaporize the bully who pulled him out of the car and was egging him on to fight. Clark wanted to crush him, but he knew he'd probably kill him. Maybe if the movie emphasized it at all, as it is people are forced to go "man he really sucked at that, huh" Both halves of this post are basically asking the audience to infer major character beats from minor context clues on the movie's behalf. That's poor storytelling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Tbf slight moral difference between kill kid who called me a bad name and kill guy who tried to genocide the planet and is wrecking cities currently attempting to murder these people in front of me
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
It's quite the leap to go from "saved schoolyard bully and didn't kill a drunk redneck" to "I don't want to kill the guy who is in the middle of comitting genocide." Maybe if there was a scene showing him forgiving one of the other Kryptonians after saving them it might have come across more clearly. site posted:Tbf slight moral difference between kill kid who called me a bad name and kill guy who tried to genocide the planet and is wrecking cities currently attempting to murder these people in front of me Don't steal my posts before I make them, that's against the rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Arist posted:Maybe if the movie emphasized it at all, as it is people are forced to go "man he really sucked at that, huh" You're meant to question Clark's choices in Man of Steel. The film also asks that you put yourself in Clark's situation and question whether or not you would do the same thing if you had his powers. site posted:Tbf slight moral difference between kill kid who called me a bad name and kill guy who tried to genocide the planet and is wrecking cities currently attempting to murder these people in front of me Which is why Clark went the distance and had to kill Zod rather than make an attempt to save him in the end. There was no saving him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
teagone posted:You're meant to question Clark's choices in Man of Steel. The film also asks that you put yourself in Clark's situation and question whether or not you would do the same thing if you had his powers. I'm clearly not loving expected to put myself in Clark's shoes because the movie repeatedly compares him to Jesus. Also, a thing can exist in a movie and still be poorly executed upon, leading to a breakdown between the movie's intentions and the audience's reading of the scene. I'm kind of convinced you're arguing in bad faith at this point because none of what you're posting tracks logically from the posts you're responding to. Like people are posting "the movie doesn't establish that Clark is against killing" and you're just posting "but he had to" as if the problem is with the logic of the scene. e: Hell, if the movie really is about making me question Clark's choices then it does a lovely job, because none of that struggle is told dramatically. gently caress, even you're arguing against that position in your other responses. Is killing Zod good or bad? You're kind of arguing out of both sides of your mouth, here. Arist fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Arist posted:I'm clearly not loving expected to put myself in Clark's shoes because the movie repeatedly compares him to Jesus. Also, a thing can exist in a movie and still be poorly executed upon, leading to a breakdown between the movie's intentions and the audience's reading of the scene. No, you're not understanding me. Man of Steel attempts to make Clark relatable. There are various scenarios in the film where one could question "would I have done that if I had Clark's powers?" For example, when Zod threatens Ma Kent. If I had super strength and speed, I would totally go balls out if someone threatened my own mother's life. Or, say there's a school bus that crashes into a river. Would I have the nerve to save everyone if I had Clark's powers, knowing that'd I could potentially reveal myself to be an alien? Or would I be a dick to a trucker who poured a beer over my head and trash his rig with the logs he was hauling? I probably would, because gently caress that guy for being a dick himself, he deserves it. I'm using the argument of "Clark inherently wants to save people" as presented in the film as a measure against the criticism that Clark shows he has no previous qualms about killing, or that the film fails to represent such a thing. You can call it a weak argument, sure that's fine, but you can't really argue that someone who is inherently good and wants to save people (even assholes) wouldn't be against killing. teagone fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
teagone posted:No, you're not understanding me. Man of Steel attempts to make Clark relatable. There are various scenarios in the film where one could question "would I have done that if I had Clark's powers?" For example, when Zod threatens Ma Kent. If I had super strength and speed, I would totally go balls out if someone threatened my own mother's life. Or, say there's a school bus that crashes into a river. Would I have the nerve to save everyone if I had Clark's powers, knowing that'd I could potentially reveal myself to be an alien? Or would I be a dick to a trucker who poured a beer over my head and trash his rig with the logs he was hauling? I probably would, because gently caress that guy for being a dick himself, he deserves it. Then they do a terrible, terrible job at that. The operative word in the phrase "one could question" is "could." The movie gives me no reason to relate to Clark. He's an enigma, completely alien to the audience. He's a bad character because there's nothing to him; the audience is forced to project their preconceptions about Superman onto him, and only under those conditions do any of his conflicts make sense. The "or" scenario you present is also nonsense, because Clark does both of those things. Finally, it's an insanely weak argument that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny not just because it relies on us assuming we know Clark well enough to think he's a good person who is against killing, but also because of (and I legitimately hate to bring it back to this because it's been talked about to death) the incredibly lax attitude Clark and the movie in general have about the level of destruction depicted. I'm not even talking about deaths, even if all those buildings Superman's punching Zod through are empty it's still so utterly gratuitous that it cheapens the whole thing. The neck-snap is supposed to be personal, but I actually think it fails to properly register because it doesn't come off that way. In a sense, it's actually just a de-escalation of the previous level of violence in the movie, which is why it rings so hollow. Arist fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
superman's strong moral code against killing that leads to him almost immediately threatening to murder batman
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Arist posted:e: Hell, if the movie really is about making me question Clark's choices then it does a lovely job, because none of that struggle is told dramatically. gently caress, even you're arguing against that position in your other responses. Is killing Zod good or bad? You're kind of arguing out of both sides of your mouth, here. Killing itself is bad, because... you're killing someone. Taking a life. Shouldn't have to explain that. Or do I? Killing Zod is bad, but it's necessary with how the film set up the scenario. Suicide by cop and whatnot. It's a struggle for Clark to come to grips with, as the film presented him as a man who is inherently good and wants to save people. The resulting death affects Clark to such a degree where he develops a moral code to never kill again (based on Snyder/Goyer from interviews) no matter the cost or scenario. Arist posted:Then they do a terrible, terrible job at that. Fair enough, I personally don't think they did 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Pa Kent's death in MoS is a total mess and it really doesn't help that 30 years previously they gave us this and it's flawless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUUGDRxJnFU All those I can do all those power and I couldn't even save him Rhyno fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Pa Kent's death in MoS is a total mess and it really doesn't help that 30 years previously they gave us this and it's flawless. better pa kent deaths - this one - all-star superman - geoff johns' brainiac storyline - that time he was briefly clinically dead during death of superman and he fought demons trying to take clark's soul Blockhouse fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:superman's strong moral code against killing that leads to him almost immediately threatening to murder batman Clark could have easily killed Bruce in BvS. "If I wanted it, you'd be dead already." But he doesn't want it, even with the heavy predicament that Luthor had set up for him: kill Batman, or your mother dies. His first thought is to try to convince Bruce to help him, but then you can see the pain on his face when he's faced with the potential reality that Bruce has to die. Clark is desperately adhering to his code with a heavy heart, no matter the cost or scenario (the death of his own mother) and leaves Lois saying "no one stays good in this world." It's a great test of his ethos imo. The resolution to that conflict (MARTHA!) was so badly executed though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Pa Kent's death in MoS is a total mess and it really doesn't help that 30 years previously they gave us this and it's flawless. Yeah it's more powerful when it's a death he can't prevent than when he let's him die an easily preventable death right in front of him. Blockhouse posted:better pa kent deaths Even Smallville's Pa Kent death is better. X-O fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Quote and edit are not equals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
wait wait I forgot one - pre-crisis pa and ma kent dying from a disease they got by opening a pirate's treasure chest
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:better pa kent deaths Blockhouse posted:wait wait I forgot one I love this forum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:wait wait I forgot one
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
X-O posted:Yeah it's more powerful when it's a death he can't prevent than when he let's him die an easily preventable death right in front of him. Yeah, Pa Kent's death was easily preventable, sure. Clark could have either zipped in super fast to get his dad out of harm's way, or maybe he could have gone into the thick of the storm himself to save their dog and come out the other side unscathed. You could argue that Pa Kent wanted Clark to stay with his mother and the others in the underpass, because he knew Clark would be able to protect them should the tornado do something unpredictable (since tornadoes tend to be); it was a conscious choice to ensure to safety of the greater good. But Pa Kent was also convinced the world was not ready to see Clark for who is. He was a father ready and willing to sacrifice himself for the safety of his own son. There's some neat subtext going on in the scene too; it reveals the morality and responsibility for those who have strength and power to protect those who cannot protect themselves, even if it means getting hurt or even giving your own life to do so. teagone fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Oh, Comics. Never change. that one's super hosed because it comes out of nowhere in the middle of an issue that starts off with a goofy pirate journey and then turns into superboy's increasingly desperate attempts to save his parents plus you think "this is the silver age they'll totally be okay in the end" but nope loving dead all the way until Crisis on Infinite Earths
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
I love dogs and would probably thoughtlessly throw myself in the path of a tornado to save one. But if I had an invincible son who couldn't possibly be harmed I might just send him instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
91 new posts? A trailer must have come out! ...Nope, just more BvS bullshit. Someone needs to make a browser extension or something that'll tell me when this thread is worth reading.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Never
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Holy poo poo...Power Rangers was actually, unironically really good. ? ??? The in-suit action was loving terrible and lasted for like thirty seconds. But the Zords stuff was pulled off really well. (There are comics about it. It's a comic book movie right) If you were any bit a fan of the show, I would definitely recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
teagone posted:Yeah, Pa Kent's death was easily preventable, sure. Clark could have either zipped in super fast to get his dad out of harm's way, or maybe he could have gone into the thick of the storm himself to save their dog and come out the other side unscathed. You could argue that Pa Kent wanted Clark to stay with his mother and the others in the underpass, because he knew Clark would be able to protect them should the tornado do something unpredictable (since tornadoes tend to be); it was a conscious choice to ensure to safety of the greater good. But Pa Kent was also convinced the world was not ready to see Clark for who is. He was a father ready and willing to sacrifice himself for the safety of his own son. There's some neat subtext going on in the scene too; it reveals the morality and responsibility for those who have strength and power to protect those who cannot protect themselves, even if it means getting hurt or even giving your own life to do so. At the point in the story this scene takes place, it's not even known if he had manifested super speed. He hadn't demonstrated it in any of the flashbacks. You're applying tactical realism of what you would do if you had Superman's powers to a guy who you don't even know if he has all of his powers yet. And badly applying it, at that. If he "zipped in" and out so fast no one could see him as you say, he'd break every bone in Pa Kent's body. He's far more destructive than a tornado.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
parallelodad posted:And badly applying it, at that. If he "zipped in" and out so fast no one could see him as you say, he'd break every bone in Pa Kent's body. He's far more destructive than a tornado. BrianWilly posted:Holy poo poo...Power Rangers was actually, unironically really good. ? ???
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 06:26
|
|
